This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Field Geolouv Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches Edited by Steven J. Whitmeyer, David W. Mogk, and Eric J. Pyle
Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches
edited by Steven J. Whitmeyer Department of Geology and Environmental Science James Madison University 800 S. Main Street, MSC 6903 Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807 USA David W. Mogk Department of Earth Sciences 200 Traphagen Hall Montana State University Bozeman, Montana 59717 USA Eric J. Pyle Department of Geology and Environmental Science James Madison University 800 S. Main Street, MSC 6903 Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807 USA
Special Paper 461 3300 Penrose Place, P.O. Box 9140
An introduction to historical perspectives on and modern approaches to field geology education . . .vii Steven J. Whitmeyer, David W. Mogk, and Eric J. Pyle Historical to Modern Perspectives of Geoscience Field Education 1. Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana: G429 and other field courses, a balance of traditions and innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B.J. Douglas, L.J. Suttner, and E. Ripley 2. The Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association (YBRA): Maintaining a leadership role in field-course education for 79 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Virginia B. Sisson, Marv Kauffman, Yvette Bordeaux, Robert C. Thomas, and Robert Giegengack 3. Field camp: Using traditional methods to train the next generation of petroleum geologists . . . 25 James O. Puckette and Neil H. Suneson 4. Introductory field geology at the University of New Mexico, 1984 to today: What a “long, strange trip” it continues to be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 John W. Geissman and Grant Meyer 5. Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Declan G. De Paor and Steven J. Whitmeyer 6. Integration of field experiences in a project-based geoscience curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Paul R. Kelso and Lewis M. Brown 7. Experience One: Teaching the geoscience curriculum in the field using experiential immersion learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Robert C. Thomas and Sheila Roberts 8. International geosciences field research with undergraduate students: Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Jeffrey S. Marshall, Thomas W. Gardner, Marino Protti, and Jonathan A. Nourse 9. International field trips in undergraduate geology curriculum: Philosophy and perspectives . . . 99 Nelson R. Ham and Timothy P. Flood
iii
iv
Contents Modern Field Equipment and Use of New Technologies in the Field 10. Visualization techniques in field geology education: A case study from western Ireland . . . . . . 105 Steven Whitmeyer, Martin Feely, Declan De Paor, Ronan Hennessy, Shelley Whitmeyer, Jeremy Nicoletti, Bethany Santangelo, Jillian Daniels, and Michael Rivera 11. Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research: An adventure-based approach to teaching new geospatial technologies in an REU Site Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Mark T. Swanson and Matthew Bampton 12. Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Robert L. Bauer, Donald I. Siegel, Eric A. Sandvol, and Laura K. Lautz 13. Integrating ground-penetrating radar and traditional stratigraphic study in an undergraduate field methods course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 R.K. Vance, C.H. Trupe, and F.J. Rich Original Research in Field Education 14. Twenty-two years of undergraduate research in the geosciences—The Keck experience . . . . . . 163 Andrew de Wet, Cathy Manduca, Reinhard A. Wobus, and Lori Bettison-Varga 15. Field glaciology and earth systems science: The Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP), 1946–2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Cathy Connor 16. Long-term field-based studies in geoscience teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Noel Potter Jr., Jeffrey W. Niemitz, and Peter B. Sak 17. Integrating student-led research in fluvial geomorphology into traditional field courses: A case study from James Madison University’s field course in Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 C.L. May, L.S. Eaton, and S.J. Whitmeyer 18. A comparative study of field inquiry in an undergraduate petrology course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 David Gonzales and Steven Semken Field Experiences for Teachers 19. Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors at Georgia Southern University: Historical perspectives and modern approaches . . . . . 223 Gale A. Bishop, R. Kelly Vance, Fredrick J. Rich, Brian K. Meyer, E.J. Davis, R.H. Hayes, and N.B. Marsh 20. Water education (WET) for Alabama’s black belt: A hands-on field experience for middle school students and teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Ming-Kuo Lee, Lorraine Wolf, Kelli Hardesty, Lee Beasley, Jena Smith, Lara Adams, Kay Stone, and Dennis Block 21. The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program “School of Rock”: Lessons learned from an ocean-going research expedition for earth and ocean science educators . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Kristen St. John, R. Mark Leckie, Scott Slough, Leslie Peart, Matthew Niemitz, and Ann Klaus
Contents 22. Geological field experiences in Mexico: An effective and efficient model for enabling middle and high school science teachers to connect with their burgeoning Hispanic populations . . . . 275 K. Kitts, Eugene Perry Jr., Rosa Maria Leal-Bautista, and Guadalupe Velazquez-Oliman Field Education Pedagogy and Assessment 23. The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience: Influencing factors and implications for learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Alison Stokes and Alan P. Boyle 24. External drivers for changing fieldwork practices and provision in the UK and Ireland . . . . . . 313 Alan P. Boyle, Paul Ryan, and Alison Stokes 25. Effectiveness in problem solving during geologic field examinations: Insights from analysis of GPS tracks at variable time scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 Eric M. Riggs, Russell Balliet, and Christopher C. Lieder 26. The evaluation of field course experiences: A framework for development, improvement, and reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Eric J. Pyle
v
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
An introduction to historical perspectives on and modern approaches to field geology education Steven J. Whitmeyer Department of Geology & Environmental Science, James Madison University, 800 S. Main Street, MSC 6903, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, USA David W. Mogk Department of Earth Sciences, 200 Traphagen Hall, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA Eric J. Pyle Department of Geology and Environmental Science, James Madison University, 800 S. Main Street, MSC 6903, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, USA 15% of geoscience departments listed in the current Directory of Geoscience Departments (Keane and Martinez, 2008) offer a summer field camp, whereas 35% of geoscience departments offered a field course in 1995. In contrast, a 2008 survey of active field courses showed a steady increase in the number of students attending summer field camps (Fig. 1; AGI, 2009). Given the decrease in schools offering such courses, one can only conclude that field course enrollment must be increasing. This is supported by the American Geological Institute (AGI) data, though enrollment trends are not quite as striking as one would suspect after field camps are filtered to include only those that ran summer courses for at least five of the past ten years (Fig. 2). Nevertheless, if field course enrollments have been stable to modestly rising over the past ten years, one must question the outlook of some academic administrators and others within the geoscience community who proclaim the decreasing relevance of field education as an important element of the undergraduate curriculum. Recent trends within geoscience disciplines that may have bearing on this perception include: (1) the decline of the petroleum and mining industries in the 1980s and 1990s, although this has reversed somewhat since the start of the twenty-first century; (2) a significant decrease in professional jobs that incorporate substantial time mapping geology in the field; (3) the continuing transition in academics from observation-driven research to equipment-intensive experimental, modeling, and theoretical research; and
Field education has historically occupied a central role in undergraduate geoscience curricula, often starting with classspecific weekend field trips and progressing to a capstone summer field course or “camp” at the conclusion of undergraduate coursework. Over the past century, countless geoscience students have honed their field credentials through immersion in the techniques of geologic field mapping as part of a sixto eight-week summer field course. Traditionally, field camp has been required for graduation by many college geoscience departments, and nearly 100 field camps are currently offered by accredited American universities and colleges (King, 2009). However, many geoscience programs in the past few decades have moved away from traditional geologic fieldwork (e.g., bedrock mapping and stratigraphic analysis) and toward applied geology (geophysical remote sensing, laboratorybased geochemical analyses, and environmental assessment, to highlight a few examples). As a result, many geoscience programs have questioned the importance of field instruction in the undergraduate curriculum (Drummond, 2001; AGI, 2006). This volume resulted from a cascade of meetings, field forums, and conference sessions that focused on the supposed decline of the importance of field geology, and the apparent erosion of field experience in recently graduated geoscience students, as perceived by many professionals. The data supporting an apparent shift in curricular emphasis away from fieldwork are convincing. The number of geoscience departments offering summer field courses has declined by 60% since 1995 (AGI, 2009). As a result, only
Figure 1. Total U.S. field camp attendance during the period from 1998 to 2008, as compiled in a survey by Penny Morton, University of Minnesota–Duluth (AGI Geoscience Workforce Program; AGI, 2009).
Figure 2. Graph of data from 1999–2008 showing the total number of students enrolled in summer field camp each year (in blue), the average number of students per camp each year (red), and the number of camps included in the survey (green), which changes each year. Note that though the total number of students shows a strong upward trend through time, this is partly due to the increasing sample size of camps that participated in the survey. However, the average number of students per camp does show a general upward trend over the past few years. Raw data compiled were in a survey by Penny Morton, University of Minnesota–Duluth in fall 2008.
(4) a decline in the number of geoscience majors nationwide (AGI, 2009). There can be no doubt that geology as a discipline has widened its focus dramatically to include a range of subdisciplines. These include geophysics, surficial geology, oceanography, climatology, and geohydrology, as well as emerging disciplines such as geomicrobiology, and applied geoscience such
as engineering geology and environmental geology. In the face of these trends, it is not surprising that many established field courses have felt the need to substantially modify traditional curricula away from the previously ubiquitous bedrock geology mapping projects. New field courses have been initiated that focus on subdisciplines within the geosciences. Examples include camps oriented toward geophysics (SAGE, the Summer of Applied Geophysical Experience), oceanography (Urbino Summer School for Paleoceanography), and coastal geomorphology (University of South Florida summer field school), to cite but a few. Field-based research programs (e.g., National Science Foundation–Research Experiences for Undergraduates sites) have been used as a proxy for a traditional field camp in some programs. In other settings, field-based research is being reintegrated into the “core” geoscience curriculum, or used as a follow-up to more traditional field instruction. The audience for field-based immersion experiences has also expanded to include geoscience teachers seeking professional development to better serve precollege students in their charge. Another important driver for curricular changes in field courses has been the advent of new technologies, such as global positioning system (GPS) and geographic information systems (GIS), that have revolutionized modern methods of fieldwork and mapping. Industry professionals have embraced these new technologies, and many field programs have recognized and included digital mapping and fieldwork components within their camp curricula. Though many geoscientists have been vocal in questioning the relevance of field courses and whether field camps can or should survive (Drummond, 2001; AGI, 2006), academic and industry professionals frequently maintain that field competence is an essential skill that should be a prominent component of an undergraduate curriculum. A common thread in conversations with industry professionals, whether in mining and petroleum exploration, hydrologic and environmental consulting, or hazard assessment, is the need for students entering the workforce to be comfortable with equating remote, indirect, or restricted data sets with the appropriate real-world outcrop geology and/or environment. The old adage that “the person that sees the most rocks wins” can be translated to the importance of seeing as much geology in person on the outcrop, especially when asked to extrapolate large-scale geology from limited data. This volume developed out of topical sessions at the 2007 national Geological Society of American (GSA) and American Geophysical Union (AGU) conferences (GSA session T139: The Future of Geoscience Field Courses, and AGU session ED11: Information Technology in Field Science Education), which focused on historical and modern approaches to fieldbased education. The papers herein highlight the historical perspectives and continued importance of field education in the geosciences, propose future directions of geoscience field education, and document the value of this education. We have organized the volume into five sections, as follows.
Introduction I. Historical to Modern Perspectives of Geoscience Field Education This group of papers begins with overviews of wellestablished field camps and how they have evolved through the years (Douglas et al., Sisson et al., Puckette and Suneson, Geissman and Meyer). The latter papers in the section broadly address changes to traditional field course curricula in light of modern developments in our discipline (De Paor and Whitmeyer, Kelso and Brown, Thomas and Roberts, Marshall et al., Ham and Flood). II. Modern Field Equipment and Use of New Technologies in the Field This section includes papers that highlight new equipment and technologies that have revolutionized data collection and mapping in the field (Whitmeyer et al., Swanson and Bampton, Bauer et al.) and suggest ways in which these technologies have supplemented as well as supplanted traditional field geology skills (Vance et al.). III. Original Research in Field Education A welcome recent trend in field education is the inclusion of projects where students collect and interpret data as part of a longterm original research project. These papers illustrate approaches to immersing students in active field research (deWet et al., Connor, Potter et al., May et al.) and suggest an alternative approach that more fully empowers students to use the information learned in a field course experience (Gonzales and Semken). IV. Field Experiences for Teachers Several field courses have been designed to target audiences beyond the undergraduate geoscience population. This section highlights a broad range of field experiences for precollege teachers though college instructors (Bishop et al., Lee et al., St. John et al., Kitts et al.), which strongly support the transformation of field course experiences into pedagogical content knowledge experiences that can be adapted in original ways to different audiences. V. Field Education Pedagogy and Assessment A common thread throughout all of the papers in this volume is a need for in-depth assessment of field-based learning and educational approaches. This final section includes papers that document and/or present assessment and evaluation vehicles for field-based education (Stokes and Boyle, Boyle et al., Riggs et al., Pyle), underscoring the value of such information, not just internally to students, but also externally to policy-makers and financial decision-makers at institutions that offer field course experiences.
ix
With this volume, we hope to foster discussion among geoscientists on the continuing relevance of field-based education while highlighting new initiatives that address the needs of the modern, diverse geoscience community. The papers that follow document the past importance of field courses in providing a solid foundation of experience and knowledge to up-and-coming geoscientists, and they also stress the fact that field education has expanded beyond traditional mapping to include modern subdisciplines, methods, and techniques. Finally, we hope this volume will serve as a strong voice to emphasize the need for qualitative and, particularly, quantitative evaluation and assessment of field-based learning and education. We as a discipline need compelling and abundant data on the importance of field education to our profession if we have any hope of convincing skeptical administrators and other members of the academic and professional geoscience community. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The editors of this volume would like to thank the following reviewers who helped improve the quality of this volume: Alan Boyle, Brendan Bream, Phil Brown, Ilya Buynevich, Chris Condit, Cathy Connor, Peter Crowley, Steve Custer, Don Duggan-Haas, L. Scott Eaton, Joseph Elkins, John Field, Bob Giegengack, Allen Glazner, David Gonzales, Frank Granshaw, Laura Guertin, Ed Hanson, John Haynes, Debra Hemler, Darrell Henry, Steve Hovan, Jackie Huntoon, Tom Kalakay, Kim Kastens, Cindy Kearns, Kathleen Kitts, Mark Leckie, Stephen Leslie, Adam Lewis, William Locke III, Michael May, Beth McMillan, Nathan Niemi, Mark Noll, Heather Petcovic, Mike Piburn, Noel Potter, Federica Raia, Tom Repine, David Rodgers, Jim Schmitt, Joshua Schwartz, Steve Semken, Colin Shaw, Jeff Snyder, Allison Stokes, Neil Suneson, Mark Swanson, Mike Taber, Rob Thomas, Kelly Vance, Fred Webb, and Lorraine Wolf. Cathy Manduca (Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College) provided technical support in the form of a project Web site and listserv that greatly facilitated communications between and among the editors, authors, and reviewers. REFERENCES CITED American Geological Institute (AGI), 2006, Status Report on Geoscience Summer Field Camps: http://www.agiweb.org/workforce/fieldcamps_report _final.pdf (accessed 17 July 2009). American Geological Institute (AGI), 2009, Status of the Geoscience Workforce 2009: http://www.agiweb.org/workforce/reports/2009 -StatusReportSummary.pdf (accessed 17 July 2009). Drummond, C.N., 2001, Can field camps survive?: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, p. 336. Keane, C.M., and Martinez, C.M., eds., 2008, Directory of Geoscience Departments (46th ed.): Alexandria, Virginia, American Geological Institute (AGI), 415 p. King, H.M., 2009, Geology field camps—Comprehensive listing: http://geology .com/field-camp.shtml (accessed 17 July 2009). MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana: G429 and other field courses, a balance of traditions and innovations B.J. Douglas L.J. Suttner E. Ripley Department of Geological Sciences, Indiana University, 1001 East 10th Street, Bloomington, Indiana 47405-1405, USA
ABSTRACT The uniqueness of the Indiana University geologic field programs is a consequence of the remarkable diversity in the geologic setting of the Judson Mead Geologic Field Station, and programmatic decisions that emphasize a fully integrated curriculum and individual student work. A simple summary of the attributes developed by the courses includes the following key components: sense of scale, self-confidence, independence, integration, and problem solving. These core principles have resulted in a program that prepares students for any of the challenges that they might encounter as professionals. Over time, courses offered through the field station have evolved to reflect the needs of the students and available technologies. The present array includes courses that address environmental geology, applied economic geology, and introductory environmental science; additional courses include those designed for both high school students and teachers and others that provide professional development enhancement. tained. This mixture of the old with the new reflects the general debate taking place within the geosciences community in general as to the necessary and appropriate types of courses and field experiences for the present generation of students (Day-Lewis, 2003; Drummond, 2001).
INTRODUCTION The success of the Indiana University geologic field programs, offered at the Judson Mead Geologic Field Station, stems from the physical setting and a number of critical early decisions about the teaching philosophy used in the courses. Over the years, the collective efforts by the directors and faculty members who have been involved in these field courses over the years have built upon these two underpinnings. The combination of a physical setting that offers a range in teaching sites and programmatic decisions that emphasize a fully integrated curriculum and individual student work has resulted in a program that prepares students for any of the challenges that they might encounter as professionals. Over time, courses offered through the field station have evolved to reflect the needs of the students and have been updated to include new technologies, while methods and exercises that have been proven to be successful have been main-
BACKGROUND The Judson Mead Geologic Field Station of Indiana University was established at its present location in the Tobacco Root Mountains, Montana, in 1949. During the ensuing 60 yr, well over 3500 undergraduate and graduate geology students have received their geologic field training through this field station, making it the largest program of its kind in the country. The list of field station alumni includes persons of distinction in the oil and gas industry, in mineral exploration, in academia, and in government agencies at all levels.
The site for the field station was selected by Charles Deiss, a faculty member recruited by Indiana University specifically to develop a field program. This effort was carried out with the support of Herman B. Wells, the president of Indiana University at this time, whose vision and energies proved to be instrumental for the development of Indiana University in general and its geologic field programs in particular. The geologic diversity available within a 100 km radius of the field station is of primary importance to the success of the program. Three other components are critical for the success of our programs: first and foremost, the faculty members who commit to teach for the entire duration of the courses; second, a
fully integrated curriculum that builds on previous study in both the field and the classroom; and third, a philosophy that all work done by students is done individually, but with constant supervision and feedback from faculty members. We will address each of these components in turn. Teaching Location Perhaps the most significant aspect of the field programs offered through the Judson Mead Geologic Field Station of Indiana University is the location (Fig. 1). The field station is located within the Tobacco Root Mountains in a relatively remote valley.
112°W North Bou lder Basin
113°W
Butte
46°N
Whitehall
Three Forks
Boulder Batholith
n
M
ar
Basi
cC
Fa u
lt
ee F ork
sB
Zo
asin
Jeffe
ey
Thr
Willow Creek fault zone
rson
tn
JMGFS
ne
Melrose
Bi
sm
Pioneer Batholith
Tobacco Root Batholith k fa ul t
ar
Ha
rris
on
Norris
Ba
sin
Be
av erh
ea
dB
asi
n
Twin Bridges
Sp
an
Ennis
ish
Virginia City
ak
sf au
lt
Madison Basin
Badger Pass fault zone
Pe
Dillon
N
Bl
ac
kt
ail
fa u
lt
Tertiary deposits
0
10
20
30
40
50 km
45°N
zo
ne
0
10
20
30 miles
Thrust fault, teeth are on upthrown side Normal fault, ball on the downthrown side
Cretaceous intrusives Archean, Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks
Thrust fault, teeth are on upthrown side; faulting involves crystalline basement rock Left-lateral strike-slip fault
Figure 1. Geologic map showing the location of the Judson Mead Geologic Field Station (JMGFS). Inset photograph is the view of the main lodge, which has served as the heart of the Indiana University field programs since the inception of the field station. The location of the map is shown in the inset of the state of Montana (top right).
Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana The physical setting in the South Boulder River Valley is aesthetically pleasing and ensures that the students are isolated from modern distractions; the setting effectively ensures that the students become immersed in their courses. Even more important, well-exposed, complex geology is present in areas that are readily accessible (Fig. 2). For example, the field site setting offers: (1) a virtually complete stratigraphic column, ranging in age from the Archean to the Quaternary, with key Paleozoic and Mesozoic stratigraphic intervals well exposed and accessible for field observations; (2) regional- and basin-scale variations in stratigraphy, reflecting both varied depositional settings and varied tectonic influences; (3) convergence of three main structural styles of western North America: Sevier-style fold and thrust, Laramide-style thick-skinned tectonics, and Basin and Range–style extensional tectonics; (4) mapping areas characterized by excellent exposure and advantageous topographic relief and resulting field areas that have remarkable three-dimensional (3-D) exposure and expression of stratigraphy, as well as dramatic structural style and relief; (5) regional and contact metamorphism including results of Archean, Proterozoic, and Cretaceous events; (6) extrusive and intrusive igneous rocks including flows, volcaniclastics, dikes, sills, and plutons of various sizes; (7) Pleistocence glacial geomorphology; and (8) both pristine sites and sites that have been environmentally degraded. In subsequent discussions of the material being taught in our programs, we will provide examples of how the particular physical setting of a selected geologic site is critical for the instructional success of the subject matter or techniques being presented to the students.
Figure 2. Low-level aerial photograph of a portion of the Tobacco Root Mountains showing the Pole Canyon anticline as viewed looking toward the north. The Judson Mead Geologic Field Station is located just to the south of a major break in topography created by the change in the units making up the bedrock and the location of the Carmichael fault. View is to the NNW and the width of the field of view is approximately 1.6 km (1 mile).
3
Faculty Involvement Until about 10 yr ago, all faculty members involved in the courses offered through the field station committed to teach for the entire course. With recent expansion of the breadth of subject matter being offered, we have modified this policy slightly; in a few cases, we have brought in faculty members for part of a course, but they still interact with all of the students and are expected to participate in all activities for the time they are present. These short-term faculty members typically are present for ~2 wk, and they bring critical specialties to supplement the skills of the full-time faculty members. Faculty involvement for an entire course ensures that the faculty know exactly what has been taught and where and how it has been presented, so they can reinforce the concepts and tie new projects and learning to what has been covered previously. The students know that the faculty members, in addition to hiking up and down every ridge, have been involved in every phase of the course with them. This understanding creates a sense of shared responsibility and commitment to the learning process that is clear to all those involved. In addition to senior faculty members, a staff of associate instructors, often former students selected to return to serve in these positions, provides additional contact for the students with a perspective closer to their own. A student to staff ratio of 6:1 is maintained for all courses. At any given time, the students are all working on the same project; each small field group of students is led by a faculty member and an associate instructor. As the course progresses, the students are assigned to different faculty members so that by the end of the course, all of the students have been exposed to all of the faculty as well as the associate instructors and to the other students. This gives the students opportunities to interact with faculty members with diverse backgrounds, training, and research interests. For a particular project, a single faculty member, typically with expertise in the topic, serves as the lead instructor. This lead instructor ensures coherency of the materials and large group presentations, while all of the individual faculty members are responsible for leading small field groups where hourly teaching and interaction is taking place. This practice ensures that students are exposed to a variety of teaching styles and expertise so they can learn in ways that complement their own abilities and interests. Faculty members from more than 25 academic institutions and government agencies have been involved in teaching at the field station. In some cases, these faculty members have been permanent members of the field station faculty. In other cases, faculty members have come both to observe and to provide additional expertise. By having these external faculty members participate in the courses, the program has been able to effectively implement a continuous review of the materials and teaching procedures being employed in our courses. Curriculum and Teaching Philosophy Currently, six formal courses, as well as graduate seminars, professional-development courses, and programs for high school
4
Douglas et al.
students, are taught at the field station (Table 1). Some of these courses are taught on an annual basis, and others are taught when student enrollment is sufficient to meet minimum enrollment criteria. The G103/S103/G111 and G104/S104/G112 introductory course sequence has been offered for more than 25 yr, and it has been highly successful in recruitment of geology majors. The flagship course, G429, has been offered every year since Indiana University first offered field courses in 1947. In general, all of the courses offered (Table 1) are organized around a common format that is designed to require students to address field problems of a steadily increasing level of complexity as the courses progress. Initial work is kept simple and general to ensure that all of the students start with a basic level of geologic knowledge and field techniques. In a typical summer, 20 or 30 universities and colleges from across the country have students attending these courses. In order to accommodate such a diverse student population, we have developed a curriculum that rapidly builds a base level of both information and field experience. In the case of G429, this portion of the teaching is conducted while traveling from the Black Hills to the field station. The 6 d caravan route has been designed to utilize key localities in the Archean-cored ranges and intervening basins of Wyoming and particularly well-exposed examples of stratigraphic sections or structural styles. The caravan trip also provides a regional foundation for later work at the field station. A second caravan trip to northwest Montana is added toward the end of the course to broaden this regional perspective. Like most courses at the field station, G429 is organized around a weekly schedule. This weekly schedule builds toward an all-day independent exercise on the last day of the work week. The students are required to work alone and independently for the entire field-based evaluation exercise, putting into practice the skills and knowledge that they learned during the week. This experience builds over the summer, so that by the end of the course, the students are working at a high skill level with a broad information base that is the accumulation of all previous
Introductory courses
experiences. This succession of instructional weeks culminates in the Final Study Area project, seven field days and one office day dedicated to a single project. Faculty members are present throughout the Final Study Area and offer guidance and a general framework for the students to work within. The faculty members and associate instructors are available for regular consultation, but they play less of a direct instructional role. The motivation, time management, and integration of field and evening work is entirely student driven; they are encouraged to use the faculty as a resource, but they are responsible for their efforts for the entire project. The following is a description of a typical G429 week, the daily procedures, and student-faculty and student-student interactions during this week. In successive weeks, the level of geologic problem solving escalates in both stratigraphic and structural complexity, as does the number of parameters that must be considered in any decision-making step. While the actual number of decisions and problem-solving tasks being considered at any one point in time is quite large, these may be generalized into two main types: (1) those requiring acquisition of specific data related to characterization of the geologic material or phenomenon being studied (e.g., the composition, texture, and architecture of rock units), and (2) those data requiring spatial and geometric information (e.g., the 3-D distribution of a geologic formation within a certain region). The first one or two days of the week primarily address the procedures and decision making required to collect the primary outcrop-level geologic data. The physical traverse is simple and dictated by the distribution of G429 type localities that best demonstrate the key characteristics of each map unit or formation so that spatial and geometrical issues do not come into play. This sequencing of instruction permits the students to concentrate primarily on one central problem. As they move from locality to locality, the traverse pace and amount of outcrop observation time are dictated by the pace of the small group rather than by individuals. This ensures that the students learn how to efficiently budget their time in the field. Typically, an
TABLE 1. COURSES OFFERED THROUGH THE JUDSON MEAD GEOLOGIC FIELD STATION G103/S103 Earth Science: Materials and Processes (G111 Physical Geology) (3 cr) G104/S104 Evolution of the Earth (G112 Historical Geology) (3 cr) G321 Field Geology for Business Students (3 cr)
Advanced courses
G329 Introductory Field Experience in Environmental Science (5 cr) G426 Basin Analysis (3 cr) G429 Field Geology in the Rocky Mountains (6 cr) G429e Field Geology in the Rocky Mountains with Environmental Applications (6 cr)
Graduate courses and research seminars
G690 Topical Research (3–6 cr)
Professional courses
US Forest Service: Influence of Geological Settings on Forest Management
High school cou r ses
Introdu ction to Geology
Local outreach
Topical sessions for local interest groups (e.g., Boy Scouts, high school science clubs, summer courses)
Note: cr—credit hours.
Emphasis on independent data gathering and traverse route selection with minimal instructor input within an unbounded region Final Study Areas (London Hills; North Boulder; Pole Canyon; Sacry’s Ranch) 5
Problem definition and plan for data gathering and traverse route optimization; integrated synthesis of the geologic history of the region
Time spent on student-driven tasks with limited instructor control Carmichael Watershed; Willow Creek Watershed 4b
Problem definition and data gathering using instrumentation with computational and analytical solutions
Emphasis on independent data gathering and traverse route selection with minimal instructor input while in a welldefined region Carmichael and N. Doherty Map Areas 4a
Problem definition and plan for data gathering and traverse route optimization; integration of field data with analytical chemistry and petrographic images
Emphasis on independent data gathering and traverse route selection with judicial instructor input S. and N. Boulder Sections; Sandy Hollow; Highway 2 Map Area 3
Data gathering at the outcrop scale; selection of traverse routes; Mesozoic stratigraphic section; siliciclastic depositional environments with tectonic influences
Emphasis on data gathering; traverse routes dictated by instructors and terrain S. Boulder Section; Mt. Doherty Map Area 2
Data gathering at the outcrop scale; selection of traverse routes; Paleozoic stratigraphic section; carbonate depositional environments
Location Black Hills, South Dakota, to Judson Mead Field Station via Wyoming
TABLE 2. WEEKLY SCHEDULE FOR G429 Theme General field techniques and navigation; regional geology including stratigraphy and structural styles
5
Week 1
anomaly will be encountered during the later part of these days that challenges the students to individually construct hypotheses and work through solutions, which are then tested by further field data collection. Evenings are used to tabulate and summarize field data more completely than is possible in the field. As the week progresses, students participate in a mapping exercise at a different locality that includes new spatial and geometric components. This additional location is selected to reinforce data, approaches, and skills developed earlier in the week. This approach works equally well for such subject areas as surface and groundwater hydrology or seismic-hazard assessment. The daily schedule is similar to that employed in the first two days, i.e., guided traverses and group discussions at various times during the day focusing on material to consider when making structural and stratigraphic interpretations and deciding what traverse to follow. Discussions often focus on the structural or stratigraphic observations that might be optimized by the selection of a particular traverse route (e.g., working perpendicular to strike versus following a single unit along strike). The final day of the week is an independent exercise, conducted in an area not previously visited by the student. The areas used for these independent exercises are selected from within the same general setting the students have been working in, so that the challenges faced during the exercise are commensurate with their recent experiences and abilities. Each week is designed to address a selected focus from the range of subdisciplines within the geological sciences. A listing of the main concepts and goals for each week is given in Table 2. Careful consideration has been given to the selection of the physical setting for each part of the week’s activities so as to provide optimal learning experiences. For example, the lower Paleozoic stratigraphic section studied in the first week is exposed in a uniformly dipping limb of a major anticline with over 80% exposure. The combination of a uniform dip of around 40° and a stratigraphic section composed of primarily interbedded limestone- and shale-dominated packages creates linear ridges and valleys, and the traverse route readily conveys the concepts of stratigraphic succession. During the middle of the week, as the students are working on a mapping exercise, the selected map area is characterized by extreme topographic relief, which reflects the variable susceptibility to erosion existing in this portion of the stratigraphic column. The students are aided in their first geologic mapping by the terrain itself, which closely correlates not only with the stratigraphy, but with the structural geometries as well (Fig. 3); decision making by the students is therefore relatively straightforward and provides positive reinforcement of good field techniques. G429 students are always given an introduction to an exercise the evening before the field work is undertaken. The materials used in the exercise are distributed at these meetings, and the students are given time to become familiar with the tools they will be using (e.g., finding traverse routes on both the topographic map and stereophotos for the following day). Field logistics are given at the start of any field day, along with specific information about the daily schedule and
Comments Designed to provide mental and physical acclimation and remedial instruction
Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana
6
A
Douglas et al.
Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana
B Figure 3. (A) Topographic map of the Mt. Doherty teaching exercise area (45° 53.903′N, 111° 53.403′W). (B) Stereographic photo pair for the Mt. Doherty area. The extreme topographic relief readily visible in the photos expresses both the interbedded carbonateshale stratigraphy of the lower Paleozoic and the overturned plunging folds that have been developed. The identification numbers on the air photos indicate the north direction and the east–west dimension is approximately 5.6 km (3.5 miles).
7
8
Douglas et al.
logistical concerns such as dangerous terrain to be avoided. Additional personal considerations such as traverse pacing (when the big hills will be encountered), rest-break options, and the expectations for individual versus group activities are also given to the students, as appropriate. During subsequent weeks, there is an increase in the level of sophistication in the nature of the problems and approaches introduced to and implemented by the students. At the same time, the amount of closely supervised teaching is reduced, and time intervals between group and individual check points are longer. Intervals of 1 to 3 h of independent work by the students are concluded with a group rendezvous. This provides a safety check and permits a group discussion of the problems and discoveries made by the students. During this same time interval, the faculty will visit with each of the students individually to provide opportunity for one-on-one instruction. This allows for greater independence and also permits individualized teaching for those students needing more instruction, thus ensuring that the range of abilities and prior experience is not a determining factor for a student’s long-term learning. The final portion of the course consists of student selfdirected work. During the Final Study Area project, the students are expected to put into practice what they have learned to date. The Final Study Areas have been selected to provide a range of challenges for the students so that they can gain confidence and a sense of being in control of their path throughout the project, in both a physical and literal sense. Decades of accumulated geological and logistical experience influence the teaching and learning process that is at the heart of the field instruction at the Judson Mead Geologic Field Station of Indiana University. The decision to use the same areas year after year is based on the fact that the concepts being presented to the students are difficult to master; by having the students work in a physical setting that is advantageous for the learning process, chaotic and frustrating experiences that could impede the advancement of the student are avoided. Arriving at a new locality for the first time with students can be a wonderful exercise in exploration and discovery, or it can be one of frustration and chaos, should the access or the quality of the exposures prove to be less than anticipated. Several recent studies of introductory-level students involved in field-based learning have demonstrated that learning is more effective when the students are comfortable in their learning environment (Elkins and Elkins, 2007; Orion, 1993; Orion and Hofstein, 1994). Repeated use of a particular area also makes it possible to evaluate the students’ work with a minimal amount of corrections for those uncontrollable parameters involved in field teaching, such as inclement weather, flat tires, locked gates, etc. This is not intended to imply that the curriculum is fixed and unchanging, but to reinforce the notion that a substantial amount of thought and planning is part of every field experience the students encounter. The curriculum itself is constantly being revised and updated to include new information, techniques, and teaching and/or research methods. The issues of
course improvement and new course offerings are addressed in a later section. Academic Instructional Materials An extensive collection of academic materials relevant to the teaching and research mission of the field station has been developed over the years. These materials are listed in Table 3. An integral part of the field experience involves the use of topographic maps and aerial photographs. The latter are typically stereographic pairs that allow for an exceptional perspective
TABLE 3. INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS, FACILITIES, AND LOGISTICAL SUPPORT I. Instructional and Evaluation (Independent) Materials A. More than 250 individual teaching or evaluation modules for use in courses offered through the Judson Mean Geologic Field Station (JMGFS). These materials would include all written materials for students and instructors as well as logistical notes, hourly schedules, and supporting materials and equipment (see lists below for relevant details). B. Complete set of matched (scale and level of coverage) topographic maps and stereophotographic pairs for region. C. Regional stratigraphic studies and facies distributions for key stratigraphic units (e.g., Jurassic Ellis formation). D. Regional geological maps and other significant geologic and geophysical case studies (e.g., gravity surveys). E. An instrumented watershed for hydrogeologic studies including over 10 yr of weather, surface-water, and groundwater data. II. The Willow Creek Demonstration Watershed A. South Willow Creek gauging station. B. North Willow Creek gauging station. C. Jackson Ranch groundwater wells (alluvial channel; 2 well nest [4.6 m (15 ft) and 22.9 m (75 ft)]. D. Fink House groundwater well (pediment surface; 1 well [18.3 m (60 ft)]. E. Windy Ridge weather station. F. Harrison Lake weather station. G. NRCS SNOTEL site (Albro Lake). H. U.S. Geological Survey stream gauging station (Willow Creek, Montana). (Items A–F are installations of the JMGFS; items G and H are installations of federal governmental agencies who are part of the watershed cooperative agreement.) III. Student Equipment All of the students are provided with individual equipment to complete the tasks associated with the academic exercises. Typically there is sufficient equipment such that all students can make individual use of a particular piece of equipment. IV. Supporting Logistics A. Working agreement with the Indiana University Center for Geospatial Data Analysis for maps, images, and geographic information systems (GIS) coverage for areas used by the field station. B. Access to over 50 private land holdings, ensuring access to key geologic mapping areas. C. Equipment and instrument maintenance and repair by Indiana University Department of Geological Sciences staff.
Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana on the terrain and outcrop distribution. The Indiana University field programs took advantage of these innovations during the late 1950s and 1960s with the evolution of the G429 stereoboard (Fig. 4). The distinctive clank of stereoboards being opened or set down on an outcrop is a sound that is familiar to many of the geologists working across the world today who have been through G429. Many of the organizational and instructional formats presently in use were established under the directorship of Judson Mead. This includes the overall organization of courses, weekly format, and use of newly available resources. The use of CB radios during caravan travel greatly increased the ability to communicate to everyone geologic as well as safety information while traveling. Another example of an innovation used in G429, G429e, and G329, developed by the in-house faculty exclusively
Figure 4. (A) Students using stereoboards in the field. The design allows students to be able to plot station and contact information on both a topographic map and aerial photograph in the field, even while on steep slopes or under windy conditions. Use of plastic bags as a cover permits the stereoboards to be used in the rain. (B) Close-up view of a stereoboard designed by Judson Mead for use with topographic maps and stereophotographic pairs while mapping in the field. The components are nonmagnetic, so the stereoboard will not affect measurements made with a Brunton compass. The dimensions of a closed stereoboard are 37 cm × 23.5 cm × 3 cm (14.5 in. × 9.25 in. × 1.25 in.).
9
for our programs, is the concept and design of a stratigraphic notebook for recording a wide variety of stratigraphic information in a single compact format (Fig. 5). These pages allow for rapid stratigraphic section description and results that are organized and complete for even a student just learning to make these types of observations. These types of pages have been expanded upon over time to include sheets for soil profiles, relative age assignment, biologic indexing, and weather observations, reflecting the changing needs of students in new courses, such as G329 (a course addressing environmental science with more diverse data collection needs). NEW DIRECTIONS Over the last 15 yr, several new courses have been added to the field station curriculum. These include environmental courses for both students and professionals, applied courses targeted for business majors, and courses for high school students and teachers. Ongoing efforts are aimed at developing cooperative, multidisciplinary courses combining surface geologic mapping and techniques developed for subsurface, geophysical, and remotesensing applications (e.g., satellite images, seismic, gravity, magnetic, borehole). Efforts to expand our curriculum resulted in the integration of new projects and data sets, such as the addition of thin-section petrography and whole-rock and isotope chemical analyses, which augment and complement field mapping and more traditional data sources. A decision to incorporate a new technique or technology within one of our courses is based on an evaluation of the extent to which the new adaptation will increase students’ selfconfidence and ability to work independently. At the same time, there remains the question of whether this same innovation will make the student dependent on technology and whether such dependency will limit dynamic flexibility. As mentioned earlier, our programs have evolved from the use in the 1940s of plane tables to construct topographic maps as a critical part of the learning process to the use of high-quality topographic maps, aerial photographs, and satellite images. There is a balance as to when incorporation of a new technology becomes a crutch that may facilitate data collection in the short run, but limit the ability to perform in less than ideal conditions where such technology is not available or has failed. Everyone has had the experience of having the batteries run out while using some device. Teaching students to be able to carry on despite such logistical setbacks is one of the critical aspects of our teaching philosophy. Without a fundamental understanding of the basis for the data generated by a new technology, such as GPS locations coupled with a digital map, the student cannot be in control of the quality of the information being collected nor understand the inherent limitations. A second, related problem stems from the time required to master the new technology. Given the high cost and limited amount of field instructional time, having a student learn a new software package translates to time not spent being active in the field. We decided not to include GPS and GIS mapping within G429;
10
Douglas et al.
Figure 5. Examples of pages from a student’s stratigraphic notebook. The creation of a standardized page format, along with an extensive key and legend, allows students without any formal training in stratigraphic section measurement to effectively observe and record appropriate information with little prior training. The information shown was recorded by a student while traversing a portion of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sections for the first time. The page size is 15.3 × 23 cm (6 × 9 in.) and is bound in a stiff covered binder that can be opened to change the relative position of these pages as well as summary pages and legend pages.
initial work has been completed with the goal of incorporating this technology into G329. The reason for this is that for G329, the technology is critical to reach the appropriate level of scientific sophistication, whereas in G429, it is not critical. A concerted effort to expand the curriculum was undertaken in 1996 (Douglas et al., 1996, 1997, 2002). The goal was to incorporate environmental geology within the context of the G429 program, creating G429e (Table 4), and to create a new course in environmental science, G329. The latter was a major expansion of subject areas and approaches, but one that was readily accomplished given the setting of the field station. The range of ecological systems within a short distance of the field station, as well as wide variation in the conditions of these systems, from pristine wilderness to physically altered and chemically contaminated landscapes, provided an ideal range of field sites for teaching environmental concepts. G329 is a requirement of a new B.S. degree program offered by Indiana University in environmental science; like all courses offered by the Jud-
son Mead Geologic Field Station, G329 is open to all students, regardless of the school they are attending. The creation of this new environmental field curriculum was linked to the development of an instrumented watershed (Fig. 6) formally referred to as the Willow Creek Demonstration Watershed (WCDW). The WCDW was created as a demonstration of the benefits of cooperation among governmental agencies, universities, and individual citizens in understanding and managing natural resources. The instrumented watershed is the centerpiece of a cooperative venture for long-term research and outreach among the Judson Mead Geologic Field Station of Indiana University, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Madison Conservation District (the local water board for ranchers in the region). Nine permanently instrumented sites (two meteorological stations, three stream-gauging stations, three groundwater-monitoring wells [one site being a nested pair composed of both a deep well and a shallow well] and one Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL)
Surface-water chemistry signatures; spring chemistry signatures; watershed boundaries; groundwater recharge and discharge zones; groundwater residence time; stratigraphic and structural controls on surface and groundwater pathways pH, SpC, T probes; Brunton compass; topographic map; stereophoto pairs Final Study Area
Water budget for the reservoir; relationship between surface waters in wetland and lake and groundwater; vertical and horizontal groundwater gradients pH, SpC, T probes; Brunton compass; autolevel (with tripod and stadia rod); electric tape for water-depth determination; miniature piezometer tubes; seepage meters; evaporation trays; soil augers; topographic map Willow Creek Reservoir
Groundwater chemical signatures; evaluation of seasonal groundwater level records; slug test evaluation for K; pump test evaluation for K; vertical and horizontal gradients; groundwater surface contouring and flow-direction determination; aquifer and aquiclude determination pH, SpC, T probes; Brunton compass; autolevel (with tripod and stadia rod); driller’s log; electric tape for water-depth determination; Bailer pump; fixed instrumentation associated with installed monitoring wells; topographic map Groundwater—WCDW
Stream slopes; stream discharges; vertical velocity profiles; lateral velocity profiles; stream channel profile evaluation; evaluation of stream-gauging station calibration and seasonal discharge records; stream load and bed form evaluation; Manning’s n analysis pH, SpC, T probes; Brunton campass; autolevel (with tripod and stadia rod); March McBirney flow meter; fixed instrumentation associated with installed monitoring wells; topographic map Surface water, Willow Creek Demonstration Watershed (WCDW)
·
Project Carmichael Watershed
TABLE 4. G429E TEACHING EXERCISES Equipment A n a ly s e s pH, Specific Conductance (SpC), temperature (T) probes; Brunton Surface-water chemistry signatures; spring chemistry signatures; watershed compass; topographic map; stereophoto pairs boundaries; groundwater recharge and discharge zones; groundwater residence time; two-component mixing model calculations for stream-stream and stream-groundwater exchanges
Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana
11
site form the primary data collection points for the watershed (Table 3; Fig. 6). Data sets derived from the portable equipment, collected by the students during the course (Fig. 7), are building a database for future students to use in their interpretations. An ever-expanding library of data (e.g., local meteorological measurements, vegetation surveys, aquatic indices, stream indexing, soil and water chemistry) along with surficial and bedrock geological mapping has been compiled. Both G429e and G329 make extensive use of the WCDW instrumented sites and data sets; a number of undergraduate research projects and graduate M.S. theses have been completed that provide additional information that has been incorporated into the teaching exercises (Elliott, 1998a, 1998b; Elliott et al., 1998, 2003; Krothe, 1999; Letsinger, 2001; Letsinger and Olyphant, 2001; Osterloo, 2002). A complete list of the permanent instrumentation and a general overview of the materials and data generated within the WCDW may be found at http://www.indiana.edu/~iugfs/newgeneral.html. Other teaching exercises initially developed for use in the environmental courses were deemed of such high value for all students that they were incorporated into the general curriculum. Examples of these sorts of projects are related to mining and mine waste and neotectonics and earthquake-hazard assessment. In both examples, projects developed in these teaching exercises include a range of activities and skill development (Table 5) that are new and outside the scope of traditional field geology education. We have been fortunate to be able to establish a good working relationship with Montana Resources, Inc., the private company presently operating the Continental Pit in Butte. Montana Resources has provided G429 and G429e students with access to their mine and milling operations, and it has provided staff to work with the students. An abandoned gold mine, the Bullion Mine, located near Basin, Montana, which was operational from the early 1900s to the 1950s, serves as the teaching site for the counterpart to the modern ongoing mining operation. At the Bullion Mine, aspects of mine reclamation and the treatment of acid mine drainage are explored. G329 represents an entirely new direction in curriculum development. This course fully integrates all of the scientific disciplines that are part of environmental science (e.g., atmospheric science, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics, as well as instrumentation and technology). The field sites and teaching exercises are designed to provide physical and intellectual overlap, so that the students can begin to appreciate the multidisciplinary nature of many scientific investigations (Douglas et al., 2002). The same stepwise development of skill sets and complexity of intellectual activity used in the traditional field station courses is employed in these new courses. G329 makes extensive use of equipment (Fig. 8) and requires the use of computers for handling the large and complex data sets obtained during the course. The WCDW instrumentation and data sets are used extensively by this course. Special opportunities, such as sampling the hydrothermal systems in Yellowstone National Park, provide unique experiences for these G329 students. Data collected by G329 students documented a shift in one hydrothermal
*
9000
8000
Cataract Creek
7000
SG Potosi Pk (USFS)
JMGFS
Watershed boundary
7000 6000
S. Willow Creek
South Fork Willow Creek
SG
Pony
Willow Creek
SG North Fork
N. Willow Creek
Alluvial
Harrison
0
0
MM
*
5 km
Meteorological station
SNOTEL site
5 miles
Groundwater-monitoring site GW
5000
Stream-gauging station
SG
Harrison Lake
SG
Norwegian Creek
Dry Hollow Creek
GW Pediment
GW GW
Harrison Lake SG Weather Station MM
USGS
T3S
Willow Creek
N
Figure 6. Map of the Willow Creek Demonstration Watershed, associated with Judson Mead Geologic Field Station (JMGFS), showing the location of the permanent instrumentation sites. Insets provide a sense of the site settings and instruments deployed within the watershed. One meteorological station is located in an alpine zone, while the other is located in an agricultural field. A pump test of the deep well of the nested well pair at the Jackson Ranch set is being carried out by students in G329. Water levels in both wells are being monitored by electric tapes. USGS—U.S. Geological Survey.
10000
Hollowtop
8000
MM
Ridgetop Weather Station
S. Boulder River
12
Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana
13
Figure 7. (A) View of the South Willow Creek gauging station looking downstream. The catwalk allows the gauging station to be used during high flow intervals and also provides safe access to the far side of the stream for local fisherman, a small thing that helps maintain goodwill between the field station and the local land owners. (B) Students from G429e using a Marsh-McBirney flow meter to measure the discharge of South Willow Creek just downstream from the South Willow Creek gauging station. The students can compare their calculated discharge with that from the rating curve for the gauging station. The boulders on the shore behind the students may be seen looking beneath the catwalk in Figure 7A.
TABLE 5. CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO G429 TEACHING EXERCISES Project
Whole-rock geochemical analyses; pressure (P), temperature (T), and time determinations using mineral phases
Mine reclamation
Team-based fieldwork and data collection providing students with experience in igneous mapping and surface and groundwater hydrologic investigations; aqueous chemical analyses (pH, Specific Conductance [SpC], temperature); two-component mixing model calculations
Seismic risk assessment
Scale drawing of fault scarps; use of paleocurrent indicators to determine timing of fault movement; use of gravity models to determine basin subsidence and displacement rates; evaluation of seismicity plots
Figure 8. (A) A calibration and cross correlation exercise using the portable micrometeorological towers by G329 students. These portable towers are designed for easy deployment in a variety of sites, allowing for the generation of site-specific meteorological data to be used in concert with other data sets, such as site slope and orientation, soil type, vegetative cover, and land use. (B) An example of the type of data generated by fixed and deployed portable equipment. Left two panels show annual trends in solar radiation and temperature (top) and wind speed and vapor pressure for alpine and high-plains settings (lower) within the Willow Creek Demonstration Watershed (WCDW) for 2000 from the two permanent weather stations. Right two panels show the topographic control on the diurnal cycle of net allowave radiation (solid lines) and ground heat flux (dashed lines) at four locations in Carmichael Valley, 21–22 June 2001. The role of south- versus north-facing controls on the surface radiation budget and ground heat flux is clearly evident.
14
Douglas et al.
system; the National Park Service used similar observations to close a popular boardwalk within the park. Future plans include the development of a geophysical option, G429g, and a 2 wk course designed to serve as an extension of G429, G429e, or G429g. This course will use GPS, GIS, and remote-sensing technologies to investigate areas previously studied. The addition and use of new technologies common in the professional workplace can be useful after the students have established a sufficient level of professional knowledge and experience to be able to evaluate critically the benefits and limitations of the technology being used. As the number of courses and the breadth of the subject matter being offered have expanded, the field station also has become a site for research on the best practices of teaching and learning in the field. This development has resulted in collaboration with a number of researchers investigating the concepts of novelty space and field decision making and problem solving (see Riggs et al., this volume). As we move into the next phase of geoscience education in the field, we are looking to continue to improve what and how we teach. CONCLUSIONS The instructional practices that have been developed over the 60 yr that field education has been conducted through courses taught at the Judson Mead Geologic Field Station have resulted in a highly effective method of field instruction. Recent and ongoing research into student learning is defining the essential elements behind many of the practices and procedures employed in the field courses taught at the field station. At the same time, the incorporation of new materials and technologies is providing a necessary level of modernization that is critical to enable the students who matriculate from these courses to be successful in research and professional employment. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Curriculum development for G429e and G329 was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) along with support from Indiana University (Curriculum Development for Interdisciplinary Field Courses in Environmental Geosciences, to Douglas, Olyphant, Suttner, and Boone, NSF grant DUE9651204, and Field and Laboratory Equipment for Student Training in Environmental Geosciences, to Douglas, Olyphant, Brophy, and Suttner, NSF grant DUE-9751645 [including 50% match from Indiana University Research and University Graduate School]). This manuscript benefited from reviews by Neil Suneson, Adam Maltese, and two anonymous reviewers.
REFERENCES CITED Day-Lewis, F.D., 2003, Editor’s Message: The role of field camp in an evolving geoscience curriculum in the United States: Hydrogeology Journal, v. 11, p. 203–204. Douglas, B.J., Olyphant, G.A., Suttner, L.J., Boone, W., and Carlson, C., 1996, Integrating skills and techniques of environmental geoscience into an existing field geology program: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 28, no. 7, p. A-267. Douglas, B.J., Olyphant, G.A., Elliott, W., Letsinger, S.L., and Suttner, L.J., 1997, Importance of bedrock geology to the geoecology of a northern Rocky Mountain watershed: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 29, no. 6, p. A-22. Douglas, B.J., Brabson, B., Brophy, J., Cotton, C., Dahlstrom, D., Elswick, E., Gibson, D., Letsinger, S., Oliphant, A., Olyphant, G., Person, M., and Suttner, L., 2002, Using data today: Data in a field classroom, in Using Data in Undergraduate Science Classrooms, Final Report on an Interdisciplinary Workshop at Carleton College, April 2002: Northfield, Minnesota, Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College, 16 p. Drummond, C.N., 2001, Can field camps survive?: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, no. 4, p. 336. Elkins, J.T., and Elkins, N.M.L., 2007, Teaching geology in the field: Significant geosciences concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geology courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, no. 2, p. 126–132. Elliott, W.S., Jr., 1998a, Tectono-Stratigraphic Control of Quaternary and Tertiary Sediments and Structures along the Northeast Flank of the Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana [M.S. thesis]: Bloomington, Indiana, Indiana University, 121 p. Elliott, W.S., Jr., 1998b, Geologic Map of the Harrison 7.5′ Quadrangle, Madison County, Montana (Part 1): Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report MBMG 375, scale 1:24,000, 2 sheets. Elliott, W.S., Jr., Suttner, L.J., and Douglas, B.J., 1998, Structural control of Tertiary and Quaternary sediment dispersal along the northeast flank of the Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 30, no. 7, p. A-192. Elliott, W.S., Jr., Douglas, B.J., and Suttner, L.J., 2003, Structural control on Quaternary and Tertiary sedimentation in the Harrison Basin, Madison County, Montana: The Mountain Geologist, v. 40, no. 1, p. 1–18. Krothe, J., 1999, Groundwater Flow through Metamorphic Bedrock [B.S. thesis]: Bloomington, Indiana, Indiana University, 18 p. Letsinger, S.L., 2001, Simulating the Evolution of Seasonal Snowcover and Snowmelt Runoff Using a Distributed Energy Balance Model: Application to an Alpine Watershed in the Tobacco Root Mountains, Montana [Ph.D. diss.]: Bloomington, Indiana, Indiana University, 216 p. Letsinger, S.L., and Olyphant, G.A., 2001, Assessing the heterogeneity of snow-water equivalent during the snowmelt season: Spatial variability and its controlling factors in an alpine setting: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 82, no. 47, Fall Meeting supplement, abstract IP51A-0737. Orion, N., 1993, A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the science curriculum: School Science and Mathematics, v. 93, p. 325–331. Orion, N., and Hofstein, A., 1994, Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 31, p. 1097–1119, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660311005. Osterloo, M., 2002, The Growing Season Water Balance for a Watershed Located in Southwestern Montana [B.S. thesis]: Bloomington, Indiana, Indiana University, 23 p., http://www.indiana.edu/~bses/osterloo.html.
MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
The Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association (YBRA): Maintaining a leadership role in field-course education for 79 years Virginia B. Sisson Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204, USA Marv Kauffman Department of Earth and Environment, Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17604-3003, USA Yvette Bordeaux Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6316, USA Robert C. Thomas Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Montana Western, Dillon, Montana 59725, USA Robert Giegengack Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6316, USA
ABSTRACT The Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association (YBRA) is a nonprofit research and teaching organization chartered in the state of Montana in 1936. YBRA maintains a field station south of Red Lodge, Montana, at the foot of the Beartooth Mountains at the NW corner of the Bighorn Basin. The YBRA Field Station has been host to a wide variety of primarily geological field courses and research exercises, including a YBRA-sponsored Summer Course in Geologic Field Methods, offered initially by Princeton University and subsequently by the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Houston. Enrollments in that course vary from year to year, an experience shared by other field-course programs. The YBRA field station does not depend exclusively on field-course enrollment; by diversifying its client base, YBRA has been able to operate effectively through high-amplitude variations in enrollment in traditional courses in field geology. INTRODUCTION
young geologists have passed on their way to productive professional careers in resource exploration, research, and teaching.
The Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association, universally abbreviated to YBRA, represents two distinct entities: (1) a selfsupporting, nonprofit educational organization with its own field station in Red Lodge, Montana, that has been host to a succession of field courses and research scientists, and (2) a precedent-setting undergraduate field course of the same name, through which ~2000
HISTORY OF YBRA The colorful history of YBRA was described by William Bonini et al. (1986) on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of YBRA. We summarize that description here:
Sisson et al. • Prof. Taylor Thom and Richard Field of Princeton’s Geology Department initiated the “Red Lodge Project” in 1930 for the “furthering of fundamental geological science and the training of students under exceptionally favorable conditions.” There were 19 active participants in the Red Lodge Project that first year. • Red Lodge, Montana, at the NW corner of the Bighorn Basin at the foot of the Beartooth Mountains, was chosen because of its superb immediate geologic setting and its proximity to a variety of geologic terrains. At that time, although the region was already established as a source of hydrocarbon fuels and had already yielded important vertebrate fossils, it had not been mapped in detail. • Dr. J.C. Fred Siegfriedt, a Red Lodge doctor who was mayor of Red Lodge in 1930, was also an active amateur paleontologist. Siegfriedt owned land near Piney Dell, about 8 km southwest of Red Lodge, which he rented as a field station to Taylor Thom in 1931. That year, 35 participants, and the following year, 42 participants, together with family members, occupied the one old house, small cabins, and tents at Piney Dell (see Fig. 1). • In 1931 and for the next 30 years, Roy Wadsworth, a giant of a coal miner–carpenter, served as caretaker and repairman, and his wife Florence served as the cook.
To Billings, 100 km
Red Lodge
YBRA Camp Senia
Elk Basin
10 km to Yellowstone National Park NE Entrance, 90 km
Figure 1. Regional map of the “Red Lodge corner” of the Beartooth Mountains and adjacent Bighorn Basin, showing locations of features mentioned in the text and the Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association (YBRA) Field Station. The blue line represents the leading edge of Beartooth Thrust; at most localities, near-vertical Mississippian Madison limestone overrides Paleocene Fort Union Formation. The thrust is offset by many faults; major faults are represented by the red lines. (Base map is from GoogleEarth.)
• Participation by many geologists and students from 17 colleges and universities during the first three years of the Red Lodge Project forced a search for new quarters. A dude ranch, Camp Senia, 20 km up the West Fork Valley, provided space for field seasons in the years 1933–1935 (see Fig. 1). • In searching for a permanent location closer to Red Lodge, Thom learned through the Northern Pacific Railway Company of a canceled grazing lease available on the slopes of Mount Maurice. The total price for the ~120 acres was $420. The newly formed Princeton Geological Association (PGA) raised enough money to purchase the site (although there is some question whether the funds were ever paid), and, in 1935, construction on the new camp was begun on the northeast slope of Mount Maurice overlooking Red Lodge, 6 km north and 400 m lower in altitude. By the summer of 1936, Roy Wadsworth and his helpers had finished the lodge, a shower house, and 14 other cabins. A domestic-water reservoir was built in the bed of Howell Gulch, named for Benjamin F. Howell of Princeton, who had assisted Thom in choosing this site. The total cost of the first stage of construction of the Red Lodge camp was just over $14,000, including lumber, labor, furnishings, and materials. To celebrate the opening, the 75 camp residents hosted 175 Red Lodge guests to a pig roast on 17 July 1936. • On 14 July 1936, the Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association (YBRA) was incorporated as a not-for-profit organization in the state of Montana. Although it has never exercised the option to do so, YBRA is authorized by the state of Montana to grant degrees. On 21 November 1936, PGA granted YBRA a five-year lease on the camp. • During the early years of YBRA, financial support came from Princeton University, the Carter Oil Company, the Northern Pacific Railway, other universities, and many private individuals. In June 1941, PGA offered YBRA an option to buy the camp for $4000. That option was accepted, and, on 24 April 1942, the camp property was transferred to YBRA. PGA passed a resolution to reduce the selling price to $1.00 because of efforts already made, and expenses already incurred, by participants and supporters of the program during prior years. The original mission of the YBRA field course was to introduce geology majors as early as possible in their undergraduate careers to the various methods of geologic mapping in the field. This included use of topographic maps, interpretation of air photos, and, early in the history of the course, the construction of field maps via plane table and alidade. During the first 50 years of the Red Lodge project and the YBRA field course, there were at least three dozen doctoral theses produced by students who operated out of the YBRA camp. These students were granted degrees from Cincinnati, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Minnesota, Princeton, Wisconsin, and Yale Universities, among other institutions. Undergraduate students
Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association: Maintaining a leadership role in field-course education participated as field assistants in most of those projects. Since the mid-1950s, undergraduate field courses have been conducted at YBRA by many schools. These programs have included the Princeton-YBRA field course, which became the Penn/YBRA field course in 1992 and the University of Houston/YBRA field course in 2008; Southern Illinois University geology and botany courses; the Penn State University geology program; the Harvard/ Yale geology program; and University of Pennsylvania graduate courses in geology and ecology, among others. Since the late 1970s, several universities have conducted alumni colleges for their graduates and friends at YBRA. These week-long programs have introduced many nongeologists to the geology and natural history of the northern Rocky Mountains. Begun by Princeton, alumni colleges have now been run by Amherst, Franklin and Marshall, Southern Illinois, and Johns Hopkins Universities. In addition to their academic and social value, these programs have made outstanding contributions to maintaining the financial integrity of YBRA. Although research has taken a secondary place to education during the last few decades, numerous faculty and graduatestudent research programs continue to use the YBRA facilities for parts of every field season. Summer institutes for teachers have been held at YBRA, conducted during the 1970s and 1980s primarily by Erling Dorf of Princeton, and by Will Parsons of Wayne State University. Other uses of the camp have included a writing conference by the American Geological Institute, and field conferences and symposium meetings of International Geological Congresses, the Billings and Montana Geological Societies, the Tobacco Root Geological Society, and the Arctic and Sub-Alpine International Mycological Society. Paleontological expeditions have been conducted at dinosaur sites in the Bighorn Basin by the University of Cincinnati Museum Center and by the New Jersey State Museum. A Women’s Health Conference has been held as a one-day session in each of the last six years. The field course sponsored by YBRA has been in continuous operation since 1930. Taylor Thom directed the course from 1930 to 1954. Bill Bonini, professor of geosciences at Princeton, operated a course in engineering geology at YBRA in 1955, the same year that John Maxwell (Princeton) and R.M. (Pete) Foose (Franklin and Marshall) offered a summer course in geology at YBRA. In 1956, the two were consolidated as a single course, directed by Bill Bonini, from 1956 until the course was transferred to the University of Pennsylvania in 1992. Robert Giegengack and Yvette Bordeaux at the University of Pennsylvania directed the course through the summer of 2007. In 2008, the course was transferred to the University of Houston, where it is now directed by Virginia Sisson. THE PROGRAM AT YBRA The primary mapping exercises that were developed in the 1930s have been refined as more field information has accumulated, and they have been modified with changes in access to private and public land. Additional exercises have been added, in
17
some cases replacing established exercises, as new priorities have been articulated by the international geologic community, and as realities of access and field logistics have impacted administration of the course. In most years, the YBRA Summer Course in Geologic Field Methods has consisted of two five-week courses, each taught by three teams of two faculty members each. Each team teaches the course for a two-week period; thus, the teams overlap for a few days during each transition to ensure continuity. The faculty have been drawn from many different universities, and have been effective in introducing undergraduates, primarily from eastern colleges, to a wide range of geologic perspectives, teaching philosophies, and opinions on graduate study in geology. Each team of two faculty members is selected for its expertise in one of the three principal components of the course: (1) the sedimentary stratigraphy and structure of Elk Basin, a doubly plunging anticline in Cretaceous rocks in the NW corner of the Bighorn Basin; (2) the stratigraphy and structure of the Beartooth overthrust, emplaced over Bighorn Basin sediments in the Laramide event; and (3) the mineralogy, petrology, stratigraphy, structure, and recent seismicity of Yellowstone National Park and selected crystalline terrains in SW Montana. For the final portion of the course, students are housed in dormitories at the University of Montana Western in Dillon. The Field Exercises 1. For many years, YBRA students have been introduced to the intellectual and physical challenges of rigorous fieldwork by studying the Cretaceous section of sedimentary rocks exposed in Elk Basin, in the NW corner of the Bighorn Basin (see Fig. 1), a doubly plunging anticline expressed at the surface in Cretaceous rocks. The surface and subsurface geology of Elk Basin is well constrained: since 1911, Elk Basin has been a major producer of oil from a faulted anticlinal trap, one of many around the margins of the Bighorn Basin. Elk Basin is a good starter exercise for beginning geologists: visibility is effectively 100%, allowing close faculty supervision of teams of students scattered across the structure, 10 km N-S × 5 E-W; the structure is classic and spectacular; and the students’ senses are bombarded with the sights, sounds, and characteristic odors of the industry that has been so important in generating demand for professional geologists. In recent years, the students have been introduced to Elk Basin and assigned to make a geologic map on a base topographic map without reference to air photos; since visibility is so good, we have used this exercise to help students develop the capacity to establish a position in the field with reference only to topography represented by contours on a base map. 2. YBRA is built directly on a major tear fault (the Mount Maurice tear fault) that represents a substantial offset of the overthrust front of the Beartooth Mountains (see Fig. 1). From the porch of the YBRA dining hall (Fanshawe Lodge), students can see dramatic outcrops of near-vertical Ordovician Bighorn dolomite and Mississippian Madison limestone abutting
18
Sisson et al.
near-horizontal Paleocene Fort Union sandstone, and even casual observation leads them to the conclusion that the overthrust margin is more or less continuous along the front of the Beartooth Mountains. By the time that the Mountain Front segment of the field course begins, students have become familiar with the Madison Palisades as a dominant feature in the local landscape. We introduce the students to the different styles of Laramide deformation by visiting different exposures of the Beartooth overthrust along the western margin of the Bighorn Basin, and we then assign them the task of mapping a section of the 16 km stretch of the mountain front north and south of the YBRA camp. The students enter their field data on aerial photograph overlays and locate themselves in the field by reference to a topographic base map and the aerial photos. Since handheld global positioning system (GPS) units became available at reasonable cost, we have issued a GPS unit to each field team for the mapping exercise along the front. (These units are withheld from mapping teams for the Elk Basin segment in order to help the students learn to locate themselves in the field by reference to topographic features more or less well represented on a topographic base map; in recent years, however, so many students arrive in camp with personal GPS units that this effort has been effectively defeated.) The mapping exercise along the Beartooth Front is followed by a trip through Yellowstone National Park, during which students review the Tertiary and Quaternary volcanic stratigraphy of the park, the geophysics of geothermal features in the park, the geologic record of recent seismicity in and near the park, and the changing resource-management challenges addressed by the evolution of National Park Service policies. Together, Elk Basin and the Beartooth Front offer our students a comprehensive exposure to a range of stratigraphic and structural styles that probably cannot be matched in such a restricted area in many parts of the United States; however, one deficit is that we do not have access to a large exposure of crystalline rocks in close proximity to YBRA in which we could develop a mapping exercise. The crest of the Beartooth Plateau offers many opportunities to reconstruct Precambrian geologic history, but the altitude and latitude of those exposures are so high that we cannot be guaranteed access to those rocks through a brief summer season in the northern Rocky Mountains. Even the one-day exercises that we undertake on the Beartooth Plateau are frequently defeated by summer snowstorms that briefly close the highway over the plateau. Thus, we have sought opportunities to enable our students to work in crystalline terrains at lower altitudes. 3. For many years, our students have traveled through Yellowstone National Park to the University of Montana Western in Dillon, where they stayed in college dormitories while they pursued a mapping exercise in high-grade Precambrian metamorphic rocks affected by large-scale refolded folds and thrusts, several generations of igneous rocks, and an overlying multigeneration sequence of Quaternary deposits. In this exercise, each team of students has been responsible for constructing a lithologic column during this mapping project. The rock units that make up
that column include banded iron formation, amphibolites, calcsilicates, marble, quartzite, schists, gneisses, diabase, pegmatite, serpentinite, and basalts. We have added exercises that include mapping and interpretation of a thin-skinned overthrust belt near Block Mountain, and a complex of Tertiary normal faults near Timber Hill (see following). In some years, we have included an exercise in assessment of hydrologic hazards. In addition to these three major mapping exercises, students at YBRA are assigned one-day exercises in section measurement, economic geology and mineralogy (via a visit to the Stillwater Complex), Cenozoic paleontology, glacial stratigraphy and geomorphology, high-mountain ecology, etc. FIELD INSTRUCTION IN GEOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON The Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences (formerly the Geosciences Department) at the University of Houston has offered a department-sponsored field course to its students for over 40 years. That course has been taught as a capstone course that most students have taken after all their required and elective courses have been fulfilled. Thus, the field course has served mostly senior geology majors who have received their undergraduate degrees after completion of that course. During most of those 40 years, the field course has been based at Western New Mexico State University in Silver City, New Mexico, in the midst of a primarily Paleozoic terrain, with side field trips through New Mexico, Arizona, and the Guadalupe Mountains of Texas. In some years, students in the course have also studied igneous rocks, glacial deposits, and Precambrian basement at Durango, Colorado. The faculty for the course has been drawn exclusively from University of Houston staff, including Max Carmen, Carl Norman, Hank Chafetz, Bill Dupre, Peter Copeland, Mike Murphy, Tom Lapen, and Janok Bhattacharya. Graduate students have also been engaged as teaching assistants. Typically, two faculty members have taught the entire five- to six-week course. This class has only included students enrolled at University of Houston; the entire group has driven to the field sites in rented vehicles driven in caravan from the University of Houston campus. Prior to field camp, all students in the field course have been required to take a semester-long on-campus field-methods course in preparation for the summer program. In recent years, the field-geology course has been used to fulfill electives for undergraduate majors in geophysics. The field camp moved to north-central New Mexico near Abiquiu in 2005. This move shifted the emphasis of the course to Rio Grande Rift geology and the geology of the Henry Mountains in south-central Utah. UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON–YBRA FIELD COURSE In December 2007, the University of Houston Department of Geosciences decided to assume responsibility for
Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association: Maintaining a leadership role in field-course education administering and directing the principal undergraduate fieldinstruction program of YBRA. The first year of the University of Houston–YBRA program, summer 2008, was a transitional year engaging staff members from the University of Houston without significant changes in the program that has been taught at YBRA for many years. University of Houston–YBRA offered a single five-week session to 40 students from early June to the first week in July. Three University of Houston instructors cotaught the course with long-time YBRA faculty. Several other University of Houston faculty joined the group for short periods of time to learn the local geology as well as to consider changes to the program. Many of the successful features of the YBRA course have been retained under University of Houston supervision. The course is taught by faculty from both University of Houston and other institutions. It is offered as either a three-credit or a sixcredit course, depending on the needs of individual students. The course will continue to serve a wide variety of students from many institutions. In addition, starting in summer 2009, the University of Houston offered a course in field geophysical methods. This 10-day course included introduction to magnetic, ground-penetrating radar, well-logging, and seismic techniques. TEACHING PHILOSOPHY OF THE YBRA PROGRAM Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania The years since the YBRA field course was introduced in 1930 have seen many different teaching philosophies rise and fall as American society has grappled with reported crises in K–12 education, in response to accounts of far superior outcomes in educational systems in western Europe and Asia, and with disquieting reports of effective exclusion of some cohorts of Americans from the benefits of responsible education. These reports, of course, long predate the organization of YBRA, and they have inspired the development of elaborate college curricula in teacher education. No modern university, whether it is a land-grant institution, a liberal-arts college, or a full-featured research university, can afford to be without an academic unit that undertakes to educate young people for a career in the noblest profession: teaching. Teaching as a profession is old, and the basic approaches to effective teaching have been debated since before the dawn of written human history. We are all familiar with the debate that swirls around the value of expository versus participatory education. As science teachers, we know that our lectures must be intermixed with both laboratory exercises and field trips, or the examples we offer of the rock relationships we study will lack the immediacy that cements them in a student’s memory. However, we also know that the educational model whereby students learn exclusively by doing supposes that the discoveries of many prior generations of human investigators can be repeated by each generation, who will learn thereby the complexity of the discipline
19
they address and the elegance of the solutions that prior generations have developed. On the other hand, we also know that life is short, that most of us will not have more than a few good ideas in our productive lifetimes, and that repeating the mistakes of prior generations, however graphic that experience may prove to be, is not an efficient way to learn about Earth, or anything else. The instructional model whereby a mature investigator, who has spent a piece of her/his life studying a specific process, region, or material, distills the essence of that experience into 40 one-hour lectures over the course of 14 weeks before an audience that may range from a handful to many hundreds of younger aspirants to the same understanding, has been shown to be both effective and efficient. Its practice long predates the establishment of formal schooling in classical human societies, and, no doubt, is a model employed by other animals to instruct their young in the business of life. In our earth science curricula, we concern ourselves more with experiential education than do many of our colleagues in other disciplines: our programs typically include exposure to geologic materials through laboratory study, collection of statistically rigorous data via empiric analysis, and collection of field data through vigorous transects of complex terrain. While we seek strategies to achieve our teaching objectives in ways that capture the interest and excitement of our students, we do not indulge that need for excitement at the expense of the rigor of the substance we present. In the earth sciences, in addition, we respond to a predisposition that brings many of our geology majors into our classrooms: the attraction of physical work outdoors, the appeal of wild and scenic places, and the satisfaction of solving complex four-dimensional problems that may not have been solved before. Each new piece of terrain is a story waiting to be deciphered, and it offers rewards not likely to be realized by those who undertake to solve an artificial problem manufactured by someone else (e.g., a crossword puzzle). So, our task of earth science education, and particularly our task of offering that instruction in the field, presents challenges different from those addressed by our colleagues in some other disciplines. We embrace the rare opportunity to develop a curricular approach that offers the most efficient way for young people, already strongly predisposed to learning what we have to offer, to learn both the principles and the practical skills that will enable them to spend productive careers reconstructing Earth history from the empiric data in which that history is written: the language of the rocks. In our experience, the most effective teachers at YBRA have been active professional geologists, across a range of ages, who use fieldwork as a means to collect data not available by other strategies, who revel in the task of solving vast four-dimensional puzzles with fragmentary evidence, who strive to share the excitement they feel with others, and have developed, or came fully equipped with, a natural predisposition to be effective storytellers. Given that particular combination of background and proclivity, it matters little how each teacher goes about communicating his/her conviction to the next generation. We seek excellent
20
Sisson et al.
field geologists who are also committed teachers, and we have found that the rest takes care of itself. Neither Princeton nor the University of Pennsylvania has imposed on its faculty any requirement to develop mechanisms to evaluate the efficacy of the teaching strategies that we employ, nor do those universities (and others like them) require of newly engaged members of those faculties either training in teaching techniques or expressed interest in effective teaching. The Graduate School of Education (GSE) of the University of Pennsylvania is a distinguished institution that produces large numbers of teachers and administrators who enter public school systems across the United States, but GSE exercises little, if any, influence on teaching practices in the other 11 schools of the university. The central administration of the University of Pennsylvania periodically suffers paroxysms of introspection and turns its attention (briefly) inward to examine the effectiveness of its teaching mission; when it does so, it rediscovers that the geology program sends its students to the Rocky Mountains every summer to learn to reconstruct Earth history by studying the record preserved in crustal rocks, and it points to that program as a fine example of educational innovation! The YBRA faculty is composed of a large number of teachers from many institutions, and we encourage each participant to bring to bear on the educational mission whatever principles she/ he has found most effective at the institution where he/she serves on the earth science faculty. Thus, we engage faculty from many different teaching cultures in our course, and we welcome the variety that such experience brings to our program. University of Montana Western The long-term association between YBRA and the earth science teaching program at the University of Montana Western has enabled us to benefit from the experience of faculty who enjoy daily exposure to the terrains on which we deploy our students. This association has enabled us to benefit from evolving field exercises used by that department to engage undergraduate geology students in meaningful applications of what they learn, both in the field and in the classroom. The established instructional goals of the YBRA fieldgeology program, like those of most field geology programs, have been centered on identifying rock types and learning the skill of mapping. In the last decade or so, changes have been implemented by the YBRA instructors to apply data gathered in the field to solving geologic problems beyond the construction of geologic maps and accompanying cross sections. A good example of this is the Timber Hill project, located in the Sweetwater Range near Dillon, Montana (Thomas and Roberts, this volume). This project was added to the YBRA curriculum in recent years as a result of the loss of access to a mapping project on Archean metamorphic rocks located on private land. The Timber Hill terrain consists of Archean metamorphic rocks overlain by Paleogene and Neogene terrestrial rocks of the Renova and Sixmile Creek Formations. The Neogene Six-
mile Creek Formation preserves a spectacular record of fluvial and debris-flow deposits, derived, in part, from the Yellowstone hot spot, including fluvially deposited tephras up to 15 m thick (Sears and Thomas, 2007). The paleodrainage was also filled with a distinctive basalt flow (the Timber Hill Basalt) that likely originated from the Heise volcanic field in Idaho and entered the drainage around 6.0 Ma. Since the basalt is more resistant to erosion than the rest of the Sixmile Creek Formation, it forms mesas and serves as a textbook example of inverted topography. The main attraction is a Neogene (ca. 5.0 Ma) listric normal fault, called the Sweetwater fault, that cuts these rocks with ~225 m of offset. The Timber Hill Basalt provides a very distinctive datum by which students can determine the fault’s offset and geometry (Fig. 2). The Sweetwater fault is part of an active system of northwest-trending normal faults that lie within the Intermountain seismic belt (Stickney, 2007). Since the fault is potentially active, the project provides an excellent opportunity for students to use their field data to predict the areas that are prone to geohazards such as surface rupture, liquefaction, and slope instability, and then to use those predictions to make landmanagement decisions. The project requires the students to map all rock units within an area of ~3 km2 and to draw two cross sections. The students are asked to identify and describe the various types of Archean metamorphic lithologies, but the emphasis is on the Paleogene, Neogene, and Quaternary units, with special emphasis on mapping the Sweetwater fault and surficial deposits and features like landslides, rock falls, sediments moved by soil creep, and alluvium. In addition, the students note the areas that are prone to surface rupture and liquefaction during an earthquake. The reason for gathering these data is to make decisions about the
Figure 2. Trace of the Sweetwater fault at Timber Hill. Tb—Tertiary basalt; Tsm—Tertiary Sixmile Creek Formation; PCu—Precambrian undifferentiated; U—upthrown block; D—downthrown block. Dashed line indicates approximate location of fault, dotted line indicates covered fault.
Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association: Maintaining a leadership role in field-course education placement of 20 homes, with water wells and septic tanks, within a proposed hypothetical subdivision on the property. In addition, the students gather structural data on the joints and foliation in the Archean metamorphic rocks for the purpose of predicting the regional groundwater-flow patterns and, hence, the best locations to place the water wells. Because of time constraints, the YBRA students have not yet been asked to construct a geohazards report like the University of Montana Western students have done (Thomas and Roberts, this volume). In lieu of such a report, the YBRA students turn in a subdivision map showing the placement of the houses, water wells, and septic tanks for each building lot. On the back of this map, they write a brief justification of each placement. Even without the report, this is a big step forward in metacognitive learning for the YBRA field camp students. They must think about what data they need to gather while they are mapping in order to safely place a home on a piece of land that has many geohazards. They then need to justify their land-management decisions by explaining their reasoning. This project serves as an important step forward for YBRA into a more project-based approach to field instruction in geology. University of Houston The University of Houston is an urban university, and, among major research universities in the United States, it is the second most ethnically diverse. Sixty-five percent of the ~27,000 undergraduate students at University of Houston are nonwhite. Most of the students are Texas residents, but students also come from across the United States and from more than 137 countries. Eighty percent of the students come from within 30 km of Houston. The ethnic diversity and urban background of the University of Houston student community will change the context of the University of Houston–YBRA program in future years. For many of the University of Houston students, a course in the Rocky Mountains will represent their first experience away from the Houston metropolitan area. In addition, many of the geoscience students are older, nontraditional students, and some are coming back for a second B.S. degree. Those students either work full time or are engaged already in petroleum careers and need a formal education in geology. Thus, the demands of their professional lives complicate their efforts to schedule attendance at a field camp far from Houston. However, they all are required to take a field course as a capstone for their undergraduate major. For the University of Houston students, the opportunity to mix with students from different universities is exciting as well as challenging. The University of Houston faculty who teach at YBRA are collaborating with the YBRA faculty previously engaged by Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania. The University of Houston faculty have embraced the traditions and teaching philosophy of the established YBRA field curriculum, but they also impart a University of Houston signature to the field camp. For example, the University of Houston faculty have added
21
exercises in sequence stratigraphy and delta architecture, and the field program is coordinated with the University of Houston geology curriculum. The field course is not a stand-alone course. Over the next few seasons, University of Houston faculty will assess the extent to which University of Houston students acquire essential technical skills through the field exercises in sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks already established at YBRA. For beginning majors in geology, the course will also test whether the intellectually challenging and physically demanding lifestyle of the field geologist is consistent with their personal career aspirations. As mentioned previously, in 2009 University of Houston offered a new field course in applied geophysics at YBRA, which provided practical exposure to many techniques of field geophysics. These include positional line surveying using GPS technologies, multicomponent seismic refraction, high-resolution seismic reflection, ground-penetrating radar (GPR), and gravity surveys, as well as well-log measurements (using gamma-ray, sonic, resistivity, and temperature tools) in a shallow nearby well. All participants in the course make all types of measurement. This course will probably become the capstone course for all University of Houston geophysics majors, and will provide other students a chance to apply their geophysical understanding to practical exploration problems. CHALLENGES OF THE YBRA PROGRAM The YBRA field course has persisted for 79 years, through many changes in undergraduate earth science curricula, through advances in the tools available to pursue field work effectively, through changes in the employment prospects for graduates of geology programs, through a general decline in the perception of the value of a field-mapping experience, and through growing development of the landscape across which our students work. While ownership of mineral rights in Elk Basin has passed from company to company within the petroleum industry, our students have always been welcome to work across that structure, as have students from many other field courses. However, the pace of development along the Beartooth Front and in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem in recent years has compromised our access to some of the sites at which crucial relationships among certain rock units are best exposed. As administrators of the field course, we have spent a lot of time and energy educating our students about appropriate field etiquette, and explaining to landowners what our students are doing and why that work is important. Given that the economy of the region has been closely attuned to the extractive industry, most of our neighbors have been receptive to the suggestion that their indulgence will help educate the next generation of resource-exploration geologists. Even in cases where a tract of land is owned by a large corporation, local caretakers have been amenable to student use of the land when formal corporate permission has been difficult to acquire. There have been occasional incidents of student carelessness or disregard of ranchland manners, but, with few exceptions, we have been able
22
Sisson et al.
to mend the fences, and we continue to find welcome on most of the land on which we hope to work. While both the National Parks and the National Forests have been set aside for public use, we encounter a spectrum of regulations that undertake to control access to the sites we study on public land. Thus, as an educational institution, we are granted no-cost access to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, but we must apply for a use permit (and pay an administrative fee) to deploy our students across land in the Shoshone and Custer National Forests. As the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) grapples with strategies to avoid budget shortfalls, and to present evenhanded policies to its many constituencies, administrators of the individual forests periodically introduce policies to extract user fees from organizations that use the forests for profit (e.g., hunting and fishing outfitters, ecotourism companies), a policy consistent with the grazing fees and mining royalties that the USFS has collected routinely for generations. We have thus far been successful in persuading the USFS administrators that YBRA is a not-for-profit enterprise, despite the fact that faculty in the course receive teaching stipends, but we still pay modest administrative fees to the USFS to process our annual permits. A principal cost of the program, and a continuing logistic problem, has been the need to maintain a fleet of vehicles in which students can travel to our various field sites safely and efficiently, if not necessarily comfortably. While the course has been administered by Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania, course vehicles have been owned by the sponsoring university, and they have been garaged and maintained in Red Lodge. From time to time, we have compared the ongoing costs of insuring, maintaining, and operating a fleet of aging university-owned vehicles to the cost of renting vehicles locally for the 10 wk field course. Efforts to use rental vehicles, which would always be relatively new, and maintained and insured by the rental agency, have been defeated by the unwillingness of those agencies to rent cars to young drivers, especially, by some agencies, to young male drivers. With the transfer of the field course to the University of Houston, that problem has become more manageable: the University of Houston has arranged with a Houston agency to rent vehicles that will be driven by drivers under 25 as long as those drivers are legal employees of the University of Houston. In 2008, we decided to sell the six vans previously owned by the University of Pennsylvania and donate the proceeds to YBRA. In the last few years, some of the interpretive challenges we have built into our mapping exercises have been compromised by universal access to Google Earth and similar programs that enable students to download high-resolution imagery from orbiting satellites (e.g., see Fig. 1), and by the use of cell-phone photography to share field decisions among widely separated mapping groups. We have not yet introduced laptop-based mapping technology to our field exercises, for two reasons: (1) We still share the conviction that students must learn to locate themselves in the field by reference to topographic features, and
(2) we recognize that the present cost of acquiring, maintaining, and replacing individual laptop units and differential GPS technology is so high that it will price our program well above our competition. We realize that several other undergraduate courses in field geology routinely train their students in modern electronic survey techniques; we may introduce aspects of that technology as costs decline. In the past 25 years, we have seen a steady growth in the number of female students who enroll in the YBRA field course; since the 1990s, the female:male ratio has often exceeded 1:1. This trend has not only changed the physical layout of the camp, but it has impacted the social environment of the program in a strongly positive way. In years in which the student body has been overwhelmingly male, our students have sought leisure-time recreation in the friendly bar culture in Red Lodge. With the recent change in gender ratio, our young males have learned that plenty of social stimulation is available right in camp, and they are better behaved as a consequence. The addition of a strong cohort of competent, highly motivated young women has improved the learning environment of the program and, perhaps only incidentally, reduced the incidence of cases of substance abuse. YBRA TODAY YBRA is operated by a 12-member, self-perpetuating Board of Trustees, known as the YBRA Council. The field station is run by a seasonal staff of three to five kitchen and maintenance employees. YBRA is supported by user charges, membership fees, publication sales, and individual and corporate contributions to its operating budget and endowment. The field station in 2008 consists of 32 buildings (see Fig. 3). The station can accommodate 90 people in dormitories and smaller cabins scattered across a wooded mountainside overlooking the town of Red Lodge, Montana. Five of the larger cabins include indoor plumbing; two strategically placed washhouses serve the dormitories and smaller cabins. The modern kitchen in Fanshawe Lodge can serve as many as 125 people. Classes and other meetings are held in two study halls and a library, which is well stocked with publications on the geology and natural history of the northern Rocky Mountains. Since 1936, YBRA has taken its drinking water from the headwaters of Howell Gulch, a first-order stream on the property; that water is now filtered and chlorinated to meet health requirements of the state of Montana. In an annual three-month season, YBRA is host to three to five field courses, a number of large field parties, traveling earth science field excursions, individual investigators, alumni/ae seminars and reunions, visiting alumni/ae of programs at YBRA, local topical seminars, and the occasional wedding or family reunion. Ashes of at least one former YBRA faculty member are sparsely distributed across the site. Although YBRA was acquired and constructed to accommodate courses in geologic field methods, it now serves such a
Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association: Maintaining a leadership role in field-course education
23
Figure 3. Map of the Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association (YBRA) Field Station.
diversified clientele that it can meet its operating expenses with revenue from other users. Thus, YBRA can remain financially secure through high-amplitude variations in enrollment in fieldgeology courses.
cal and intellectual challenges of the rigorous study of geology in the field. With its modern, if rustic, facilities, and its loyal base of supportive alumni/ae and corporate associates, YBRA is poised to maintain that leadership role through the education of future generations of field scientists.
CONCLUSION REFERENCES CITED YBRA is the oldest university-sponsored field-geology facility in continuous operation in the United States today. This facility, in an annual three-month season (June–August), accommodates undergraduate and graduate field courses in geology, ecology and botany; visits by geologic field trips passing through the Bighorn Basin; individual scientists and research teams conducting field research in proximity to YBRA; university alumni/ae colleges and reunions; various topical conferences; and visiting YBRA alumni/ae. This diversity of users enables YBRA to meet the costs of annual operation and maintenance without relying exclusively on patronage by undergraduate field courses. In its 79-year history, YBRA and the programs it hosts have made a major contribution to the study of geology in the United States, and have introduced ~2000 young geologists to the physi-
Bonini, W.E., Fox, S.K., and Judson, S., 1986, The Red Lodge Project and the YBRA: The early years, 1932–1942: Billings, Montana Geological Society, YBRA Field Conference, p. 1–9. Sears, J.W., and Thomas, R.C., 2007, Extraordinary middle Miocene crustal disturbance in southwest Montana: Birth record of the Yellowstone hot spot?: Northwest Geology, v. 36, p. 133–142. Stickney, M., 2007, Historic earthquakes and seismicity in southwestern Montana: Northwest Geology, v. 36, p. 167–186. Thomas, R.C., and Roberts, S., 2009, this volume, Experience one: Teaching geoscience curriculum in the field, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(07).
MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Field camp: Using traditional methods to train the next generation of petroleum geologists James O. Puckette Boone Pickens School of Geology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078-3031, USA Neil H. Suneson Oklahoma Geological Survey and ConocoPhillips School of Geology and Geophysics, Mewbourne College of Earth and Energy, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019-0628, USA
Puckette and Suneson students contribute less to final map projects than others, and assigning grades to individual team members can be difficult. The greatest challenges we face involve group dynamics and student personalities. We continue to believe that traditional field methods, aided by (but not relying upon) new technologies, are the key to constructing and/or interpreting geologic maps. The requirement that students document field evidence using careful observations teaches skills that will be beneficial throughout their professional careers.
GEOLOGIC SETTING OF CAMP
HISTORY OF OSU FIELD CAMP
The Oklahoma Geology Camp (OGC) is located about 8 mi (13 km) east-northeast of Cañon City, Colorado, along the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains (Figs. 1 and 2). The Proterozoiccored Rampart Range is north of camp, and the mostly Proterozoic (locally Cambrian) Wet Mountains are to the southwest (Scott et al., 1978). Cañon City is on the northwest side of a large reentrant of Cretaceous strata known as the Cañon City Embayment, and the structural complexities associated with the embayment and a well-exposed and lithologically varied Phanerozoic section, which has many unconformities ranging in age from the Early Ordovician to the Late Cretaceous, make this area an ideal field laboratory. The present semiarid climate allows classical geologic structures such as faults, folds, and unconformities and depositional features to be easily observed in an environment devoid of (most) insect pests and free of covering vegetation (except cholla). As a result, a number of universities (including Kansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana State, and probably others) have their summer field camps and/or have field exercises near here. The Phanerozoic stratigraphy of the Cañon City Embayment is well known (Fig. 3), and several of the formations occur throughout the Rocky Mountains as well as in the Oklahoma Panhandle. In addition, many of the Paleozoic units the students study at camp temporally correlate with units in the Arbuckle Mountains that most of the Oklahoma State University (OSU) and University of Oklahoma (OU) students have seen on numerous class field trips. The ability to physically observe and relate Oklahoma units and/or units the students have read about in the literature (e.g., dinosaur bones in the Morrison Formation) gives the students a certain degree of “familiarity” with the stratigraphy. Students who have had summer or part-time jobs in the petroleum industry may recognize some of the units as reservoir or source strata; thus, they will see strata in the field that they may have only heard or read about or seen on electric logs. This aspect of the stratigraphy takes the students’ fieldwork out of the “theoretical” and into the “practical” or “relevant.” The structural geology of the Cañon City Embayment is dominated by a number of large, open, south-southeast–plunging anticlines and synclines on the south end of the Rampart Range and a steeply to moderately tilted section along the northeast side of the Wet Mountains. Steeply dipping faults and map-scale (1:6000 and 1:12,000) folds are common and well exposed. Most of the field exercises are within the more easily mapped Phanerozoic section in the embayment, but one exercise is in structurally complex (isoclinally folded) Late Proterozoic strata.
The OGC was established in 1949 when landowner Les Huston leased a 22-acre site along Eightmile Creek to OU, following a search by both universities (OSU was then known as Oklahoma A&M) for a permanent field camp site outside of Oklahoma. The evolution of this early “tent camp,” mostly for veterans attending college on the GI bill, into the current modern facility is outlined in Table 1. FIELD CAMP FACILITIES The OGC is located along Beaver Creek Road where Eightmile Creek has eroded through a high hogback of the Dakota Group (Fig. 2). Prior to and throughout the beginning of the 2008 camp, new facilities were being built; therefore, the following description is of the camp as of mid-June 2008. The largest (and oldest) building is the mess hall/study hall, which is connected to a serving area and kitchen. A small cinderblock office is next to the study hall, and a larger two-room study hall is a short distance away. A few desktop computers and printers are available for student use in the study halls; the internet is not available. (Most students bring their own laptops to camp and use them for writing reports as well as reading their e-mail via wireless access at internet cafes in Cañon City.) The seven new cabins are located immediately north of the study halls. One of the cabins is reserved for the cooks and guests. (Meals are provided on work days; a cook and cook’s helper who work at OSU sororities/fraternities during the school year are contracted to work at field camp.) In 2008, old cabins were used by choice to house some students, teaching assistants (TAs), and faculty. The capacity of the wastewater disposal systems of the new separate women’s/staff and men’s shower/toilet facilities limits enrollment to 60 students. All fieldwork travel is done using university vans. Most are rented from the OSU motor pool; two others are from the OSU and OU schools of geology. While most students drive their own cars to field camp, insurance and university restrictions disallow them from driving their cars to the field areas or on field trips without completing special waivers. PHILOSOPHY AND GOALS OF OSU SUMMER FIELD PROGRAM Summer field schools offer many students their first opportunity to act as geoscientists and apply the principles
Field camp: Using traditional methods to train future petroleum geologists
27
105°00′W
38°30′N
38°30′N
0 1 2 3 4 5 0
5
Figure 1. Generalized geologic map of the Cañon City Embayment area, showing the location of Oklahoma State University’s Les Huston Geology Field Camp (or Oklahoma Geology Camp, OGC). Symbols: –Ci—Cambrian intrusive; p–C—Idaho Springs Group and Boulder Creek Granodiorite; OmPl—Manitou Dolomite, Harding Sandstone, Fremont Dolomite, Williams Canyon Limestone, Lykins Formation; JrKd— Ralston Creek Formation, Morrison Formation, Dakota Group; KgKp— Graneros Shale, Greenhorn Limestone, Carlile Shale, Niobrara Formation, Pierre Shale; TKr—Vermejo Formation and younger strata. Abbreviations: GP—Gem Park intrusive center; MM—McClure Mountain intrusive center; CC—Cañon City (modified from Scott et al., 1978).
10 Miles 10 Kilometers
105°00′W
Figure 2. View looking north-northeast across part of the Cañon City Embayment. Cañon City is visible among the trees in the upper right, and the south-plunging Rampart Range forms the skyline in the background. The Oklahoma Geology Camp is located in a gap in the nearer tree-covered hogback in the upper right. The southeast-dipping Dakota Group forms a prominent hogback and overlies the slope-forming Morrison Formation and underlies a thick section of Cretaceous shales and limestones. This area (Grape Creek) is the students’ first major mapping project.
of scientific inquiry to interpreting the origin and relational context of strata. Field schools, or “field camps” as they are commonly known, provide a unique setting whereby students can make their own observations and measurements, propose explanations, and test these hypotheses by examining the evidence in the rock record. Today’s students are immersed in digital images of geologic features, but many students seldom have the opportunity to visit and examine the very features that intrigue them and fuel their personal interest in geology. The philosophy behind the curriculum of the OGC is to develop in the students an appreciation for the scientific method and what it means to be a scientist. To do this, we have three goals: (1) to teach students the fundamentals of classical field geology; (2) to show the students how to make and record observations, propose explanations, and interpret the origin of geologic features based on their evidence; and (3) to encourage students to work with their peers in teams to solve problems, complete projects, and communicate their findings in concise written reports. As part of this tripartite process, students are asked to integrate the conceptual material learned from prerequisite coursework and as a result, field camp becomes the capstone course for the undergraduate curriculum.
QUATERNARY
Puckette and Suneson CENOZOIC
28
TABLE 1. HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA GEOLOGY CAMP (OGC) Year
Figure 3. Stratigraphy of the Cañon City Embayment area.
About half the students who enroll in the OGC course are from Oklahoma State University (OSU) in Stillwater (Fig. 4). A significant number of students are from the University of Oklahoma (OU) in Norman. Universities that have regularly sent students to the OGC in the recent past include Texas Tech, Texas Christian, Midwestern State, Arkansas–Little Rock, and Arkansas Tech. Because most students come from southern mid-continent schools, and the overwhelming majority from OSU and OU, most will graduate and get jobs in the petroleum industry. This is particularly true during “boom” times. Not surprisingly, much of
Event
Source
1949 OGC established by University of Adleta (1985) Oklahoma (OU) and Oklahoma A&M (now OSU) by a 50 yr lease with landowner Les Huston First director: Keith Hussey (OU) Facilities: 18′ × 20′ (5.5 m × 6.1 m) kitchen tent, 16′ × 20′ (4.9 m × 6.1 m) classroom tent, and 16′ × 16′ (4.9 m × 4.9 m) squad tents for living quarters Three 4 wk courses are taught: Cost: $85 Ahern (1983) 1951 Five faculty members from OU, two from Huffman (1990) Oklahoma A&M 1952 First permanent buildings completed 1953 First women students: Kansas University (2), Southern Methodist University (1), and OU (8) 1957 Combined kitchen–mess hall and study hall completed Camp contains 23 individual cabins for living quarters 1967 Concrete-block drafting room and faculty office completed 1985 OU gives up lease on camp; OSU enters into a lease agreement with Ms. Tiny Striegel (daughter of Les Huston) 1986 OU stops using camp 1990 Tiny Striegel donates camp property to OSU; camp is officially named “Les Huston Geology Field Camp” 1991 Low enrollment forces cancellation of field camp 1999 Following several years of low enrollment, increasing OSU and out-of-state enrollment helps restore fiscal soundness 2006 OU rejoins OSU at OGC Suneson (2006) Summer flood destroys portion of camp Anonymous (2007) 2007 Study hall converted to temporary femalestudent dormitory until new construction is complete 2008 Seven new four-room cabins (housing eight individuals) and modern shower and toilet facilities are completed; reconstruction is funded completely by individual and corporate donors Six original cabins remain for faculty housing One 5 wk course is taught: Cost $2475 Enrollment capped at 60 students
the coursework at both the undergraduate and graduate levels at OSU and OU emphasizes sedimentary rocks and geophysics, and the curriculum at field camp reflects that emphasis. The OGC curriculum is built around two seemingly contradictory observations. We recognize that (1) most of our students will never map surface geology throughout their entire professional careers, yet we believe that (2) a course in field geology is important even for students who want a career in the petroleum industry. The importance of a course in field geology has not changed since 1985 when American Association of Petroleum
Field camp: Using traditional methods to train future petroleum geologists Field Camp Attendance 70
60
Total Number of students
50
40
30
Out of state
20
OSU
OU
10
0 1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Figure 4. Graph showing recent student attendance at the Oklahoma Geology Camp. OSU—Oklahoma State University; OU—University of Oklahoma.
Geologists (AAPG) President William Fisher, concerned over the uncertainties in the industry, appointed a committee to determine what the future petroleum geologist should know. “The future will require the same background as today: the fundamentals of geology, including field geology, as well as the physical sciences and mathematics will still be required” (Berg, 1986, p. 1167). The importance of field geology and especially summer field camp is echoed in the AAPG Division of Professional Affairs book, Guiding Your Career as a Professional Geologist: “Summer field camp is particularly important because students are forced to use their powers of observation and deduction to complete practical projects and compile reports in a limited time frame, in addition to being exposed to ‘real geology’” (Gray, 2006, p. 5). The OGC course emphasizes finding, observing, recording, and interpreting “real” geologic features and accurately presenting those data and interpretations on maps, cross sections, measured sections, and in reports. An equally important concept involves keeping the data separate from the interpretations. Heath’s (2003) observations regarding the importance of field geology and mapping skills to the North American petroleum industry are particularly relevant to our philosophy and goals. He surveyed 62 American and Canadian oil companies and found it “intriguing … (that) the low rankings and scores given for field and mapping skills … (suggested they) are of only marginal importance to most companies” (p. 1399). However, these same companies preferred their new hires to have between 55 and 60 days of field experience. Heath (2003, p. 1408) suggested that “field and mapping training not only developed skills in collecting, evaluating, and interpreting geologic data, but also enhanced several other skills (including) … oral communication, report writing, teamwork, planning, and project management….” Geophysics ranked high as a needed skill, whereas simple geographic information systems (GIS) ranked 14 out of 15 as a needed computer skill.
29
In his “Advice for Students” column, 2003–2004 AAPG President Steve Sonnenberg listed his “top ten” suggestions for students, which elaborated on Heath’s (2003) study. Sonnenberg (2003) advised students to “learn teamwork skills, build your net, and learn leadership skills.” For these reasons, the OGC curriculum emphasizes traditional field methods. Accurate observations at the hand-lens, outcrop, and field-area scale are critical for the maps and reports that the students complete (Fig. 5). The faculty stress the difference between observations and interpretations. We believe that asking students to support their interpretations using carefully documented field evidence teaches a skill that will benefit them throughout their professional careers. Most of the fieldwork is done by small (three to four students) groups (Fig. 6); this ensures safety, mixes students with varying academic backgrounds and physical strengths, and introduces the students to the team concept, which is fundamental in most of the petroleum industry. Team leaders are assigned, and they have to manage the team’s time and efforts in order to complete the field projects. Like making good field observations, we believe that working with others is a skill that will serve our students well in the future. To demonstrate that a traditional field method such as measuring and describing a stratigraphic section is an applicable and necessary skill for the professional geoscientist, we ask students to describe sections of sediment and rock cores in the field camp
Figure 5. Students sketching outcrop along Phantom Canyon Road. Students first sketch this outcrop free-hand, and then they are given a photomosaic as a base. Well-foliated Proterozoic metamorphic rocks on the right are faulted against Ordovician Manitou Dolomite and Harding Sandstone on the left, and both are unconformably overlain by Pleistocene gravel. This exercise emphasizes the need for careful field observations at two scales (hand lens, outcrop) and requires the students to keep their observations (gravel overlies bedrock) and interpretations (the contact is an unconformity) separate. The exercise also shows the students that prior preparation and having the proper “equipment” (in this case, having a pre-prepared photomosaic) make the job easier and more accurate.
30
Puckette and Suneson tify faults, joints, unconformities, and a variety of depositional, diagenetic, and weathering features. Computers are provided for plotting GPS waypoints and report preparation, but students draft their measured sections and geologic maps and cross sections by hand (based on the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] geological quadrangle [GQ] model), rather than using a graphics program. Most of our students will never use these specific technologies after they leave field camp if, in fact, they are still available in 5 yr, and we would rather the students focus their time and energy (and frustrations) on field problems and not software problems. PRE–FIELD CAMP PREPARATION
Figure 6. Geology student team in Grape Creek mapping area. All of the major field projects and some of the short projects are completed by the students working in teams. In addition to safety, this introduces the students to the team concept and requires one of the students to accept a leadership role. We believe this experience will serve the students well in their professional careers.
teaching collection. At this point, students are reminded of the importance of cuttings and core data to the field of petroleum geology and other subdisciplines. Students are asked to document the internal features of cores and outcrops and interpret not only a single subunit within the section, but to extend their interpretations to adjacent beds, allowing for the reconstruction of depositional sequences. An additional field geology skill that is critical in petroleum geology is knowledge of one’s location; although the methods may differ, the importance of knowing where one is in the field when constructing a geologic map is similar to knowing where formation tops are located when drawing a subsurface structure-contour map. The OGC does not rely on the latest mapping software or field-ready laptops. While global positioning system (GPS) and georeferenced digital ortho quarter quads (DOQQs) are provided for student use, the emphasis in our curriculum is on accurate note taking, sketching, observing one’s position relative to landforms, and triangulation to topographic features with Brunton compasses to establish location. GPS units are provided, but their role is relegated to one of assistance in locating positions and not reliance. Our emphasis on field sketches is designed to encourage students to develop their skills at visualization to the point where students begin to see features as they are and not as they are perceived. We realize that the majority of our field students will not be engaged in fieldwork as professionals, but most will be charged with describing 3-D subsurface features in a 2-D format. A field experience that provides the opportunity to map faulted and folded strata creates an opportunity for students to determine the difference between apparent and true dip (and thickness); recognize repeated and faulted-out sections; and iden-
Most of the students who attend the OGC have relatively limited experience with field methods and mapping through the courses they take as undergraduates. Student experience varies, from the OU students, who have taken a required, full-semester, junior-level course titled “Introductory Field Geology,” to some students whose departments do not own Brunton compasses. The faculty attempt to address these imbalances and “level the playing field” the first few days of field camp. Most of the faculty meet with the students from OSU and OU once or twice during the spring semester prior to field camp. We introduce ourselves and review the curriculum and necessary equipment. Many of the students have heard rumors (both true and false) about field camp from their older colleagues, and these meetings are an attempt to allay any concerns the students might have. In addition to the meetings, the faculty stay in touch with the students via e-mail. The emphasis of our curriculum on sedimentary rocks and processes does not mean that we exclude igneous and metamorphic rocks. The exercise in the Late Proterozoic folded metamorphic terrane is likely the last time that many of our students will actively examine metamorphic and igneous rocks. When asked, we willingly share information concerning the curriculum with faculty and students of institutions that are considering sending students to the camp. We wish to ensure potential out-of-state attendees that our curriculum aligns with the expectations of their home institutions. FIELD CAMP CURRICULUM The field camp curriculum changes from year to year based partly on faculty availability and partly on student comments. Unlike some field camps, the mapping projects are not based on faculty research interests (except for the geophysics); most of the field areas have remained the same for decades and are ideally suited for undergraduate students. The curriculum can be divided into five broad categories: introduction to field techniques, short projects, major projects, field geophysics, and field trips. The following description is that of the 2008 field camp; future camps are not likely to be greatly different. About two days at the beginning of camp are spent reviewing and/or learning fundamental field techniques, including
Field camp: Using traditional methods to train future petroleum geologists determining one’s pace, using a Brunton compass to take strikes and dips and determine bearings and azimuths, using a Jacob’s staff to measure sections, completing an orienteering exercise, and properly locating and recording some simple geologic features on a topographic map. The students are required to turn in a number of small, individual exercises based on these techniques. They draft a closed polygon set up in camp using their pace and bearings; they determine the thickness of a “pseudo”-measured section that goes up a slope and in which the dip changes; they measure and correctly plot the strikes and dips on the flat surfaces of some boulders near camp; and they construct a simple geologic map. For some students who have learned these techniques in previous courses, the exercises are a review. Our experience is that, in general, the review is needed and that the exercises bring all students up to the same level of familiarity with the field techniques. Three short projects expose the students to some aspects of field geology not covered or emphasized elsewhere in the course. The first might properly be considered a fundamental field technique—sketching an outcrop. After the students learn the stratigraphy of the area, they are taken to a moderately complicated road cut (several units, major unconformity, open folds, faults) and are asked to sketch it, to scale, on graph paper (Fig. 5). After an hour or two, the sketches are collected, and the faculty review the road cut with the students. Next, photomosaics of the outcrop are distributed, and the students are asked to resketch it. The primary purpose of this exercise is to sharpen the students’ observation and recording skills and to emphasize the importance of drawings and not just words in their field notebooks. A secondary purpose is to show the students that, with forethought, a better “base” such as a photomosaic can be designed that will allow them to record their data more accurately. A second short project includes measuring and drafting three sections of the same formation (Ralston Creek Formation) that shows significant facies changes, from dominantly gypsum with subordinate siltstone to conglomerate and sandstone. (A fourth section is part of a larger measured section described under major projects.) This project, done in teams, is completed in one day, and time management is critical. In addition, the students are asked to try to correlate the sections based on lithologic markers. (There are none.) The professional skills that the students develop are the recognition of rapid lateral facies changes and definitive marker beds, both of which are important in the petroleum industry. The third short project involves individually mapping isoclinally folded Late Proterozoic interbedded schists and quartzites that are intruded by pegmatite dikes and a granodiorite pluton. One goal of this exercise is for students to identify some very subtle sedimentary structures in the quartzites that indicate facing direction and therefore establish the axes and types of folds. This exercise continues to sharpen students’ observational abilities. A second goal is to give the students a brief exposure to mapping metamorphic and plutonic rocks. There are four major team projects that have been part of the OGC for years and parts of other university field camps, as well.
31
The first takes two days and involves measuring and describing the entire stratigraphic section from the Fountain Formation (Pennsylvanian) through the Smoky Hill Marl (Late Cretaceous). Following the fieldwork, the section is drafted using a provided template and following some strict guidelines. The first major mapping project (Grape Creek) takes place in the same area as the measured section; thus, the students are relatively familiar with the geology. The area consists of monoclinally tilted and locally faulted strata and is the most simple of the three project areas to map (Fig. 2). The second major mapping project is known as the Mixing Bowl. It is more complex than Grape Creek, and the students have to recognize and map several major faults and unconformities. The final mapping project is on Twin Mountain, about 6 mi (9.5 km) northwest of Cañon City. The geology is complex, and the terrain is rugged. The final product for all the mapping projects consists of a neatly drafted and colored geologic map with cross section(s), explanation, correlation of units, and description of units; the students are supplied with templates (with decreasing amount of provided information) that generally follow the format used for USGS geologic maps. The major field projects have three principal goals. (1) They test and continue to develop the students’ observational skills, from accurately describing the strata to correctly determining thicknesses and locating themselves, and they develop interpretative abilities. The faculty emphasize that these skills are similar to describing and interpreting core and cuttings in dipping strata or in subhorizontal strata in a deviated well. (2) They require carefully completed written products (maps, measured sections, reports) done in a timely manner. (3) Perhaps most important, the major projects require working in the field and in the “office” as part of a team, and this requires good leadership, good planning, good time management, and good cooperation amongst the team members. Goals 2 and 3 are skills most geologists will recognize as key to their professional development and success. A hands-on experience with geophysical equipment as part of a real research project is a key component of the OGC. The goal of this exercise is to demonstrate that geophysics is a useful and understandable tool for geological studies, and many of our students who choose to pursue careers in the petroleum industry will work with geophysicists. In recent years, the emphasis has been on gravity and magnetic measurements, which have significantly complemented ongoing research on the structure and tectonics of the area. The students have responded very well to the fact that what they are doing has a significant scientific impact. This approach means that the exercise is not structured as one that would be repeated the same way each year, but this is offset by the message sent that the work they are doing is of professional quality, will be used in the M.S. thesis of the graduate assistant who is helping run the exercise, and will be presented at a Geological Society of America meeting. We have been able to gain access to three Worden gravimeters and one LaCoste-Romberg gravimeter each year, and together with three proton precession magnetometers and geodetic-grade GPS units, the value of this equipment is ~$200,000.
32
Puckette and Suneson
The University of Texas at El Paso, New Mexico Tech, and Missouri State University have each loaned us equipment to make this possible. The students are divided into two groups that spend three days on their geophysical project. We have enough equipment to form six teams within each group. Each team spends one day in the field making gravity measurements, another day making magnetic measurements, and a third day making traditional corrections to the raw data to produce useful anomaly values, and writing a report. The students also take a GPS reading with a handheld unit at each gravity and magnetic station and take notes about the rocks that crop out nearby (if present). The report must include a discussion of their survey results and a subjective interpretation of the anomalies that they observed. In order to make their interpretations, they must think through the density and magnetic susceptibility values appropriate for the rather exotic rock types that are present. Thus, they must think through the various permutations of positive and negative anomaly parings between gravity and magnetic observations to arrive at an interpretation. Only a handful of our students have taken a geophysics course, so this exercise is an eye-opening experience in which they learn that these measurements are straightforward to make, reduce to anomaly values, and subjectively interpret. In fact, each team must write its own spreadsheet program using reduction formulas that are provided. An additional lesson that is stressed is that high-precision elevations (± a few centimeters) can only be obtained with geodetic-grade instruments and postprocessing. This is demonstrated easily to doubting students as they reoccupy the base station and some of their gravity and magnetic stations in order to keep track of drift and earth tides. They are usually surprised when the GPS readings show a variation in elevation that is as much as 10 m, which is considerably more than the manufacturer’s claim. On the other hand, they learn that their gravity readings are very consistent and that Earth’s magnetic field is quite dynamic due to the diurnal variation. They also learn that the diurnal variations are “noise” that must be removed via the drift correction. We usually have some equipment problems that have never been permanent, so they also learn that most problems are due to factors such as dead batteries and loose connections. Thus, we are ultimately able to demonstrate that geophysics is not beyond their grasp and that the field procedures involve many of the same principles as geological observations. Field trips are an important part of the OGC and (sometimes) provide a welcome respite from the “grind” of mapping and measuring (Fig. 7). Some trips are to parts of Colorado that many of our students have never visited, and all (except the first) focus on aspects of geology that are not covered in the rest of the course. A final written exam tests the students’ understanding of the geology of the field-trip areas. Although most of our students will enter the petroleum industry, some will go into minerals exploration, environmental geology, or other fields, and the field trips broaden all the students’ exposure to a wide variety of subdisciplines. Depending on student interest, optional trips on the weekend to collect minerals are run by individual faculty mem-
Figure 7. Students looking for Eocene leaf and insect fossils at privately owned Florissant Fossil Quarry outside of Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument. The field trips not only are a welcome break from the normal routine of field camp, but they expose the students to geology they do not see at their home universities or during the course of project mapping.
Figure 8. Introductory field trip including Marsh-Felch dinosaur-bone quarry, Morrison Formation (Jurassic). The thick channel sandstone forming the upper part of the cliff is the same as that shown in the 1888 photograph by I.C. Russell (Henry et al., 2004, figure 54), and the large talus cone in the lower left consists of dump material from the quarry. In addition to some rest and relaxation, field trips are used to take students to famous historical sites and to outcrops that exhibit classic geological structures, such as the gently dipping bedsets at the top of the cliff (point-bar deposits).
bers. A key trip is held on the first day of camp, and it provides the students with an overview of the stratigraphy and structure of the Cañon City area (Figs. 1, 3, and 8). (Many of the stops on this first field trip, as well as some later trips, are described in an excellent guidebook by Henry et al., 2004.) In 2008, two field
Field camp: Using traditional methods to train future petroleum geologists trips went to current and historic mining districts. Geologists employed by the Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Mining Company took the camp on a tour of the Victor Mine and discussed with the students the geology of the Oligocene magmatism and mineralization and modern gold-mining techniques. After the mine tour, the students visited the historic Molly Kathleen Mine, which, despite the appearance of a tourist trap, is highly educational and worth the tour fee. The second “mine” trip was to the Leadville district. Here, the students visited the National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum, collected minerals on the old mine dumps, visited and discussed a stream with acid mine drainage (pH ~ 1–2), and had snowball fights. Another one-day field trip in 2008 was to the 1.1-Ga-old Pikes Peak batholith and to Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument. This trip exposed the students to some of the intrusive rocks that make up the basement of the Colorado Front Range and the geology of some of the Tertiary volcanic fields, including a lahar deposit similar to the one that formed Lake Florissant and the widespread late Eocene Wall Mountain Tuff. An experimental field trip went to the Denver Basin, where the students examined the synorogenic sediments eroded off the Laramide uplifts and an exposure of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary layer. For many of the field trips, we rely on local experts to either lead the field trip (e.g., Denver Basin), give us presentations (e.g., Florissant), or provide references to the literature and/or unpublished guidebooks (e.g., Pikes Peak). In the past, the OGC has taken trips to the Spanish Peaks, Calumet Iron Mine, Great Sand Dunes National Park, Garden of the Gods, and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. ASSESSMENTS Individual student mastery of learning objectives that address fundamental technical skills such as mapping and measuring sections is assessed using a grading rubric. Student development in observational skills and realistic field sketches is assessed for all projects by collecting and reviewing individual student field notebooks. Appropriate descriptions and/or sketches of specific features such as weathering profiles, faults, folds, contact geometry, and internal features are used as criteria for evaluating student mastery. Individual assessment culminates with a final consisting of an individual mapping exercise and a written exam on the field trips. Assessing student mastery of the ability to work in teams is problematic. After each team exercise, students are asked to confidentially report how effectively team members worked together and their perception of the distribution of workload. Student comments after projects completed toward the beginning of camp are overwhelmingly more generous than comments made later in the course. When negative student comments concerning a student’s contribution to the fieldwork and/or in-camp project report preparation corroborate observations made by faculty, the problem is discussed with the student. The success of building team skills is often reinforced by anecdotal comments by former
33
camp attendees who remark how valuable the team concept was in teaching them to work with others in the professional setting. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES At the end of field camp, the students complete evaluations of the course, faculty, and TAs as required by OSU and OU. In addition, the faculty ask students to rank and comment on the field trips. These evaluations are seriously considered when changes are made to the curriculum. An example of a recent change (and one made at the recommendation of the students) was the addition of a final individual mapping exam. Although the core field projects at camp have remained the same for many years, the faculty are constantly striving to improve the course. Despite these efforts, challenges remain, and the faculty are open to suggestions from colleagues, other field-camp faculty, and students. Some of our more salient issues and challenges include: 1. Separating students from the same schools and selecting team leaders. We strongly favor the team concept and assigning team leaders; we also believe in separating students from the same schools as much as possible. However, the physical abilities, academic backgrounds (including field experience), and work ethic of the team members can vary greatly, and how to account for this when grading the team’s final product is difficult. We ask individual team members to give us a written evaluation of the “team’s effectiveness”; this is an opportunity for the students to let us know who may not have contributed as much as the others. 2. Differing work ethic between students who take the course for a letter grade and those who receive a pass/fail grade. Most of the students take the course for a letter grade; some, however, take the course pass/fail. This can lead to significantly different work efforts among different team members, particularly toward the end of camp. We have tried to lessen this problem by not putting letter-grade and pass/fail students on the same teams for the final mapping project. 3. Differing biological clocks. Some students like going to bed early; others are “night owls.” The cabins at camp are relatively close to each other; none are sound-proofed; and so noise can be a problem, despite 10:00 p.m. weekday and 12:00 a.m. weekend “noise curfews.” Next year, we plan to ask students about their social habits (much like the freshmen-dormitory questionnaires many universities distribute) in an effort to house students with similar living styles together. 4. Student attitude toward a required field course. The 2008 camp presented the faculty with some unique issues. Many of the students planned to work for the petroleum industry following camp, either permanently, as full-time summer interns, and/ or part-time as graduate students in the fall. Most starting annual salaries exceeded $50,000 and, in some cases, exceeded $80,000. Some of these students carried an air of superiority into camp, some believed fieldwork was a waste of their time, and others simply had too much money to spend on diversions. As faculty, we continue to struggle with wanting to treat our students as adults, while realizing that they are, in fact, young adults.
34
Puckette and Suneson
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DEDICATION We are especially grateful to several faculty who have been part of the Oklahoma Geology Camp over the past several years and have given us many ideas for improving the curriculum, particularly Tom Stanley (University of Oklahoma [OU] and Oklahoma Geological Survey), Randy Keller (OU), George Bolling (University of Colorado, Colorado Springs), Charles Ferguson (Arizona Geological Survey), and Aaron Johnson (currently Northwest Missouri State University). We also thank the many teaching assistants who have so often enlightened us about the issues facing today’s students. Many of the field projects would not be possible without the permission of several local landowners; Dee Chess, Kit Kederich, and Dave Rooks have kindly allowed us to map and measure on their property. Carly Henry has, year after year, graciously shown us the exceptional trace fossils in the Harding Sandstone on her ranch. We are also grateful to the many geologists who have led our field trips, particularly those from the Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Mining Company and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, as well as those organizations that have graciously given us discounts to visit their sites, including Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, Pikes Peak America’s Mountain, the National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum, and the Mollie Kathleen Gold Mine. Dave Mogk, Peter Crowley, and an anonymous reviewer made many helpful comments that improved this manuscript. We would also like to thank the organizers of this volume on field camps, Steve Whitmeyer and Dave Mogk, for inviting us to think and write about our camp, our curriculum, and our students. Last, but very certainly not least, this manuscript would not have been possible without the enthusiasm and vast knowledge of the history of the Oklahoma Geology Camp provided by Tiny Striegel. Her concern for and interest in the students,
staff, and faculty underscore her devotion to the Les Huston Geology Field Camp. For these reasons and so many more, this paper is dedicated to her. REFERENCES CITED Adleta, S., 1985, New field camp strategy mapped out: The Oklahoma Daily, 5 July 1985, p. 11. Ahern, C., 1983, Field camp seen with a journalist’s eye: Earth Scientist (University of Oklahoma), Fall issue, p. 2–8. Anonymous, 2007, Geology enthusiasts revitalize field camp: State Magazine (Oklahoma State University), v. 3, no. 1, p. 74–87. Berg, R.R., 1986, The future petroleum geologist: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 70, p. 1166–1168. Gray, P.G., 2006, Educational foundation for a geological career, in Rose, P.R., and Sonnenberg, S.A., eds., Guiding Your Career as a Professional Geologist: Tulsa, Oklahoma, Division of Professional Affairs, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, p. 5–7; available at http://dpa.aapg.org/ career_guide.pdf (accessed 23 July 2009). Heath, C.P.M., 2003, Geological, geophysical, and other technical and soft skills needed by geoscientists in the North American petroleum industry: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 87, p. 1395– 1410. Henry, T.W., Evanoff, E., Grenard, D.A., Meyer, H.W., and Vardiman, D.M., 2004, Geologic Guidebook to the Gold Belt Byway, Colorado: Gold Belt Tour Scenic and Historic Byway Association, 112 p. Huffman, G.G., 1990, History of the School of Geology and Geophysics, The University of Oklahoma: Norman, Oklahoma, Alumni Advisory Council of the School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, 312 p. Scott, G.R., Taylor, R.B., Epis, R.C., and Wobus, R.A., 1978, Geologic Map of the Pueblo 1° × 2° Quadrangle, South-Central Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1022, scale 1:250,000, 2 sheets. Sonnenberg, S.A., 2003, Advice for Students Applies to All of Us: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Explorer, v. 24, no. 12, p. 3, 6: http://www.aapg.org/explorer/president/2003/12dec.cfm (accessed 28 July 2009). Suneson, N.H., 2006, 2006 SGS summer field camp, Cañon City, Colorado: Earth Scientist (University of Oklahoma), 2006 issue, p. 68–70.
MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Introductory field geology at the University of New Mexico, 1984 to today: What a “long, strange trip” it continues to be John W. Geissman Grant Meyer Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Northrop Hall MSC03 2040, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-0001, USA
INTRODUCTION: EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCES 319L (INTRODUCTORY FIELD GEOLOGY)—A BRIEF HISTORY Both the role and importance of a field geology course, or courses, in the academic program of geoscience departments across the United States are exceptionally varied and have remained so for decades. For some departments (e.g., Indiana University, Louisiana State University, University of Michigan, University of Missouri), the operation and maintenance of a “permanent” field camp or station, tucked away in some prime location in the Rocky Mountains, is a source of great pride, achievement, and fond memories, certainly for alumni of the field camp! For other departments, “roughing it” on one camping and mapping adventure after another, often with several students who have never put up a tent before, provides great stimulation and satisfaction. This version of a field geology course, which ours certainly resembles, may simply reflect a very barebones budget! For other departments, the approach is simple— all of their majors are told to simply take field geology courses administered by other institutions. Regardless of the approach, most, if not all, of the instructors involved in such courses have a strong conviction that field-based learning is a critical part of geoscience education. We share the opinion of Drummond (2001) concerning the need for field camps to survive and of Kastens et al. (2009) that “field-based learning helps students develop a feel for Earth processes, a sense of scale, an ability to integrate fragmentary information, to reason spatially, to visualize changes through time, and to analyze the quality and certainty of observational data.” The field geology program at the University of New Mexico underwent a major transition in the mid-1980s. For several decades and largely for convenience, the Department of Geology (since the mid-1990s, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences), had taught field geology on the weekends during the academic year. Nonetheless, the department, with considerable reluctance on the part of some of the faculty, agreed to move the field geology classes to full-fledged summer courses at a time when downturns in the hydrocarbon and minerals exploration industries as well as the economy of the State of New Mexico gave this educational initiative a limited chance of success. The way in which this initiative came about is narrated in a brief story in the Appendix, but it is important to emphasize that the motivators responsible for this change had strong pedagogical reasons for endorsing an extended, back-to-back, three week, “in-residence” field course as opposed to weekend-day outings. Briefly, the motivators, both of whom had considerable experience teaching summer field geology courses, argued that the experiences students gained while immersed, day in and day out, in field geologic investigation while interacting with a broad range of colleagues, were simply too valuable, and far more beneficial in terms of learning goals and outcomes, than single-day efforts when students were more concerned about, for example, an exam back on campus the following day.
The transition came with lots of major bumps, but that is not the principal subject of this contribution. The critical part of this history is the way in which these hurdles and/or decisions related to the transition were dealt with. Notably, during the phased process of initiating 319L and 420L as summer field courses, the first author and Professor Stephen G. Wells were confronted with the question of combining the courses into a single, eight-credit course with a duration of about seven weeks, or keeping them separate. At that time, the University of New Mexico (UNM) did not charge out of state tuition for classes of four credit hours or less. We concluded that this policy would facilitate attracting numerous non-UNM students to both courses, and indeed it has, over many years. For example, in summer 2008, EPS 319L had a total of 32 students enrolled, 18 of whom were from outside UNM. The issue of instructor support was, initially, quickly dealt with. There would be no additional compensation for teaching the classes, but a reduced teaching load during the academic year may be considered in the future. At present, each faculty instructor does receive extra compensation and the principal faculty instructor for each course receives a modest teaching load reduction. In addition, all of the graduate student teaching assistants receive compensation at a level that is consistent with their duties in each class, and that is comparable to the support that they would receive during the academic year for a nearly equal commitment. COURSE INFORMATION AND PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES Background Earth and Planetary Sciences 319L (still four credits) is presently required of all EPS geoscience bachelor of science (BS) majors. The follow-up course (EPS 420L, Advanced Field Geology, also four credits) is not required of EPS students for any undergraduate degree. EPS 319L begins on the day after UNM’s spring commencement, with a 3-h-long organizational meeting, and we hit the field the following day for the first of several field mapping projects. The total duration of the course is 3 wk. The number of students in 319L typically is between 16 and 32. The norm is often the exception in that the students have a diversity of backgrounds and academic training. Ideally, EPS 319L is taken after the junior year, so that students will have taken, minimally, mineralogy, petrology, sedimentology/ stratigraphy, and structural geology. In addition, many students will also have taken Earth History. Regardless of course background, our expectation is that all students have obtained a basic understanding of how rocks can be identified and described in the field and are able to understand why field predictions, based on previously made observations, are so critical to field geologic investigations. These expectations are fully consistent with department-established learning outcomes for UNM EPS BS majors. Our approach in teaching this course adheres to four important guidelines. The first is that we respect the diversity of
Introductory field geology at the University of New Mexico, 1984 to today knowledge, skills, interests, and abilities that the students bring to the class. The second is that we start slowly; this is described in greater detail in our discussion of the first project, and in the mechanics of the to-be-described postage stamp map exercises. The third is that quick, informative, and constructive instructor feedback is of critical importance. The fourth is our goal of giving the students, over the short period of time allowed for the course, a maximized opportunity to inspect, describe, map, and interpret clearly displayed field relations involving as diverse an array of geologic materials and features as possible. With few exceptions, all of the instructors in the course constantly roam around each mapping area, interacting with pairs of students. Other than during group-based introductions to each of the mapping projects and related exercises, students spend all of their time working with at least one partner on specific exercises. For the first two projects, the students are permitted to choose their own partners; for the final mapping project, the instructors choose their mapping partners. Finally, time simply does not allow for group field trips to other areas that are not directly pertinent to each of the exercises in the course. Mapping Projects In contrast to some field geology courses, EPS 319L has involved the same field mapping areas since 1992 (Fig. 1). At the start of each EPS 319L class, the students are informed that their mapping projects have been visited by several previous 319L classes. We explain that the geology of each of these areas is sufficiently well exposed to allow students, over the time allocated for each project, to observe and record all essential and critical field relations and interpret those relations in the context of the geologic history of the area. Furthermore, each of these areas has been chosen because the field relations illustrate several different and important geologic processes. Although we have visited these areas many times, every year students discover a new exposure or make a new observation (e.g., the discovery of Codellaster keepersae, a new genus and species of the asteroid family Goniasteridae by Ms. Kendra Keepers, a 319L student in 2001; Blake and Kues, 2002), and this reinforces our point to them that a complete understanding of any part of our planet may be out of our reach! Next, we briefly describe the geology of the three field areas. Despite the fact that each field area has its distinct characteristics and each field project has its distinct set of goals, the general processes that are exhibited by each area, and more specific field relations, all intertwine to provide students with an ability to decipher and describe in writing, the post-Triassic geologic history of the Southern Rocky Mountains. While in the field on the last day of the class, instructors talk with the students about current observations that can be directly related to those made on the first day of the class. Furthermore, the projects have been carefully selected to facilitate the sequential acquisition of knowledge about this geologic history and the development of specific skills in identifying, recording, and interpreting field geologic relations.
37
Huerfano Park P rk
Colorado do do
37°N
w Mexico New
San S Ysidro Y A buq Albuquerque
Bac ca Canyon Can Ca nyon Baca 100 km
107°W
Figure 1. Locations of EPS 319L mapping projects superimposed on shaded-relief digital elevation model of north-central New Mexico and south-central Colorado. The digital shaded relief map is from the U.S. Geological Survey nationalmap.gov database.
The first project (White Mesa) is completed over 3 days and is located in the San Ysidro area northwest of Albuquerque, which features outstanding exposures of mildly folded and faulted Upper Triassic to mid-Cretaceous strata at the southern end of the Sierra Nacimiento. The stratigraphic section records the regional transition from a shallow, nonmarine depositional environment characterized by the Triassic Chinle Group through the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation, to the inception of the Cretaceous Interior Seaway, along with the nearshore mid-Cretaceous Dakota Formation and laterally equivalent, time-transgressive deposits (Owen, 1982; Lucas et al., 1985; Condon and Peterson, 1986; Anderson and Lucas, 1996). The area lies along the western margin of the Albuquerque Basin part of the Rio Grande rift (Ingersoll, 2001; Connell, 2004), and several rift-related structures are superimposed on earlier features related to crustal shortening. The introduction to this project (day one) is approached very slowly. The complete group makes a total of only six stops during the entire day. Each stop focuses on a critical map unit and/or field relationship in the mapping area, and each spot is not left until all questions have been answered, and all comments have been made. Students map an area less than 1 km2, with excellent exposures of both bedrock geology and surficial deposits.
38
Geissman and Meyer
The second project (Baca Canyon–Spears Ranch) is located southwest of Riley, New Mexico, along the western margin of the Rio Grande rift, on the eastern flank of the Bear Mountains. The field project duration is also 3 days, and it is the first camping-based endeavor in the course. The stratigraphic section in the area includes mid-Cretaceous Interior Seaway deposits of the Crevasse Canyon Formation. These rocks are disconformably overlain by the Eocene Baca Formation, a classic hematitic sandstone-siltstone-mudstone sequence of continental affinity deposited during the waning stages of Laramide crustal shortening in the region. Disconformably overlying the Baca sequence, there is the Eocene Spears Formation, an intermediate-composition, volcaniclastic sequence representing the distal products of the initial phase of post-Laramide intermediatecomposition magmatism in the Mogollon-Datil volcanic field. Spears Formation strata are overlain by outflow facies of several regionally extensive, large-volume ash-flow tuffs, including the Hell’s Mesa, La Jencia, and Vick’s Peak ignimbrites. The post-Spears sequence of volcanic deposits also includes intermediate-composition lavas and domes of the La Jara Peak andesite (Osburn and Chapin, 1983; Cather and Chapin, 1989). The western part of the mapping area exposes a west-dipping normal fault zone that has accommodated at least 400 m of down-to-the-west throw; this fault zone and several comparable structures can be traced northward and define the westernmost margin of the Rio Grande rift (Lewis and Baldridge, 1994). The east-central part of the mapping area includes a narrow topographic high (“Nemo’s Ridge”) that is actually the geomorphic expression of an eroded graben, where more resistant Spears Formation strata have been down-dropped against less resistant Baca strata. Students are expected to provide a map of an area that is ~2 km2. They quickly realize, based on their accumulated skills, that although about half of the area is covered by Quaternary deposits, the bedrock is readily inferred. The third project area for the course, in Huerfano Park of south-central Colorado, provides the students with the opportunity for related investigations that run over the last half of the course period. The main mapping investigation (Point of Rocks, Fig. 2), which includes six full field mapping days, involves marine strata of the mid-Cretaceous Interior Seaway sequence (e.g., Dakota Sandstone, Graneros Shale, Greenhorn Limestone, into the Niobrara Group) (Kauffman, 1977; Laferriere et al., 1987; Obradovich, 1993; Sageman, 1996). These strata have been intensely folded and faulted (with east-northeast vergence during latest Cretaceous to early Tertiary crustal shortening associated with the Laramide orogeny) and are exceptionally well exposed along the eastern flank of the Sangre de Cristo Range, just north of Redwing, Colorado (Burbank and Goddard, 1937; Lindsey et al., 1983; Lindsey, 1998; Wawrzyniec et al., 2002). Prior to this mapping project, students are introduced to a very similar stratigraphic section to that exposed in the mapping area but in a nearly undeformed and nearly continuously exposed state. As a full group, the students inspect this section near Highway 69, at the southeast tip of the Wet
Mountains, ~50 km east of the mapping area, where the rocks dip uniformly to the southeast. They then spend the next day recording a detailed stratigraphic log of the entire sequence, using a Jacob’s staff for thickness measurements. The third project focuses on Quaternary landscape evolution in the Huerfano River valley, and it involves inspecting and mapping last glacial features near the headwaters of the Huerfano River as well as older well-preserved terraces and associated deposits that extend into the main Point of Rocks mapping area (Fig. 2). In fact, the terrace gravel deposits have acted as a resistant cap (e.g., Mackin, 1937) over relatively erodible parts of the Cretaceous section, such that the best bedrock exposures are found around the escarpments bordering the terrace treads. A Middle Pleistocene stream capture enhanced the preservation of the older terrace sequence. The terrace gravels also contain late Paleozoic and Proterozoic rock types not exposed in the Point of Rocks area that were eroded from the Sangre de Cristo range to the west, closer toward the core of the Laramide uplift. Thus, mapping and description of surficial geologic and geomorphic features in the Point of Rocks area helps students to understand a landscape evolution story, from the scale of the mapping area to that of the southern Colorado region (Dethier et al., 2003), as well as one that integrates well with the longer-term geologic history unraveled through bedrock geologic mapping. In the bedrock geologic mapping project, each student and her/ his mapping partner are assigned to a northern or southern map area, each of which is ~2 km2 in area. Each mapping group is required to meet up with a designated group from the other map area, to make certain that the geology of all their maps is consistent across the north-south boundary, and to make further observations to resolve any problems cooperatively. Several locations in each map area expose critical field relations at a scale that requires students to make numerous plan view and cross-section sketches in order to adequately understand and record these relations. In total, the four mapping projects represent our best efforts to provide students in EPS 319L with the broadest experience possible over a very short period of time, but also with serious attention to detail, as emphasized in the following section. This is enabled by a region in which several tectonic provinces occur in close proximity (Woodward, 1984) and where several geomorphic processes have been active. For each of the three main projects, the standard requirements include the original (field) map, a final map, cross section, legend for both the map and cross section, succinct map unit descriptions, and a project write up/summary of the geologic history. For the first project, students are based in Albuquerque and complete most of the project requirements during a long single day in Albuquerque. For the second project, at Baca Canyon, we camp out for three nights. Students cook for themselves, in small groups, and at least one large tent is set up with large tables to encourage student efforts in the evening. In addition, we use a high-efficiency generator with lowwattage lighting for work in the tent and surrounding areas. For the Huerfano projects, the students stay on private land and again
Introductory field geology at the University of New Mexico, 1984 to today
39
105°22′30″W
24 433 m 2433
37°45′N
A
B
0
2
4 km
437 43 4372 72 2m
B anca Peak Blanca Peak Figure 2. Digital elevation model (DEM) shaded-relief map of the Huerfano River area, Colorado, showing (A) the Point of Rocks mapping area, where folded and faulted Mesozoic rocks are exposed around the eastern and southern margins of Early to Middle Pleistocene fluvial terraces preserved by stream capture; and (B) last-glacial lateral moraines in the upper Huerfano River valley, part of the Quaternary and surficial geologic mapping focus in this project.
40
Geissman and Meyer
cook in small groups. We use a large, uninhabited dwelling as a base for students to work in. All requirements are completed while at the field camping site, and thus students must work in the evenings, upon return from the field. Feedback Considerable literature bearing on student assessment strongly supports the utility of immediate instructor assessment and feedback to students (e.g., Libarkin and Kurdziel, 2001; Englebrecht et al., 2005). For a fast-moving course with progressive development of understanding and skills such as EPS 319L, feedback must be provided in both a timely and sufficiently detailed fashion. Some forms of immediate feedback in field-oriented courses have been previously described (e.g., Field, 2003). After several years of teaching EPS 319L, we realized that we needed to develop some form of a quick, effective, group-oriented approach to providing student feedback. In each mapping exercise, even after spending nearly a full day introducing students to the specific map areas, and talking about specific strategies for approaching each mapping area, it was clear that it would be useful to bring the entire class back again, after a day or so, to make certain that the entire class was beginning to develop an understanding of the mapping area, observational skills were improving, and there was an opportunity for full group discussion. Over a decade ago, we initiated one specific approach that attempts to address these concerns. For each of the three multiday mapping projects, we involve the students in a focused, very fine-scale mapping effort. We refer to this as the “postage stamp” map exercise, which takes place in a key and illuminating part of each mapping area. The topography of each of these areas has been surveyed using a mapping-grade GPS unit and maps have been prepared as a base for these exercises with a scale of 1:1600–1:2500 and contour intervals of 8 or 10 ft (2.44 m or 3.05 m) (for comparability with the U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps that form the base for the complete map area) (Fig. 3). The postage stamp exercise takes place after at least a full day of introduction to the entire mapping project, including at least some time for students to begin to conduct mapping on their own. Each student concentrates her or his observations and mapping, for a morning, in the small area. All of the instructors roam around with the students, ensuring considerable interaction. At the end of the morning effort, all of the students are brought together to discuss their observations over lunch, and one of the instructors, based on student input, makes a whiteboard sketch of the geology of the postage stamp map (Fig. 4). The discussion is typically very lively, and it is organized to foster as much student input and interaction with the instructors as possible, based in large part on the sketch map of the postage stamp map area (Johnson and Reynolds, 2005). We have found that these group discussions serve several valuable purposes. First, by bringing the class together and having the class discuss their observations together, the confidence of most students
grows considerably. Second, students have the opportunity to plan the next phase of independent mapping with their partner. Third, it ultimately provides the instructors a better foundation for further interaction with the students and a very objective opportunity for “grading” their final field maps, as each postage stamp area lies within the map, and we expect to have at least the highlights of the postage stamp area accurately recorded on their final map. The postage stamp maps are turned in after the lunch “break,” and, although these maps are not part of a student’s final grade, detailed feedback is provided to all students by the end of the day (Fig. 5). The senior instructor is responsible for providing this feedback. Although no rigidly defined scoring rubric (e.g., C.A. Kearns and L.E. Kearns, 2009, personal commun.) is actually used in the inspection of the postage stamp map, rigorous inspection of the maps includes the following features: adequate coverage of the area in terms of showing salient map relations over as much of the area as possible, accuracy of contacts and traces of structures, reasonable number of accurate orientation measurements (strikes and dips of bedding, fault planes, etc.), and neatness. In field geology courses, where time is typically at a premium, and the goal is to maximize student field experience, we view this effort as another useful example of an excellent means to provide beneficial and timely instructor input. The feedback we have received in student evaluations of the course indicates strong support of the use of the postage stamp exercises. Our feedback prior to summer 2008 was not ideal in that UNM formerly required a course evaluation system that was very inflexible and did not allow for specific questions to be posed for specific courses. We simply asked students to provide comments on the postage stamp exercises in the space for written comments. Starting in 2008, UNM switched to the IDEA system, which allows for course-specific questions to be posed to the students. All student responses ranked the postage stamp exercises as excellent. Furthermore, in the context of our assessment of student outcomes for the course, which is the capstone experience in our BS Earth and Planetary Sciences curriculum, the postage stamp exercises play a major role. Because we review the geology of each of the postage stamp map areas as an entire group, and sketch a complete map of the postage stamp area for all students to see and fully understand (Fig. 4), we fully expect that this part of their final map should reflect the outcome of this exercise and be as accurate as possible. Our approach to grading final project maps includes defining several localities where key field relations are particularly well exposed and the mapping of them should present relatively few difficulties for all students. We also factor in the accuracy of locations of specific field relations on student maps but do not approach this with the level of specificity proposed in other approaches (e.g., C.A. Kearns and L.E. Kearns, 2009, personal commun.). In terms of the importance of the postage stamp map exercise, with few exceptions, a comparison of student postage stamp and full field project maps from the first project to the last exercise shows that mapping skills improve.
Introductory field geology at the University of New Mexico, 1984 to today
41
Figure 3. Example of topographic base for the postage stamp map for the Point of Rock mapping project, Huerfano Park, Colorado. Contour interval is 3.048 m (10 ft).
Financial Support Here, we provide a brief discussion of the current means by which support is provided to our Introductory Field Geology course, as well as other summer field courses offered by the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, given that we attempt to provide the highest quality level of instruction to our students with limited financial means. The summer field geology courses are “supported “ by the Summer Instructional Program at the University of New Mexico, through the Provost’s Office, not the College of Arts and Sciences. Each year the department submits a request for the support of our summer
courses and waits to hear if our request has been granted. For example, in summer 2008, the department received a total of $25,500 to support both EPS 319L and EPS 420L; all of these funds went to pay for instructors (1.5 faculty in EPS 319L and two graduate teaching assistants; 1.5 faculty in EPS 420L and two graduate teaching assistants). EPS 319L had a total of 32 students in the course in summer 2008; EPS 420L had a total of 15 students. The tuition charged by the institution (about $800/course) is not returned directly to the college or to the department. This level of support is insufficient to pay for all instructional costs and the operational expenses of each field course, which are in large part absorbed by students through
42
Geissman and Meyer field; understanding how surface field relations can be extrapolated to at least modest depth, in the context of drawing an interpretive cross section; and formulating logical predictions based on observations made. All of these are consistent with departmental learning outcomes established for our Earth and Planetary Sciences BS program. The use of the postage stamp exercises for each of our mapping projects provides a focused, deliberate opportunity for students to hone their observational skills in wellexposed, well-chosen areas where the geology screams that there is much to see, record, interpret, and learn! Our students are not “used” to gather any form of data/observations for our own personal goals; we do not “thrust” our students into a new area where we are unfamiliar with the geology, and have no well-founded basis for knowing how our students will benefit from inspecting and attempting to map such areas. Field geology instruction will continue to take many forms and evolve, but it must remain a critical, feedback-based component of geoscience education. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Figure 4. Senior author discussing an “interpretive” and approximate (i.e., not to scale) sketch geologic map of the postage stamp mapping area, Point of Rocks mapping project, Huerfano Park, Colorado.
fees for each course. For EPS 319L, the current student fees are $375.00. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS As two long-standing instructors for the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences Introductory Field Geology course, we annually look forward to the day in mid-May when we meet with a new group of EPS 319L students, many of whom come from different institutions and have never been to New Mexico, or even west of the Mississippi River, and many of whom have never slept outside. Our approach to teaching Introductory Field Geology is based on experiences over several decades, beginning with our own personal experiences as students in undergraduate field geology courses (University of Michigan and University of Idaho) to our interaction with numerous colleagues, notably our graduate student teaching assistants and those involved in field geology instruction at other institutions. Our approach to instruction of Introductory Field Geology at the University of New Mexico is firmly rooted in the importance of building the field observational and documentation skills of each and every one of our students (e.g., Kali and Orion, 1996; Kastens and Ishikawa, 2006; Liben et al., 2008; Kastens et al., 2009). In terms of learning goals, we expect that all students completing EPS 319L have obtained and have repetitively utilized basic field skills, including locating themselves on a topographic map, without and with the aid of a handheld GPS; identifying geologic materials in the
Several University of New Mexico (UNM) graduate student teaching assistants, over many years, have made outstanding commitments to molding and improving EPS 319L, these include Steve Hayden, Steve Harlan, Bruce Harrison, Tim Wawrzyniec, Harry Rowe, Mary Simmons, Joel Pederson, Carol Dehler, Mike Petronis, Scott Muggleton, Jenn Pierce, Lyman Persico, and Travis Naibert. The tremendous assistance from the current (Cindy Jaramillo, Mabel Chavez, Mary Bennett, and Paula Pascetti) and former staff of the main office of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at UNM is greatly appreciated. We appreciate permission from a 2008 EPS 319L student to use the student’s Point of Rocks postage stamp map in this paper and also the permission of a 2008 EPS 319L student to use the student’s photo of the first author and the evolving group postage stamp map for Point of Rocks mapping project. We thank the staff and owners of Wolf Springs Ranch for continued access to the Point of Rocks mapping project area and the Spears family for access to the Baca Canyon area. Finally, we thank Stephen G. Wells for initiating the much-needed change in UNM field geology instruction. APPENDIX. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE TRANSITION In August 1984, Professor Stephen G. Wells (past Geological Society of America president) walked into my office (Geissman). I was then a newly arrived, untenured member of the faculty and was engaged in unpacking into a new office setting. Steve, who had been on sabbatical the previous year and had not been involved in my hiring, introduced himself and quickly cut to the chase. He talked about his previous experiences teaching field geology courses at the University of New Mexico (UNM) and at Indiana University’s field station. He reminded me that the department “field courses” were taught on the weekends, during the academic year. Geology 319L was taught in the spring semester, for four credits, and Geology 420L, also four credits, was taught in the fall semester. I remembered this but was reluctant to dwell on the matter during my interview. To an untenured assistant professor with four summers of field course experience while at the
Introductory field geology at the University of New Mexico, 1984 to today
43
Figure 5. Example of instructor comments on one postage stamp map prepared by a summer 2008 student, Point of Rocks mapping project, Huerfano Park, Colorado.
Colorado School of Mines, a summer as a postdoctoral research scientist at the University of Toronto, and several summers as a graduate student teaching assistant at Michigan’s field geology station, the concept of teaching capstone field geology courses on the weekends during the academic year seemed a bit odd, if not just wrong. I expressed this feeling and emphasized that the current approach was especially odd for a location like Albuquerque, where nearby geology abounds (Fig. 1) and the weather is excellent. The end result of our first encounter was an agreement to cooperate to move UNM’s field courses to the summer and mold them into full-fledged field-camp–like field geology courses. As a postscript, one of our very loyal (and generous) alumni recently talked with me about his experience in the late 1970s taking Geology 420 on the weekends while trying to compete on the UNM rugby club team. When I explained how the department was now
teaching our field geology courses, he remarked, “That is a far better way of teaching field geology, isn’t it!”
REFERENCES CITED Anderson, O.J., and Lucas, S.G., 1996, Stratigraphy and depositional environments of Middle and Upper Jurassic rocks, southeastern San Juan Basin, New Mexico, in Goff, F., Kues, B.S., Rogers, M.A., McFadden, L.D., and Gardner, J.N., eds., 47th Field Conference Guidebook, Jemez Mountains Region: Socorro, New Mexico, New Mexico Geological Society, p. 205–211. Blake, D.B., and Kues, B.S., 2002, Homeomorphy in the Asteroidea (Echinodermata); a new Late Cretaceous genus and species from Colorado: Journal of Paleontology, v. 76, p. 1007–1013, doi: 10.1666/0022-3360 (2002)076<1007:HITAEA>2.0.CO;2.
44
Geissman and Meyer
Burbank, W.S., and Goddard, E.N., 1937, Thrusting in Huerfano Park, Colorado, and related problems of orogeny in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 48, p. 931–976. Cather, S.M., and Chapin, C.E., 1989, Day 2: Field guide to Upper Eocene and Lower Oligocene volcaniclastic rocks of the northern Mogollon-Datil volcanic field, in Chapin, C.E., and Zidek, J., eds., Field Excursions to Volcanic Terranes in the Western United States, Volume I: Southern Rocky Mountain Region: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Memoir 46, p. 60–87. Condon, S.M., and Peterson, F., 1986, Stratigraphy of Middle and Upper Jurassic rocks of the San Juan Basin; historical perspective, current ideas, remaining problems, in Turner-Peterson, C.E., Santos, E.S., and Fishman, N.S., eds., A Basin Analysis Case Study; the Morrison Formation, Grants Uranium Region, New Mexico: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology, v. 22, p. 7–26. Connell, S.D., 2004, Geology of the Albuquerque Basin and tectonic development of the Rio Grande rift in north-central New Mexico, in Mack, G.H., and Giles, K.A., eds., The Geology of New Mexico: A Geologic History: New Mexico Geological Society Special Publication 11, p. 359–388. Dethier, D.P., Birkeland, P., and Shroba, R.R., 2003, Quaternary stratigraphy, geomorphology, soils, and alpine archaeology in an alpine-to-plains transect, Colorado Front Range, in Easterbrook, D.J., ed., Quaternary Geology of the United States, International Union for Quaternary Research Field Guide Volume: Reno, Desert Research Institute, p. 81–104. Drummond, C.N., 2001, Can field camps survive?: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, p. 336–337. Englebrecht, A.C., Mintzes, J.J., Brown, L.M., and Kelso, P.R., 2005, Probing understanding in physical geology using concept maps and clinical interviews: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, p. 263–270. Field, J., 2003, A two-week guided inquiry project for an undergraduate geomorphology course: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 51, p. 255–261. Ingersoll, R.V., 2001, Structural and stratigraphic evolution of the Rio Grande rift, northern New Mexico and southern Colorado: International Geology Review, v. 43, p. 867–891, doi: 10.1080/00206810109465053. Johnson, J.K., and Reynolds, S.J., 2005, Concept sketches using studentand instructor-generated annotated sketches for learning, teaching, and assessment in geology courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, p. 85–95. Kali, Y., and Orion, N., 1996, Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geologic structures: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 33, p. 369–391, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199604)33:4<369::AID -TEA2>3.0.CO;2-Q. Kastens, K.A., and Ishikawa, T., 2006, Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences, in Manduca, C., and Mogk, D., eds., Earth and Mind: How Geoscientists Think and Learn about the Complex Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, p. 53–76. Kastens, K.A., Manduca, C.A., Cervato, C., Frodeman, R., Goodwin, C., Liben, L.S., Mogk, D.W., Spangler, T.C., Stilllings, T.C., and Titus, S., 2009, Geoscientists and cognitive scientists collaborate to improve thinking and learning about the Earth: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 90, no. 31, p. 265–266. Kauffman, E.G., 1977, Geological and biological overview: Western Interior Cretaceous Basin, in Kauffman, E.G., ed., Cretaceous Facies, Faunas, and Paleoenvironments across the Western Interior Basin: Mountain Geologist (Laramie), v. 14, p. 75–99.
Laferriere, A.P., Hattin, D.E., and Archer, A.W., 1987, Effects of climate, tectonics, and sea level changes on rhythmic bedding patterns in the Niobrara Formation (Upper Cretaceous), U.S. Western Interior: Geology, v. 15, p. 233–236, doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1987)15<233:EOCTAS>2.0.CO;2. Lewis, C.J., and Baldridge, W.S., 1994, Crustal extension in the Rio Grande rift, New Mexico: Half-grabens, accommodation zones, and shoulder uplifts in the Ladron Peak–Sierra Lucero area, in Keller, G.R., and Cather, S.M., eds., Basins of the Rio Grande Rift: Structure, Stratigraphy, and Tectonic Setting: Geological Society of America Special Paper 291, p. 135–156. Libarkin, J.C., and Kurdziel, J.P., 2001, Research methodologies in science education: Strategies for productive assessment: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, p. 300–304. Liben, L.S., Myers, L.J., and Kastens, K.A., 2008, Locating oneself on a map: Relation to person qualities and map characteristics, in Freska, C., Newcombe, N.S., Gaerdenfors, P., and Wolfl, S., eds., Spatial Cognition VI: Learning, Reasoning, and Talking about Space, Proceedings from Spacial Cognition 2008, 15–19 September 2008: Freiburg, Germany, SpringerVerlag, p. 171–187. Lindsey, D.A., 1998, Laramide structure of the central Sangre de Cristo Mountains and adjacent Raton Basin, southern Colorado: The Mountain Geologist, v. 35, p. 55–70. Lindsey, D.A., Johnson, B.R., and Andriessen, P.A.M., 1983, Laramide and Neogene structure of the northern Sangre de Cristo Range, south-central Colorado, in Lowell, J.D., ed., Rocky Mountain Foreland Basins and Uplifts: Denver, Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 219–228. Lucas, S.G., Kietzke, K.K., and Hunt, A.P., 1985, The Jurassic System in east-central New Mexico, in Lucas, S.G., and Zidek, J., eds., Santa Rosa Tucumcari Region: New Mexico Geological Society, 36th Field Conference Guidebook, p. 213–242. Mackin, J.H., 1937, Erosional history of the Big Horn Basin, Wyoming: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 48, p. 813–894. Obradovich, J.D., 1993, A Cretaceous time scale, in Caldewell, W.G.E., and Kauffman, E.G., eds., Evolution of the Western Interior Basin: Geological Association of Canada Special Publication 39, p. 379–396. Osburn, G.R., and Chapin, C.E., 1983, Nomenclature for Cenozoic Rocks of Northeast Mogollon-Datil Volcanic Field, New Mexico: Socorro, New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, 10 p. Owen, D.E., 1982, Correlation and paleoenvironments of the Jackpile Sandstone (Upper Jurassic) and intertongued Dakota Sandstone–Lower Mancos Shale (Upper Cretaceous) in west-central New Mexico, in Grambling, J.A., and Wells, S.G., eds., Albuquerque Country II: Socorro, New Mexico Geological Society, 33rd Fall Field Conference Guidebook, p. 267–270. Sageman, B.B., 1996, Lowstand tempestites: Depositional model for Cretaceous skeletal limestones, Western Interior Basin: Geology, v. 24, p. 888– 892, doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1996)024<0888:LTDMFC>2.3.CO;2. Wawrzyniec, T.F., Geissman, J.W., Melker, M.D., and Hubbard, M., 2002, Dextral shear along the eastern margin of the Colorado Plateau—A kinematic link between the Laramide orogeny and Rio Grande rifting (ca. 80 Ma to 13 Ma): The Journal of Geology, v. 110, p. 305–324, doi: 10.1086/339534. Woodward, L.A., comp., 1984, Tectonic Map of the Rocky Mountain Region of the United States: Boulder, in Sloss, L.L., ed., Sedimentary Cover—North American Craton: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Decade of North American Geology, v. D-2, plate 2, scale 1:2,500,000. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future Declan G. De Paor* Department of Physics, Old Dominion University, Room 306, 4600 Elkhorn Avenue, Norfolk, Virginia 23529, USA Steven J. Whitmeyer† Department of Geology and Environmental Science, James Madison University, Memorial Hall 7105B, 395 S. High Street, MSC 6903, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, USA
ABSTRACT Like many similar courses across the United States, traditional geology field camps run by Boston University (BU) and James Madison University (JMU) faced a crisis at the turn of the twenty-first century. Student enrollment was declining, and many geoscience professionals questioned the continued relevance of field camps to modern undergraduate geoscience programs. A reassessment of field course content, along with changes to management styles and attitudes, was required for survival. In our case, the combination of relocation, managerial improvements, curriculum innovations, and elimination of redundant exercises resulted in a vibrant course with a strong student demand. We believe that our reforms may serve as a guide to success for other courses that are facing similar difficulties. The current JMU field course in western Ireland is the product of reforms and modernizations to the previous BU and JMU traditional field camps. To create time for new course content, we had to consider whether long-established exercises were still essential. Caution is needed in both adding and deleting course content, as the curriculum may suffer from inclusion of new technologies that turn out to be short-lived and from discontinuation of exercises that develop students’ core field expertise. Nevertheless, we have implemented major changes in the ways students are taught to work in the field, and we question the continued relevance of some existing procedures. Our criteria include level of pedagogical engagement and transferability of skills to nongeoscience professions. A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO FIELD GEOLOGY
ers such as William Smith (1815) in England and Wales, Richard Griffith (1838) in Ireland, Archibald Geikie (1876) in Scotland, George Cuvier and Alexandre Brogniart in France, Bernhard Studer and Arnold Escher von der Linth in Switzerland, and Florence Bascom in the United States (see, for example, Winchester, 2001). Following the hit-or-miss approaches of the California Gold Rush (1848–1855), and of wildcat oil drilling after its initial invention in Titusville, Pennsylvania, by Edwin Drake in 1855, the need for professional field geologists grew steadily and state
Geological mapping dates back to the Turin Papyrus of 1150 B.C.E. (Harrell and Brown, 1992), but field surveying and publication of printed geological maps did not begin in earnest until the nineteenth century with the contributions of pioneering work*[email protected] † [email protected]
geological surveys sprouted (Socolow, 1988). However, residential field geology courses did not enter college curricula until the early twentieth century (AGI, 1985). Given the absence of halls of residence in proximity to the best geological exposures, these courses soon became known as “field camps.” Founded in 1911, the University of Missouri’s Branson Field Laboratory is reputed to be the oldest continuously running geology field camp in the United States (Anonymous, 2007a). Boston University’s camp in Maine followed a generation later (1949), and James Madison University initiated their original Appalachian-based field camp around 1978, joining the growing movement. In the 1960s and 1970s, as a testament to the pedagogical success of the camp classroom model, field camp was required for graduation by many college geoscience departments (Lonergan and Andresen, 1988). Despite closures in recent years, there are still over 70 field camps offered by accredited American universities and colleges (Anonymous, 2007b). Field Camps in Crisis—The BU Perspective Less than a decade ago, Boston University’s (BU) Field Camp was in trouble and, like many others, it faced the real prospect of closure. The course had been held in northern Maine for over 50 years, during which generations of BU professors and graduate student instructors had dedicated six weeks of the summer session to training students in classical field methods. As with most field camps, students reported learning more effectively at the outcrop than they had done in the laboratory, and camaraderie around the campfire created a level of personal contact among faculty and students that was the envy of nonfield sciences. With the coming of the plate-tectonic revolution in the late 1960s, Appalachian tectonics was a vibrant academic research field, and the Maine field camp was appropriately located. However, while tectonic interpretations of the Appalachians had changed radically since the heyday of the plate-tectonic revolution, the field skills being taught to the Maine field camp students had barely evolved. An alumnus from the class of 1949 would have been familiar with almost all of the equipment and methods in use in 1998: finding one’s location by pace and compass; identifying minerals by hand lens, scratch plate, and acid bottle; classifying subtly different fine-grained gray rocks into laboriously named stratigraphic formations and members; measuring dip and strike or plunge and trend using the compass-clinometer; stereographic projection of structural data onto tracing paper overlays; and finally “inking-in” and compilation of a “fair copy” map using colored pencils. Students of BU’s last Maine camp in 1998 did not seem to mind that most of the skills they were learning were verging on obsolescence in the professional workplace—how would they have known? Their professors did not work for, or interact with, the exploration companies, environmental management consultants, geotechnical contractors, or geological surveys that employed most students. Longitudinal assessment studies were not carried out, so professors did not know how their course con-
tent matched the needs of employers or how it prepared students for any profession. The university was training students in skills that were useful only to the 1% who might become academics, not the skills required in the future extramural workplace, and even then, the academic content was dated. Some would justify this, citing the timeless benefits of academically oriented education, but the pure pedagogical value of many classical exercises was debatable. Although we may think of geological mapping mainly as an academic exercise, it is worth noting that many of the pioneers of mapping were applied scientists and engineers. The goal for William Smith was to find coal—the fuel of the Industrial Revolution—and bring it to market via canals (Winchester, 2001). Richard Griffith’s (1838) map was funded by the Irish Railway Commission. The Swiss were motivated by their country’s extreme engineering needs, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was initially tasked with classifying mineral-rich versus agricultural public lands (Thompson, 1988). Students at the Maine camp did complain, however, about some faculty attitudes that were perceived as indifferent to females and about boot-camp conditions that even macho males found unpleasant (e.g., the spring and early summer black fly season). Furthermore, trends nationwide were drifting away from compulsory geology field courses as geology departments, including BU’s, morphed into “geological science,” “geology and geography,” “earth science,” “earth and planetary science,” “earth and space science,” “earth and environmental science,” etc. With the relaxation of many colleges’ residential field camp requirements, competition from deep-sea drilling cruises, laboratory-based independent study projects, and externally funded research experiences for undergraduates (REUs) was high. These examples reflected a growing nationwide sentiment that questioned the continued importance of field camps in undergraduate geoscience curricula around the turn of the millennium. Clearly, if field courses were to survive and remain a vital component of an undergraduate education, major changes were needed. Our experience, detailed herein, suggests that these reforms need to encompass changes in management styles and attitude, as well as modernization of the traditional field course curriculum. RETHINKING FIELD COURSE MANAGEMENT AND LOGISTICS Relocation An exciting location is a strong draw for prospective field camp students and probably is necessary for long-term field camp survival. For BU, the transformation began in 1999 with the relocation of their field camp to the Connemara region of western Ireland—a geological, if not climatological, paradise. Comfortable, full-board accommodations were leased from Petersburg Outdoor Education Centre, a well-managed residential facility that normally offered year-round outdoor courses for at-risk children from inner city schools. The summer income from our six week field camp enabled the center to modernize its
Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future facilities significantly, so the relationship was (and continues to be) symbiotic. In 2006, career moves involving field camp faculty led to a transfer of administration from Boston University to James Madison University (JMU), where a summer field geology course had not been offered since 2003. Thanks to faculty continuity, the new philosophy and curriculum of the Ireland field course continues to develop at JMU. Despite the extra expenses involved with an overseas location, relocating the camp to western Ireland had several benefits. We were able to market potential financial savings to parents who could use one course to fulfill their children’s desire for a study-abroad experience in addition to learning modern geoscience field methods. The location was remote and decidedly foreign, but nevertheless very friendly toward the United States—a significant factor in the era of parental security concerns following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It was located on the edge of the Connemara Gaeltacht, one of the Irish-speaking regions of Ireland where the local accent is so strong that it can be difficult to understand the people even when they speak English. In addition to U.S. faculty and teaching assistants, Irish faculty were hired from the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the nearby campus of the National University of Ireland, Galway. Students appreciated the Irish faculty for their detailed knowledge of the local region (and liked their accents). Faculty Quality and Undergraduate Research Opportunities We believe that an important factor in the success of the new approach was faculty quality. All faculty—both U.S. and Irish— were active scholars with funded research programs and strong publication records, and many were keenly interested in pedagogical research (Johnston et al., 2005). The revitalized course attracted a diverse faculty (including several female instructors and one African American instructor) and an equally diverse student population from universities from across the United States. Students recognized the research opportunities available in conjunction with the course. Some field course alumni and alumnae were recruited by faculty for other National Science Foundation (NSF)–funded research opportunities in the United States, Ireland, and other locations (e.g., Antarctica), and many students went on to graduate programs in the geosciences in first-rank research universities. One key to our long-term success was the support of our departmental chairs and higher-level administrators, who recognized the importance of field camp service when evaluating untenured faculty. Our experience suggests that such support and recognition are more easily obtained if the field camp produces sustained scholarship and publication-worthy research for the faculty. A modern field course cannot flourish if administrators see it as a job for adjuncts or nonresearch faculty. Both authors were fortunate to have department chairs that not only supported faculty participation in the Ireland field camp, but actively taught at the camp.
47
Student Agility and Fitness The student applicant pool for our camp was highly varied in physical preparedness for fieldwork. Students qualified automatically if they were in good standing in the host department (BU Earth Science Department, or JMU Department of Geology and Environmental Science). Applicants from other colleges, who frequently made up half to two thirds of the class, were accepted on the basis of grades and their application’s statement of interest, without face-to-face interview. Hiking skills were often minimal, and some students’ field background consisted of only a few day trips as part of their coursework. Given the diverse enrollment, we attempted to make field conditions friendlier to less rugged or outdoors-inclined students. Ironically, the female faculty members were relatively disinclined to slow the pace or accommodate student requests. These professional women were self-selected successful products of traditional educational systems that had alienated the vast majority of their gender; they expected students to cope with their ablutions in hedges and ditches, and to keep up with the most alpine of trip leaders. The authors’ somewhat more accommodating managerial approach was influenced by previous anecdotal experiences such as (1) an embarrassing rebellion by irate students on a 13 hour day-trip in a windswept, barren, restroom-free landscape lead by a clueless male professor; and (2) the experience of discovering that a student with prosthetic legs was enrolled in a structural geology course after said student commented on soreness at the end of a field trip and took his legs off. The student in question performed as well as his classmates and subsequently went on to serve as a field assistant to another professor on an international expedition. These experiences engendered respect for both the needs and abilities of nontraditional students. On the other hand, some students had great difficulty completing assignments due to mobility and agility limitations (especially obesity), even though none of the exercises required technical climbing or particularly dangerous maneuvers. Accepting physically limited students into field programs is more or less mandated by nondiscrimination policies at most universities, so formulating successful approaches for dealing with these issues cannot be avoided (e.g., Butler, 2007). Allowing such students to complete alternative, less physically demanding, assignments was only a partial solution, as this created peer resentment. As obesity becomes more prevalent in the student population, this issue is likely to crop up more frequently in the future. Our current policy is to allow students with mobility issues extra time to complete assignments but to require that they get there in the end. Alternate exercises are restricted to those with predeclared disabilities or current injuries. This policy, though not foolproof, has been endorsed by many students. As an example of this approach, on a moderately difficult hike, one of the instructors would get to the top of the hill first, establishing his credentials among the most fit, while the other brought up the rear. Several students (mostly overweight) expressed deep appreciation for the fact that faculty were still waiting for them when they eventually got to the mountaintop.
48
De Paor and Whitmeyer
Their previous common field experience had been that of meeting their professor and the majority of their classmates on their way back from the outcrop to the bus, and thus missing out on any lecturing or instruction imparted at the outcrop.
Freeman (1999) can compete only if the subject matter of the field exercise is restricted to classical hard-rock mapping.
R and R
Working collaboratively over several years, American and Irish faculty overhauled the Ireland field course curriculum. The move from Maine meant that mapping exercises had to be redesigned from scratch, and we took the opportunity to rethink our teaching philosophy and pedagogical approach. We deemphasized professorial lecturing at the outcrop in favor of a student research approach (asking students to frame the key questions; see May et al., this volume), and we introduced small group (three to four students) mapping exercises in advance of the main independent mapping exercise. Students reported increased confidence following group exercises, and they wasted less time in the first days of their independent mapping. Recognizing the importance of the balance between an understanding of fundamental principals and knowledge of practical, transferable skills, we identified four areas of emphasis (see following) that could be developed in the Connemara region of western Ireland. Although Caledonian tectonics or Quaternary glacial geomorphology may not be accessible at other field camps, we believe that all camps can benefit by a reassessment of the ways in which their local geologic features can address the universal strengths of field-based pedagogy: cross-disciplinary knowledge integration, open-ended problem solving, etc.
A common issue with residential field courses is the provision of appropriate social activities, to ensure that R-and-R does not translate into rowdy and rambunctious rather than rest and relaxation. Our policies follow university guidelines banning binge drinking, and we have had only a few isolated incidents. The 6 km roundtrip walk to the local village presumably dampens (literally) the enthusiasm of potential revelers, but perhaps the more important factor is the availability of alternative leisuretime activities. Approved student drivers are permitted to take classmates to events such as horse-racing meets and nearby concerts in Galway City by visiting celebrities such as Bob Dylan and U2. Many students seem happier when they have opportunities to rejoin (nongeology) civilization on occasional evenings and at weekends. Those that prefer outdoor activities, such as leisure hiking/hill-walking, kayaking, or campfires under star-filled skies also have those options. One unanticipated problem was the desire on the part of some “helicopter” parents to take the opportunity to visit their offspring in the field. We allow visits only grudgingly and outside of class hours. We also receive visits from field camp alumnae and alumni who return to the region for vacation with their fiancées, spouses, and children. Undoubtedly, field camp in the west of Ireland is a positive memory and character-forming experience for many. When the international cell phone and iPod generation came to camp, our first reaction was to shun the intrusive gadgetry, following the lead of others that advocate a formal approach to the use of travel time (Elkins and Elkins, 2006). However, we soon recognized the benefits of accommodation and assimilation. Of course, we would prefer if students spent bus time between outcrops pondering regional tectonics, but, in truth, students in previous years mainly slept. If they opted to listen to music or call their parents at enormous expense on their cell phones in order to say “Hi, I’m on the bus,” then they might work more attentively at field stops. On the way home from the last outcrop, students would appoint a “DJ” to hook their music players up to the bus speakers and face their peers’ evaluation of their music taste. Of course, iPods and “smart” cell phones like the iPhone can also be used as mobile reference sources. Early on, we experimented with use of photo and video iPods as teaching devices by uploading sample images of rocks, minerals, and structures for use by students as a digital reference library on location. However, before this effort reached maturity, technological advances overtook it. The latest devices such as the iPod Touch and iPhone include a fully zoomable web browser, giving students access to vast resources of reference information without need for custom software. Traditional, pocket-sized paper field manuals such as
A CURRICULUM FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
Regional Tectonics as a “Big Picture” Unifying Theme Connemara is a classic area of Caledonian tectonics. It lies along strike from the Appalachian orogen of Maritime Canada and New England in a pre-Atlantic reconstruction (Fig. 1A). Given the Appalachian historical base of both BU’s and JMU’s original field courses, and the blossoming career opportunities for hard-rock geologists in industry and academia (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics: www.bls.gov/oco/ocos288. htm), it made sense to maintain a strong component of regional stratigraphy, tectonics, and paleogeography. However, we eliminated the “stand and deliver” approach to teaching regional geology at the outcrop, whereby the learned professor tells the story as it is, complete with much tectonic arm-waving. Information is no longer passed on only to those students lucky enough to be within hearing range of the field-trip leader. Instead, we employ scaffolded discovery-learning techniques by posing challenging questions to students, encouraging hypothesizing and constructive discourse, and surreptitiously guiding students to make observations that will provide critical hypothesis-discriminating evidence (McConnell et al., 2005). As an example, students are asked to explain the easterly dip of the Connemara peneplain, as seen in the local landscape (Fig. 1B). Initial efforts usually invoke local tilting, regional folding, or isostasy. With continued discussion and prompting, students learn to position local outcrop evidence within the
Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future
49
regional tectonic context and arrive at a more complete explanation of the uplift and exposure of Caledonian rocks in western Ireland resulting from regional extension associated with the opening of the Atlantic Ocean (Coxon, 2005a). Students also must relate their local mapping areas and outcrop-scale details, such as kinematic indicators, to regional tectonic problems, such as the position of Connemara in relation to other Dalradian terranes of Ireland and Scotland, mechanisms of terrane transport, and possible docking events. The key is that students must learn to view their individual projects in a larger framework that has relevance to the outside world. Like most field camps, our projects incorporate igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rock identifications, but these are now undertaken with tectonic synthesis in mind. We do not teach students to distinguish granodiorite from adamellite or paragneiss from orthogneiss for its own sake. Glacial Geomorphology The second area of emphasis focuses on the glacial geomorphology of western Ireland (e.g., Coxon, 2001, 2005b). Again, students are taught to map locally while thinking globally. Students usually notice without prompting that the western seaboard’s vegetation, including palm trees and Versaillesstyle formal gardens, differs from that of Maritime Canada or Moscow at the same 55°N latitude. Historic records of local climate document the rarity of freezing weather (data from the Irish National Meteorological Service: www.met.ie), with snow flurries no more than once or twice a year at sea level, yet the landscape is dramatically glaciated (Fig. 2). Students arrive at the field camp with a range of experience in glaciated terrains, from little to no previous exposure (Virginia) to fairly extensive knowledge of gradual terminal moraine retreat in New England, or direct experience with present-day glaciers in Alaska. In each
Figure 1. (A) Reconstruction of the Appalachian-Caledonian orogen prior to opening of the Atlantic Ocean (sketch by Martin Feely, National University of Ireland–Galway). 53.614878° N, 9.509725° E. (B) Photo looking north of the easterly dipping Carboniferous peneplain in the South Mayo region of western Ireland. The black line at the top of the peneplain is ~1 mile long.
Figure 2. Photo of the glaciated landscape of western Ireland: the lake occupies the location of an ancient valley glacier, and the close end of the lake is dammed by an end moraine. (Photo by Adam Lewis.)
50
De Paor and Whitmeyer
case, fieldwork that documents kame fields and other indicators of rapid down-wasting in Connemara is unfamiliar, despite coverage of the subject in common texts (e.g., Tarbuck and Lutgens, 2002). Our lesson plans highlight the differences in the history of climate change from Virginia to New England to western Ireland as a consequence of the off-and-on switching of the Gulf Stream and the process of North Atlantic Deep Water formation (Bond and Lotti, 1995; Coxon, 2001; Bowen et al., 2002). Students were brought to Iceland one year on an experimental basis for a four day expedition prior to commencing their western Ireland mapping. Witnessing first-hand the products of active, present-day glaciation and viewing the ubiquitous evidence for rapid climate change proved to be of great pedagogical value. Students completed a 1 day mapping exercise at the face of Vatnajökull Glacier, where recessional and lateral moraines, eskers, kame fields, kame deltas, and ground till were visible in 100% exposures. Irish landforms of Quaternary age have a subdued topographic expression and are generally covered in vegetation, yet students recognized equivalent features with ease. Students’ recognition of volcanic structures also benefited from the Icelandic experience. However, financial and logistical burdens prevented us from making this a permanent part of the course, and the unique combination of fire and ice that characterizes the Icelandic landscape is not a perfect analogy for the Tertiary volcanic rocks and later Quaternary glacial carving of western Ireland. Although it is not quite as immersive an experience, today’s students can “fly” over the Icelandic terrain using Google Earth or NASA World Wind, and thus gain some appreciation of neotectonics and neoglaciation. Environmental Geology and Hydrogeology Western Ireland has a history of mineral exploration and mining dating back to prehistoric times (Cole, 1998). The practice of agriculture stretches over 5000 years (Cooney, 2000; Anonymous, 2007c), and the pressure of population, both native and visitor, has impacted water quality and created waste disposal issues on a number of occasions, including the crowded times before the Great Famine and the present era of tourism. Given the high number of employment opportunities in environmental sciences, we emphasize field-based exercises with themes spanning resource exploitation and conservation. Subtopics included in this part of the course are: bulk country-rock geochemistry, exploitation of mineral resources, impact of mining and rock composition on mine-water geochemistry, surface-water capacity and sediment-transport rates, and impact of geotourism in the Burren, a region of karstic topography in County Clare. Students go underground in caves and Victorian mines that have been reopened as tourist attractions (Glengowla mine; Ailwee and Doolin caves), and they make observations and measurements on surface and subsurface water flow. The Burren area, in particular, is a fascinating karstic region that was previously glaciated. Students compare and contrast sediment-transport processes via surface glaciers with underground rivers and
other karstic features to determine the relative importance of each of these agents in landscape modification. In Connemara, intense rain events drench bogs and alter river morphologies in a matter of hours; therefore, we have expanded exercises in geohydrology and riverine processes (see May et al., this volume). Despite the competing dangers from hill-walking, bog-hopping, and quarry visits, our water-chemistry exercise brought us the closest to a serious injury in the five years in which it has been run. A student slipped in thigh-high water, became immersed for no more than a few seconds, and developed hypothermia within minutes. The first-response treatment—sharing a sleeping bag with fellow students—was great for team morale but the experience reminded instructors and management of the fine line between exciting learning experiences and potentially harmful consequences. Digital Mapping and Visualization On 1 May 2000, President Clinton turned off Selective Availability (i.e., civilian scrambling) of the Global Positioning System, and the accuracy of cheap, handheld global positioning system (GPS) devices such as those made by Magellan™ and Garmin™ increased enormously overnight, just in time for our digital mapping curriculum. At about the same time, National University of Ireland–Galway opened a state-of-the-art geographical information system (GIS) computer laboratory. GIS had already been in widespread use by the USGS and in industries such as environmental engineering (Longley et al., 2001), but rather trivial limitations—for example in plotting dips and strikes (Mies, 1996)—slowed its adoption by field geologists. Initially, we did not have the resources to invest in the newest technology. The sum of $4000 per person required to equip students with backpack-mounted GPS devices, such as those manufactured by Trimble™, and ruggedized tablet personal computers (PCs) was beyond our budget in 2001. This was not entirely a bad thing, as adopters of first-generation technology now find themselves encumbered with bulky equipment and heavy car-battery banks just as light, cheap, second- and third-generation technologies have become readily available. In 2001–2002, we concentrated on palmtop devices—initially personal digital assistant (PDA) devices such as Palm Pilots™ and handheld computers such as Hewlett-Packard iPAQs™— with somewhat cumbersome GPS attachments and waterproof cases. In successive years, we advanced to handheld Trimbles™ (GeoXM model) running the Windows Mobile operating system and ArcPad™ digital mapping software (see Whitmeyer et al., this volume). In the laboratory, we used ArcGIS™ and National Geographic Topo™ software and developed custom programs using Flash Actionscript™ to allow students to create visualizations of their own field data (Fig. 3). Although many others have adopted mobile GIS solutions (e.g., Knoop and van der Pluijm, 2004; Neumann and Kutis, 2006), our approach was, to our knowledge, unique in one respect: whereas most digital mapping courses aim to
Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future
Figure 3. High-end graphic workstations at Galway University help students see their own recent fieldwork in a regional context.
produce publication-quality cartography, we encouraged students to scan their rough field slips and penciled cross-sectional sketches into digital files for use with three-dimensional (3-D) modeling programs such as Bryce™, Carrara™, and our own block-diagram generator in order see their geological interpre-
51
tations draped over local digital terrain models or projected onto the sides of a solid block diagrams. Students responded enthusiastically to the experience of flying by a digital terrain that highlights the locations that they had visited on foot the previous week and seeing their own sketch maps draped onto the digital elevation model (DEM). Our digital mapping efforts have progressed to the stage where we now use these exercises as part of an ongoing research project (Whitmeyer et al., 2008a, 2008b, this volume), and one of our image-draping exercises sowed the seeds for a subsequent publication by camp instructors and colleagues (McCaffrey et al., 2008). Traditionally, after several days of field trips led by professors, students embark on their own map-making. While we retain five day individual mapping projects as the capstone exercise of our course, digital mapping technology has allowed us to incorporate collective mapping projects. Students gather digital field data and upload it to a base workstation each evening. They then create a collective map from that database using ArcGIS (Whitmeyer et al., this volume). The key innovation is that data are accumulated over several years and map interpretations are driven by group consensus, not individual interpretation. The feeling that their work is incorporated in ongoing geologic research and will survive beyond the grading exercise helps promote student engagement. Today, we are in the midst of a new phase in the digital mapping revolution as GES (Google Earth Science) is added to GPS and GIS. This is dramatically illustrated by the geo-mashup of Figure 4 (see wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup), in which the original
Figure 4. William Smith’s (1815) map of England and Wales, Richard Griffith’s (1838) map of Ireland, and Archibald Geikie’s (1876) map of Scotland draped onto the Google Earth terrain (from Simpson and De Paor, 2009). Geologic maps are courtesy British Geological Survey, Geological Survey of Ireland, and the Natural Environmental Research Council, UK.
52
De Paor and Whitmeyer
maps of Smith, Griffith, and Geikie are seen draped over the 3-D Google Earth digital terrain model (De Paor and Sharma, 2007; Simpson and De Paor, 2009; Whitmeyer et al., 2007). Hard-copy maps may be scanned and the resultant digital images draped over the virtual globe’s digital terrain (Fig. 5A). Digital maps superposed on the terrain may be rendered semitransparent for comparative purposes (Fig. 5B; see also Simpson and De Paor, 2009). The potential for removing the time-consuming step of hand-drawing a field map, while retaining the full fidelity of digital data with true outcrop evidence, suggests that digital field mapping is the method of the future for geologic map preparation. In addition, computer-based visualization of 3-D surfaces containing geologic map information introduces new prospects for constraining interpretations based on incomplete field data. In our field course, we advocate an iterative approach to geologic field mapping, whereby field interpretations on sketch maps are draped over the virtual 3-D terrain and continually evaluated throughout the mapping process. Obsolescence in the Traditional Curriculum As outlined herein, our students have to learn many new ways to collect, analyze, and present field information. They need to learn how to use GPS for location; ArcPad, and ArcGIS for data collection, analysis, and visualization; KML for interactive Google Earth maps; etc. Where traditionally they collected four-dimensional data regarding the geological evolution of a region and reduced that to the two dimensions of a paper or Mylar map, today they must create a link between the four dimensions of field evidence (latitude, longitude, altitude, time) and the four dimensions of the virtual globe (pan, tilt, zoom, play). However, the price to be paid for early adoption of technology is the certainty that much of it will be redundant in a matter of years, if not months. Palm Pilots are passé, and with the advent of virtual globe technologies such as Google Earth and NASA World Wind, the use of modeling programs such as Bryce and Carrara for DEM draping is now obsolete. Most recently, we have replaced our custom Flash Actionscript block diagrams with emergent block models created in Google SketchUp™ (De Paor et al., 2008). We need to avoid the pitfalls of teaching short-lived technological skills by emphasizing the importance of appreciating what current technology can do and being willing to experiment with it, rather than teaching rote-learning steps involved in a particular method (Fuller et al., 2002; Niemi et al., 2002; Brodaric, 2004). For financial and logistical reasons, it is not possible to lengthen the duration of most field courses, and new efficiencies in teaching and learning techniques can only save a limited amount of time. In order to make room for the new curriculum components, we need to remove obsolete material from the traditional syllabus. At the same time, we want to retain classical methods that have professional or pedagogical value. Inevitably, some readers will disagree with the cuts we propose, but like those faced with the task of balancing a budget, we encour-
age critics to present alternative solutions provided they “stay within budget.” We would argue that students do not need to know how to locate themselves on a map by taking bearings. It is a nice skill to have in case one’s GPS batteries fail, but if such logic were our way of selecting course content, there would be no end of useful fall-back skills in the curriculum, from the abacus to smoke signals. More controversially, given software such as Allmendinger’s StereoNet (2007), we question whether students need to know how to manually plot a great circle on a stereographic net. Rules about turning tracing paper in the opposite direction to the required strike are not of deep significance. It grieves us to say this because we love teaching this subject, and we witness instances of sudden insight in a significant minority of students. However, it is much more important for students to be able to interpret stereographic data in terms of tectonic models such as progressive pure or simple shear deformation than to be able to follow the geological equivalent of knitting instructions. Like many other traditional methods, the tedium of plotting data on stereonets these days is most efficiently accomplished by using a computer. Finally, construction of strike lines is a quintessential example of an exercise that professors love to give to their students but that is never used in professional practice. Even when those same professors are drawing maps, they almost never employ strike lines, as can be verified by examining published structural maps. The best way for students to learn about contour maps is to manipulate them on a virtual globe such as Google Earth or NASA World Wind. Students can use solid models (as created with programs like Google Sketchup™) to “slice” through the topography and see the cut effects of structures. LEARNING OUTCOMES AND EVALUATION During the early years of the Ireland field camp, we did not have research funding to support objective evaluation of learning outcomes by an external assessor, nor would it have been easy to compare in detail the outcomes from such different courses as BU’s and JMU’s North American–based camps versus the western Ireland camp. However, student evaluations and students’ subsequent, postcamp communication with the instructors suggest that our innovations were highly successful on the whole (see Pyle, this volume). Students felt empowered by their geomorphological group mapping project, attesting to the value of peer learning. They also reported great pride and joy in seeing their maps printed using GIS workstations (Fig. 6) and approved of the incorporation of new digital technologies and researchbased teaching methods in their evaluations (see Whitmeyer et al., this volume). Student evaluations are valuable course assessment tools, but field camp faculty need to be prepared for critical evaluations that at times can be quite off topic. After six weeks in the field, some students suffer serious homesickness, others develop
Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future
Figure 5. (A) Classical mapping of the Connemara region (Leake et al., 1981) viewed as a three-dimensional (3-D) Collada model in Google Earth (De Paor and Sharma, 2007). (B) Student mapping of the Knock Kilbride area, draped over the Google Earth virtual globe (see Whitmeyer et al., this volume). Note semitransparency and time slider. Downloads for Google Earth images and models are available from the Web site: http://www.lions.odu.edu/~ddepaor/Site/Google_Earth_Science.html.
53
54
De Paor and Whitmeyer
Figure 6. Students proudly display maps generated from their own field data and printed with geographic information system (GIS) workstations at Galway University.
personality clashes and petty jealousies, both with their professors and among their peers, and many let the stresses of independent mapping dominate their evaluation. In the end, a few cheery students spreading positive vibes through the group can be as important as project design in affecting learning outcomes. Similarly, a few malcontents can have a disproportionately negative effect on learning. In the case of western Ireland, the vagaries of the climate (ranging from only six wet days in one year to only six dry days in another) can be critical to a successful course. In this respect, when student evaluations are considered, an understanding department chair is essential. Not all new course elements that we introduced when we first moved to western Ireland stood the test of time. Irish faculty initially set unreasonably high standards based on their expectation of capstone course content in the British and Irish system, where undergraduates study geology in greater depth (especially in the field) and have few, if any, distribution courses. After consultation, they then erred in the other direction by devising projects that lacked sufficient challenge. It took a few iterations to reach a working curriculum, and indeed the process of reassessment and revision continues. Finally, the postcamp success of our Ireland field camp students suggests that dropping exercises that we identified as obsolete or redundant did not have a significant negative effect on the students’ final ability to map and “do” geology in the field. CONCLUSIONS In a sense, today’s students “know” everything. Equipped with their field computers and iPhones, they are walking digital encyclopedias. They do not need to memorize all the knowledge that previous generations had to store in their heads. As a corollary, professors should stop acting as incomplete, error-prone walking encyclopedias to their students. In contrast, professors
need to train students not to ask for information that their cell phone already contains. Instead, professors need to help students to evaluate, analyze, and pose the right questions. In short, we as educators should be teaching our students to think on their feet, as opposed to teaching the rote memorization of a field mapping methodology or detailed information about the Jack and Jill Formation or the Humpty Dumpty fault (names from C. Simpson, 1985, personal commun.). We all want future generations to benefit from the field experience, but if field courses are to survive (Drummond, 2001), let alone prosper, we have to convince deans and provosts that these courses are of value beyond the training in geologic mapping that a handful of students will benefit from in graduate studies or industry careers. Despite the increasing popularity of “hands-on projects,” university science courses are still dominated by lectures that students listen to passively and by laboratory courses that have little relationship to how science is practiced by professionals in academia or industry. Working scientists are not presented with apparatus and a set of instructions to follow in order to discover something that is already known to their supervisor. The greatest transferable skill that students learn in the field is how to handle open-ended problems where they must pose the right questions before trying to answer them. Perhaps because they developed this vital skill, students consistently report, both verbally and in course evaluations, that they learned more in a few hours at the outcrop than in weeks of lectures or laboratory assignments. At the Ireland field camp, students grasp and integrate several different fields, e.g., geology, geomorphology, and environmental geology. We are certainly not the first in any individual aspect of this endeavor (e.g., Brown, 1998; Manone et al., 2003), but we have assembled a unique blend of tradition and innovation, hard- and soft-rock, analog and digital, that others may find interesting for comparison. As pointed out by Day-Lewis in 2003, some more traditional geology programs required their stu-
Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future dents to attend pure, hard-rock mapping field courses. Six years later, we have virtually no students complaining that our multidimensional curriculum will not fulfill their departmental requirements. It may be that field camps that adapt to changing student needs have survived better than geology departments that stood by time-honored standards. We should all recognize that within our small discipline of geology, we have already achieved a level of interdisciplinary study that deans and provosts wish other sciences would adopt. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The BU field camp in western Ireland was inaugurated by Carol Simpson in 1996. De Paor served as director of field studies for BU from 2000 to 2005, and Whitmeyer served as director of the JMU field program from 2006 to the present. Faculty include or have included: Martin Feely, Ronan Hennessy, Tiernan Henry, Stephen Kelly, Kate Moore, and Mike Williams of National University of Ireland–Galway; Dave Marchant, Carol Simpson, and Sherilyn Williams-Stroud of BU; Scott Eaton, Mike Harris, Liz Johnson, Steve Leslie, Eric Pyle, and Shelley Whitmeyer of JMU; and Adam Lewis of North Dakota State University. We appreciate the years of logistical support from Trish Walsh, director of Petersburg Outdoor Education Center. Many thanks, as well, are due to many years of Ireland Field Course students who have contributed to our mapping projects and taught us so much. This manuscript was improved by reviews from Dave Mogk, Dave Rodgers, and an anonymous reviewer. This work was partially funded by National Science Foundation grants EAR-IF 0711092, NSF EAR 0711077, and NSF CCLI 0837040. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. REFERENCES CITED Allmendinger, R.W., 2007, StereoNet Software: http://www.geo.cornell.edu/ geology/faculty/RWA/programs.html (accessed 21 July 2009). American Geological Institute (AGI), 1985, A pioneer in Wyoming: Earth Science, v. 38, no. 2: http://fieldcamp.missouri.edu/Camp%20History.htm (accessed 21 July 2009). Anonymous, 2007a, Branson Field Laboratory—Lander, Wyoming. Geology field camp of the University of Missouri, Columbia: http://fieldcamp .missouri.edu (accessed 21 July 2009). Anonymous, 2007b, Geology Field Camp—Field Courses by 100+ Schools— GEOLOGY.COM: http://geology.com/field-camp.shtml (accessed 21 July 2009). Anonymous, 2007c, Céide Fields Visitor Centre Ballycastle, County Mayo, West of Ireland: http://www.museumsofmayo.com/ceide.htm (accessed 21 July 2009). Bond, G., and Lotti, R., 1995, Iceberg discharges into the North Atlantic on millennial timescales during the last deglaciation: Science, v. 267, p. 1005– 1010, doi: 10.1126/science.267.5200.1005. Bowen, D.Q., Phillips, F.M., McCabe, A.M., Knutz, P.C., and Sykes, G.A., 2002, New data for the Last Glacial Maximum in Great Britain and Ireland: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 21, p. 89–101, doi: 10.1016/S0277 -3791(01)00102-0. Brodaric, B., 2004, The design of GSC FieldLog: Ontology-based software for computer aided geological field mapping: Computers & Geosciences, v. 30, p. 5–20, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2003.08.009.
55
Brown, V.M., 1998, Computers at geology field camp: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 46, p. 128–131. Butler, R., 2007, Teaching Geoscience through Field Work: Plymouth, Geography, Earth, and Environmental Sciences (GEES) Subject Centre Learning and Teaching Guide: York, UK, The Higher Teacher Academy, 56 p. Cole, G.A.J., 1998, Memoir of Localities of Minerals of Economic Importance and Metalliferous Mines in Ireland (3rd edition): Mining Heritage Society of Ireland, Government Stationary Office, Dublin, Ireland, 155 p. Cooney, G., 2000, Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland: London, Routledge, 272 p. Coxon, P., 2001, Cenozoic, Tertiary and Quaternary (until 10,000 years before present), in Holland, C.H., ed., The Geology of Ireland: Edinburgh, Dunedin Academic Press, p. 387–428. Coxon, P., 2005a, The late Tertiary landscapes of western Ireland: Irish Geography, v. 38, p. 111–127. Coxon, P., 2005b, The Quaternary of Central Western Ireland: London, Quaternary Research Association, 220 p. Day-Lewis, F.D., 2003, The role of field camp in an evolving geoscience curriculum in the United States: Hydrogeology Journal, v. 11, p. 203–204. De Paor, D.G., and Sharma, A., 2007, Map inversion: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 1, p. 41. De Paor, D.G., Whitmeyer S.J., and Gobert, J., 2008, Emergent Models for Teaching Geology and Geophysics Using Google Earth, Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 89, no. 53, ED31A-0599. Drummond, C.N., 2001, Can field camps survive?: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, p. 336. Elkins, J.T., and Elkins, M.L.E., 2006, Improving student learning during travel time on field trips using an innovative, portable audio/video system: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 147–152. Freeman, T., 1999, Procedures in Field Geology: Malden, UK, Blackwell Science, 95 p. Fuller, E., Hutchinson, W.E., Nguyen, H.Q., Akciz, S.O., Carr, C., Hodges, K.V., and Burchfiel, B.C., 2002, Development of a wireless architecture for digital field geology tools: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, no. 6, p. 294–295. Geikie, A., 1876, Geological Map of Scotland: Edinburgh, W. & A.K. Johnston, 1 map: 85 × 56 cm, available at http://www.nls.uk/maps/scotland/detail .cfm?id=1348 (accessed 21 July 2009). Griffith, R.J., 1838, Outline of the Geology of Ireland: Report of Railway Commissioners: Dublin, map scale 1 in. to 4 m. Harrell, J.A., and Brown, V.M., 1992, The world’s oldest surviving geological map—The 1150 BC Turin Papyrus from Egypt: The Journal of Geology, v. 100, p. 3–18. Johnston, S., Whitmeyer, S.J., and De Paor, D.G., 2005, New developments in digital mapping and visualization as part of a capstone field geology course: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 7, p. 145. Knoop, P.A., and van der Pluijm, B., 2004, Field-based information technology in geology education: Geopads: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 85, no. 47, abstract ED13E-0751. Leake, B.E., Tanner, P.W.G., and Senior, A., 1981, The Geology of Connemara; Color Printed 1:63,360 Geological Map: Glasgow, University of Glasgow, scale 1:63,360. Lonergan, N., and Andresen, L.W., 1988, Field-based education: Some theoretical considerations: Higher Education Research & Development, v. 7, p. 63–77, doi: 10.1080/0729436880070106. Longley, P.A., Goodchild, M., Maguire, D.J., Rhind, D.W., and Lobley, J., 2001, Geographic Information Systems and Science: Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, 454 p. Manone, M.F., Umhoefer, P.J., and Hoisch, T.D., 2003, A digital field camp: Applying emerging technology to teach geologic field mapping: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35, no. 6, p. 411. May, C.L., Eaton, L.S., and Whitmeyer, S.J., 2009, this volume, Integrating student-led research in fluvial geomorphology into traditional field courses: A case study from James Madison University’s field course in Ireland, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(17). McCaffrey, K.J.W., Feely, M., Hennessey, R., and Thompson, J., 2008, Visualisation of folding in marble outcrops, Connemara, western Ireland: An application of virtual outcrop technology: Geosphere, v. 4, p. 588–599, doi: 10.1130/GES00147.1.
56
De Paor and Whitmeyer
McConnell, D.A., Steer, D.N., Owens, K.D., and Knight, C.C., 2005, How students think: Implications for learning in introductory geoscience courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, p. 462–470. Mies, J.W., 1996, Automated digital compilation of structural symbols: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 44, p. 539–548. Neumann, K., and Kutis, M., 2006, Mobile GIS in geologic mapping exercises: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 153–157. Niemi, N.A., Sheehan, D.D., Akciz, S.O., Hodges, K.V., Nguyen, H.Q., Carr, C.E., and Whipple, K.X., 2002, Incorporating handheld computers and pocket GIS into the undergraduate and graduate field geology curriculum: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, no. 6, p. 299. Pyle, E.J., 2009, this volume, The evaluation of field course experiences: A framework for development, improvement, and reporting, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(26). Simpson, C., and De Paor, D.G., 2009, Restoring Maps and Memoirs to FourDimensional Space Using Virtual Globe Technology: A Case Study from the Scottish Highlands: Geological Society of London Special Publication on Continental Tectonics & Mountain Building—The Legacy of Peach & Horne (in press). Smith, W., 1815, A Geological Map of England and Wales and Part of Scotland: London, British Geological Survey, 16 sheets. Socolow, A.A., 1988, The State Geological Surveys: A History: Lexington, Kentucky, American Association of State Geologists, 499 p. Tarbuck, E.J., and Lutgens, F.K., 2002, Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geography: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 351 p.
Thompson, M.M., 1988, Maps for America—Cartographic Products of the U.S. Geological Survey and Others: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 265 p. Whitmeyer, S.J., De Paor, D.G., and Sharma, A., 2007, Innovative Google Earth visualizations of the Appalachian–Caledonian orogeny in eastern North America and western Ireland: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 1, p. 42. Whitmeyer, S.J., De Paor, D.G., Nicoletti, J., Rivera, M., Santangelo, B., and Daniels, J., 2008a, Cross-disciplinary undergraduate research: A case study in digital mapping, western Ireland: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 89, no. 53, abstract ED52A-04. Whitmeyer, S.J., De Paor, D.G., Daniels, J., Nicoletti, J., Rivera, M., and Santangelo, B., 2008b, A pyramid scheme for constructing geologic maps on geobrowsers: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 89, no. 53, abstract IN41B-1140. Whitmeyer, S.J., Feely, M., De Paor, D., Hennessy, R., Whitmeyer, S., Nicoletti, J., Santangelo, B., Daniels, J., and Rivera, M., 2009, this volume, Visualization techniques in field geology education: A case study from western Ireland, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(10). Winchester, S., 2001, The Map That Changed the World: William Smith and the Birth of Modern Geology: New York, Harper Collins, 239 p.
MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Integration of field experiences in a project-based geoscience curriculum Paul R. Kelso* Lewis M. Brown† Department of Geology and Physics, Lake Superior State University, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 49783, USA
ABSTRACT The undergraduate geoscience curriculum at Lake Superior State University is field based and project centered. This format provides an active learning environment to enhance student development of a meaningful geoscience knowledge base and of complex reasoning skills in authentic contexts. Field experiences, including data acquisition, are integrated into both lower- and upper-division coursework. Students simulate the activities of practicing geoscientists by conducting all aspects of field projects, including planning, collecting data, analyzing and interpreting data, incorporating background and supplemental data, and completing oral and written reports of results. The projects stimulate interest, provide motivation for learning new concepts, and are structured to develop teamwork and communication skills.
present fundamental geoscience concepts in the context of sequentially ordered problems, many of them field based, that reflect increasing structural complexity and geophysical sophistication (Kelso and Brown, 2008; Brown et al., 2007), different depositional regimes (Brown et al., 2007, 2008), important igneous and metamorphic petrogenetic models (Gonzales and Semken, 2006), and instructive hydrological and geoenvironmental situations (Smith, 1995; Trop et al., 2000). Our revisions were motivated by a number of concerns we have with geology programs based on traditional curricular designs and pedagogy. A central desire was to create a curriculum that would improve student mastery of the core geologic concepts that we identified in a national survey of geoscience faculty administered by the American Geological Institute (Kelso et al., 2001). Along with core concept acquisition, we recognized the need to substantially increase our programmatic emphasis on student written and oral communication skills (Brown et al., 1993), computer and quantitative skills, and problem solving and critical thinking skills. A major goal in our curriculum development was to enhance students’ ability to solve real-world geologic problems
INTRODUCTION The geology faculty at Lake Superior State University (LSSU), a state-funded university in Michigan’s eastern Upper Peninsula, have designed and implemented a new undergraduate geology curriculum (Kelso et al., 2001; Kelso and Brown, 2004). Our curricular goals model those of other educators in promoting development of students’ intellectual and creative thinking skills by engaging them in team-oriented, field-based problems. Field activities are integrated with classroom activities to enhance development of students’ abilities to solve multidisciplinary, realworld geoscience problems (e.g., Smith, 1995; Ireton et al., 1996; National Research Council, 1996a; National Science Foundation Advisory Board, 1996; Trop et al., 2000; Noll, 2003; Gonzales and Semken, 2006; Knapp et al., 2006). The LSSU curriculum is based on constructivist teaching/ learning theories that emphasize active learning. Our courses *[email protected] † [email protected]
by integrating concepts from multiple subdisciplines. We accomplished this by creating a set of courses integrating subdiscipline concepts to replace our existing discrete subdiscipline-centered courses. For example, we developed a carbonate systems class that integrates core concepts from carbonate sequence stratigraphy, carbonate depositional and diagenetic environments, and invertebrate paleontology to partially replace existing discrete courses in invertebrate paleontology, carbonate petrology, and stratigraphy (Brown et al., 2007.). We further created a course in clastic systems to address clastic depositional systems, clastic sedimentary petrology, and clastic sequence stratigraphy. The projects in both classes incorporate data from the field and from collected samples. The curricular changes we made in order to incorporate a field component into our sophomore-level structural geology course and the seven integrated upper-division courses are shown in Table 1. Field experiences by their very nature are ideal vehicles by which to deliver an active learning program. Field-based learning helps students construct a better knowledge framework (e.g., Loucks-Horsley et al., 1990; National Research Council, 1996b; Kirschner, 1997; Mintzes et al., 2005; Elkins and Elkins, 2007) by promoting students’ ability to visualize spatial relationships of rocks in three dimensions early in their academic preparation (Kali and Orion, 1996; National Research Council, 2006; Kastens and Ishikawa, 2006; Reynolds et al., 2006). Spatial visualization provides a context for theoretical concepts and direct observation of concrete examples of specific features and their in situ relationships; it is a traditional area of weakness and inhibits conceptual understandings throughout the undergraduate experience (Manduca and Mogk, 2006). Pedagogical focus on field experiences provides an active learning environment that enhances motivation, learning and retention, and problem solving, (McKenzie et al., 1986; National Science Foundation Advisory Board, 1996; Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, 1997) and further develops skills for critical analysis, inquiry, and communication (Gonzales and Semken, 2006). Active, cooperative learning strategies, for example, establishing teams of students working together to solve fieldbased problems, increase conceptual understanding and student achievement and help students overcome misconceptions (e.g., Basili and Sanford, 1991; Johnson et al., 1991; Cuseo, 1992; Cooper, 1995; Esiobu and Soyibo, 1995). We implemented this field-based approach throughout our curriculum (see Table 1) to enhance the learning process and to better prepare geoscientists for graduate programs and careers. Integrating fieldwork into discipline-oriented coursework provides a focus for subdiscipline content application (e.g., Kern and Carpenter, 1986; Gonzales and Semken, 2006) and provides student motivation for learning content (Edelson et al., 2006). These field projects require students to solve problems, think critically, and be involved in all aspects of a geological study from project design to data collection, to interpretation, to formal written and oral project presentations. Where a field component is embedded in a course, we increased scheduled laboratory hours from a more
traditional 2 or 3 h/wk to 6 h/wk. Although scheduled as two 3 h blocks, the allotted time can be used for day-long field trips. Thus, students have the opportunity for more in-depth experiences with less interruption and fewer distractions than might be available in a shorter time period. We typically decreased the “lecture” time by 1 h/wk, so there was no net effect on students’ credit load or associated tuition costs. This restructuring resulted in an increase in the amount of time that students work with a particular concept, student-faculty contact time, and opportunity for in-depth discussion of concepts. Thus, we find that students are better able to transfer conceptual information from text and lecture to field applications and are better able to interpret fieldbased observations. CURRICULUM AND COURSE DESIGN Lake Superior State University’s field-oriented curricular revision (Table 1) requires that students now complete approximately double the amount of fieldwork compared to our old curriculum. As part of our new curriculum, students spend ~13 wk working on projects in the field. These field experiences include two 3 wk summer field courses and numerous half-day to weeklong field excursions associated with individual academic-year courses (Table 1). Our field-based courses begin at the sophomore level with structural geology. This course meets for three lecture and six laboratory hours per week over 14 wk. The course incorporates a field component during which basic field geology skills are taught within the context of structural projects. The structural geology course is followed by a 3 wk sophomore-level summer field course that is the capstone of the geology minor and our students’ lower-division preparation. The goals of the sophomore field experience include student development of field and observational skills, for example, observing and working with rock relationships in space and time, and collecting samples and data that are used in upper-division class projects (Table 1). Thus, early in their undergraduate education, students gain first-hand experience that allows for more sophisticated upper-division fieldwork and enhances upper-division understandings of basic concepts and detailed regional geology. Additionally, the sophomore field experience promotes critical student-student interaction that serves as the basis for upper-division team projects. Further, the extended time for personal interaction in a traveling field-based course encourages meaningful student-instructor communication on professional as well as personal levels and serves to overcome student-instructor barriers that inhibit upper-division learning. The sophomore field course involves travel to a geologic setting that differs from the local area. It addresses field techniques, including cross-section and map preparation, measuring stratigraphic sections, and gathering basic geologic data such as mineral and rock identification in contrasting geological provinces. Students apply basic stratigraphic, sedimentologic, and structural principles to interpret their cross sections and maps and develop basic interpretations of depositional environments. Integration
TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF THE FIELD-BASED COURSES IN LAKE SUPERIOR STATE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE GEOLOGY PROGRAMS New geology curriculum Original geology curriculum Course title Pedagogy Fieldwork (field days) Course title Pedagogy Fieldwork (field days) Field objectives Lecture Some years (1) Project based Structural Structural Geology Day Trips Structural measurements Laboratory Geology and and Tectonics Quaternary and Precambrian (5) Introduction to geologic Geological field-mapping techniques Graphics N.A.* N.A.* N.A.* Introduction to Field Introductory Trip to Wisconsin and Black Hills, South Dakota Basic field mapping Geology mapping Igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic Basic stratigraphic and Geologic systems (19) structural analysis interpretation Lecture Mine field trip (1) Geochemical Systems Project based Igneous and Weekend and day trips Mapping and interpretation Metamorphic Laboratory Igneous/metamorphic systems of igneous, metamorphic, Petrography Economic mineralization (10) and mineralized systems Economic Geology Introduction to Lecture Bedrock geology (1) Geophysical Systems Project based Weekend and day trips Using geophysical Geophysics Problem sets Geophysical mapping field equipment Near-surface applications (10) Conducting geophysical surveys Geotectonics Lecture None Tectonic Systems Project based Spring break trip Terrane analysis Laboratory Appalachian Mountains transect (9) Integration of petrography, structure, and tectonics Stratigraphy Lecture None Clastic Systems Project based Presemester trip and day trips Advanced stratigraphy and Laboratory Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Quaternary (11) Depositional environment Sedimentation interpretations N.A.* N.A.* N.A.* Geoenvironmental Project based Weekend and day trips Environmental assessment Systems Surficial processes Mapping and interpretation Environmental studies (8) of surficial materials Invertebrate Lecture Fossil collection (2) Carbonate Systems Project based Data and samples collected during Introduction Observing and collecting Paleontology Laboratory to Field Geology course samples, fossils, and data from carbonate rocks Sedimentary Lecture None Geology Seminar: Project based Data and samples collected during Introduction Observing outcrops and Petrography Sequence Laboratory to Field Geology course collecting samples and Stratigraphy data Field Geology Mapping Igneous, sedimentary, Advanced Field Advanced mapping Trip to SW United States Advanced field mapping Geologic and metamorphic Geology Geologic Igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic Detailed geologic interpretation systems (40) interpretation systems (19) interpretation *N.A.—not applicable.
59
60
Kelso and Brown
of these field components into upper-division courses such as clastic systems, carbonate systems, and a geologic seminar on sequence stratigraphy (Table 1) is accomplished by requiring students to collect data, including rock suites, that are incorporated into upper-division course projects. Further, the techniques and skills that students develop in the sophomore experience are reinforced in upper-division courses in which students concentrate on solving sets of specific, realworld geologic problems that are drawn from a variety of geologic settings. Our upper-division fall offerings—geophysical systems, clastic systems, geochemical systems, and geoenvironmental systems—are field intensive and require half-day to week-long field excursions to promote in-depth understanding of geologic problems. In these courses, we integrate the key core concepts of a number of geoscience subdisciplines, such as geophysics, physical stratigraphy, petroleum geology, paleontology, geochemistry, economic geology, surficial processes, and surface and subsurface contamination. Similarly, one of our seasonally challenged winter/spring offerings, tectonic systems, incorporates a 1 wk field trip to study the tectonics of the southeastern Appalachians during our spring break. Our upper-division coursework also includes a second 3 wk summer field course that emphasizes mapping skills in structurally complex terrains with a wider range of sedimentologic and petrologic problems. The following discussion illustrates our field-intensive curriculum by describing in some detail the format of two of our upper-division, academic-year courses, clastic systems and geophysical systems. Clastic Systems Our new curriculum is structured so that key geologic concepts are integrated sequentially throughout the curriculum. Key concepts introduced at the sophomore level, for example, are revisited in the upper-division courses at progressive levels of sophistication. For example, the Clastic Systems course builds
sequentially upon a number of concepts and field-data collections from the sophomore-level Introduction to Field Geology course. These include basic field methods, rock classification, interpretation of sedimentary features, and production and interpretation of maps and cross sections (Table 1). The sophomore field course requires students to collect clastic rock suites and observe sedimentary features from formations of different ages in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming, including the Deadwood Formation, Minnelusa Formation, and four exposed members of the Sundance Formation. Fieldwork during the Clastic Systems course includes a 1 wk presemester field trip to Mississippian and Pennsylvanian clastic outcrops in the southern part of the Illinois Basin and six to eight one-half to full-day local field experiences during structured class times. Emphasis is placed on reinforcing good field technique, introducing more sophisticated classification systems, observing, describing, and interpreting the origin of primary sedimentary structures, and interpreting depositional environments. The rock suites from the Black Hills, along with material collected on the clastics field trips, form the basis of Clastic Systems course projects involving interpretation of processes that form clastic rocks, sedimentological principles, and depositional environments. For example, whereas students in the sophomore field course apply a simplified version of Pettijohn’s (1975) clastic classification in assigning rock names and in utilizing individual and group observations and measurements to create field-based cross sections and geologic maps, the clastics classroom work requires microscopic examination to more accurately identify minerals and determine mineral percentages and grain size and textural relationships. Students in the clastics class focus on developing detailed rock descriptions and graphic sedimentary logs (Nichols, 1999). They gather data for class projects that address transport, deposition, and deformation of detrital units including observation and measurement of primary clastic sedimentary structures to interpret fluid flow, current direction, and soft sediment deformation (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Teams of students studying sedimentary processes in Quaternary deposits during a laboratory session for the Clastic Systems class.
Integration of field experiences in a project-based geoscience curriculum Other Clastics Systems course projects require a comparison of sedimentary features that students initially observed in the Pennsylvanian Minnelusa Formation in the Black Hills to exposures of Precambrian primary features (ripple marks, mud cracks, etc.) and soft sediment deformation features in our local area and to features of Pennsylvanian rocks they observe in the southern part of the Illinois Basin during the required presemester weeklong field trip. Other local day-trip projects allow students to compare local exposures of Precambrian glacial deposits, ripple marks, mud cracks, and soft sediment deformation features to local Quaternary glacial and fluvial deposits and modern depositional environments. Thus, students study first hand the relationships between sedimentation processes and products over both geologic time and geographic distance. In the Clastic Systems class, students revise the cross sections and geologic maps that they constructed during the sophomore field geology course and construct new maps, such as facies maps, to meet specific project objectives. Collected data, along with Clastic Systems course readings and lecture material, allow students to interpret depositional environments for all of the rock units they have observed, both in the sophomore field class and during the clastics field excursions. Students produce sophisticated geological interpretations such as application of sequencestratigraphic principles and facies-model interpretations, including consideration of depositional environmental parameters such as climatic changes that vary through time. Other projects in the clastics systems course encourage students to develop an understanding of repetitive sedimentation patterns by examining evidence for multiple glaciation events from the local Proterozoic Canadian Shield and Pleistocene glacial deposits and by comparing/contrasting depositional paradigms associated with Pennsylvanian deposits in the Illinois Basin. Students in our upper-division Sequence Stratigraphy Seminar again use rock descriptions of the Minnelusa Formation and field maps and cross sections they generated in the sophomore field course in the Black Hills. Their field observations, in conjunction with subsurface maps that students generated based on borehole data that they retrieved from the Wyoming Geological Survey Web site, form the bases for a class project to generate a hydrocarbon play in the subsurface of the Powder River Basin. For this exercise, the students generate a base map, plot the boreholes, create cross sections and facies, paleogeographic and structure contour maps, interpret depositional environments, and summarize their results in a formally written “exploration report.” These activities enhance student facility with concepts and principles related to depositional processes. Their ability to interpret and reconstruct geological events is far advanced compared to students that completed our previous more traditional lecture/ laboratory course. We base this conclusion on personal observations, student comments on class evaluations, student’s comments upon engaging in graduate-level work, and comments from employers. For example, we find that student in-class questions are more sophisticated, their understanding of advanced
61
concepts is greater, and their ability to complete complex projects is improved over student overall performance in our previous traditional courses. Geophysical Systems Our Geophysical Systems course (Kelso and Brown, 2008) is another example of the way in which integration of fieldwork into an academic-year offering is developed in our curriculum. All Geophysical System course projects are field-based, requiring students to spend 1–3 d collecting field geologic and geophysical data and information on potential cultural anomaly sources. Thus, students improve their observational skills and recognize data limitations and potential sources of error through the collection of their own data in the field. This course, like many of our upper-division courses, is designed to model industry practices and promote student concept acquisition and problem-solving skills. We teach key geophysical concepts, theories, and techniques in the context of real geophysical projects. Solving the problems associated with each field project requires students to learn relevant geoscience concepts and then apply them immediately to a particular study. The projects include geologic mapping in poorly exposed regions, water table and buried bedrock topographic studies (Fig. 2A), and identification of buried objects in such places as military sites and old cemeteries. For these and other projects, students generate and interpret a variety of geophysical maps, cross sections, and surface and subsurface maps (Fig. 2B). The general format of the Geophysical Systems course is exemplified by the progression of activities incorporated into the Camp Lucas project, summarized in Figure 3. The goal of this project is to identify buried objects remaining at the abandon Camp Lucas military facility, which is now part of the Lake Superior State University campus. The project site is the proposed location for a future campus building. Thus, the project results, identifying remaining military materials, address a real geoscience issue that is of interest to the campus community, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. A variety of other geophysical field problems are addressed throughout the course, and critical background information for each project is gathered by student research and provided by instructor supplements. Projects progress from generally straightforward geophysical studies to more complex problems involving more sophisticated applications that require teams of students to integrate multiple types of field, geologic, and geophysical information (May and Gibbons, 2004). Following introduction of a project by the instructor, student teams each develop a written proposal for work to be completed. All project proposals must include justification for each geophysical instrument chosen; anticipated anomaly characteristics for each instrument, including a forward model of anticipated anomaly magnitude and width; survey design for each instrument including station and line location and spacing
62
Kelso and Brown
Figure 2. (A) A student team collecting 24-channel seismic refraction data as part of a geophysical study to determine the water table and bedrock depth and slope on a fall afternoon. (B) A student team’s final interpretation of the bedrock geology of a glacially covered region based on results from multiple geophysical data sets (magnetic data is included on this map).
Geophysical Systems: Camp Lucas Project Flowchart Outcomes
Project Objective Locate buried objects at an abandoned military site on the Lake Superior State University campus
Forward model of anticipated anomalies
Magnetic and electromagnetic background information
Field geophysics survey designs proposed
Project proposal: written and oral
Magnetic and electromagnetic theory Conduct electromagnetic field survey
Conduct magnetic field survey
Set up field survey lines
Process magnetic and electromagnetic data
Initial plotting and interpretation of magnetic and electromagnetic field data
Final model and interpretation of magnetic and electromagnetic field data based on theory and observation
Written report of processes and interpretation
Oral presentation of processes and interpretation
Class debates best survey design Initial modeling of magnetic and electromagnetic field data
Figure 3. Flowchart for the design of one project undertaken in the Geophysical Systems course. The flowchart outlines the Camp Lucas geophysical project to locate buried objects remaining at the abandoned military facility, which is now part of the Lake Superior State University Campus.
Student-driven independent, follow-up research: Students conduct field resistivity and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) surveys over modeled anomalies, interpret data, and present the results at a national meeting
Integration of field experiences in a project-based geoscience curriculum based in part on modeling; anticipated time and financial costs; and logistical considerations. Students present their project proposals orally, and they debate the merits of each. The class then decides the field survey characteristics they will use (Fig. 3). Through the series of projects, student teams collect data with a gravimeter, magnetometer (total field and vertical component), electromagnetic systems (horizontal loop and very long frequency receiver), seismic system (12 or 24 channel), groundpenetrating radar, resistivity/induced polarization system (28 electrode), and self potential system, so all students learn to operate all instruments and interpret the data from each. The size of the project area and the target influence the method of data collection. Due to time constraints, it is often necessary for each team to gather data with all the chosen instruments from a portion of a project area and then share data so that a project can be completed efficiently. Students, individually and in teams, process, plot, model, and interpret all field data sets collected. Students’ computer and quantitative skills are developed through data analysis that requires the use of a variety of software, from Excel and Surfer for data processing and presentation, to sophisticated forward and inverse geophysical modeling software packages (Fig. 2B). Students’ progress is assessed at intermediate stages during the project when students submit plots of data and engage in discussions of associated data processing and/or interpretations. Because students have multiple data sets available, they must develop a final interpretation that is consistent with all the data available (Fig. 2B). The multiple field data sets and the existing background information often provide critical constraints on the nonuniqueness of geophysical data and require students to evaluate alternative hypotheses. The final project evaluation includes both a written and an oral component and encourages constructive peer evaluation within a team and between teams. CONCLUSIONS Through a field-based, project-centered approach to teaching geoscience at Lake Superior State University, students’ ability to apply geoscience concepts to solving multidisciplinary problems has significantly improved, along with their self-confidence and their retention of material. We base this conclusion on a qualitative assessment of students’ class responses and project work, student evaluations, their success at graduate school, and the comments of employers. The results of program assessment involving implementation of concept maps, clinical student interviews, multidisciplinary problem-solving activities, and the geoscience concept inventory (Libarkin and Anderson, 2005) all record student growth (Englebrecht et al., 2005; Brown et al., 2008). We find that field studies and project-based activities build team work and communication skills and require students to solve open-ended problems by collecting the data necessary to critically evaluate multiple hypotheses and integrate and evaluate information from a number of subdisciplines. Through these activities, students simulate the practices of geoscience profes-
63
sionals and thus gain a strong background for geoscience careers in industry, academics, or public service. Curricular revision requires motivation, support, and the time necessary to devote to the requisite planning and implementation phases. Field-based learning can be implemented on a courseby-course basis or, as in our case, can prompt an entire programmatic revision. Our frustration with traditional course structures and lecture-based learning prompted us to experiment with alternatives. At first, we developed new laboratory exercises, but we quickly realized that there is no substitute for field-based experiential learning. We began by integrating course-required spring break and weekend trips into select courses. The results were immediately obvious. Student interest was greatly enhanced, and their active participation in on-site exercises resulted in muchimproved learning as shown by test results, problem-solving, and overall quality of written work. Our results motivated us to revise our entire curriculum. Our ability to plan and implement a substantially revised curriculum based on a fundamental pedagogical change was enhanced by the philosophical compatibility of the geology instructors and their commitment to allocate the necessary time to curriculum development often at the expense of other professional commitments, such as individual research and personal time. Additionally, the revisions would not have been possible without the support of university administration, including their commitment to support a revision in course and faculty schedules to accommodate the increased laboratory time. Clearly, faculty commitment and administrative support are prerequisites to the success of any substantial curriculum revision. Faculty commitment to field-based learning is time consuming. Class preparation includes time to visit field sites such as classic outcrops, quarries, aggregate pits, construction sites, and local geoenvironmental concerns. Field sites may vary from year to year depending upon access and opportunity, and this requires an ongoing time commitment to course preparation. Additionally, faculty must address logistical issues, such as site access, transportation, and availability and maintenance of necessary field equipment. Planning must also include consideration of variable weather, safety concerns, and scheduling of field activities to avoid student and faculty time conflicts. We advocate, however, that if a field-intensive curriculum can be successfully implemented at Lake Superior State University, with its weatherconstrained field season, field-intensive courses can be successful implemented at many other institutions. The unique educational opportunities that field-based activities provide and the enhanced student motivation are worth the extra effort required. There are significant challenges on the horizon. The cost and liability related to the travel, fieldwork, and equipment associated with field projects are rapidly becoming of major concern. We have instituted a course fee for all academic-year offerings to help offset field-excursion costs. To minimize travel expenses, we have variously used university cars, minivans, fifteen-passenger vans and fifteen-passenger buses, along with car rentals and air travel where appropriate, but these costs continue to increase. Also, safety concerns related to vehicular road travel are ongoing.
64
Kelso and Brown
Strategies must be developed and continuously revised in order to overcome these challenges so that students can continue to benefit from geoscience field experiences. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This curriculum revision was supported in part by National Science Foundation grant DUE-9952319 to Brown and Kelso. We thank Joel Mintzes for his assistance with course and curriculum assessment and Barb Tewksbury for her assistance with course and curriculum design. REFERENCES CITED Basili, P.A., and Sanford, P.J., 1991, Conceptual change strategies and cooperative group work in chemistry: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 28, p. 293–304, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660280403. Brown, L.M., Pingatore, D.R., Carson, C.K., and Rexroad, C.B., 1993, A comprehensive model for teaching writing skills: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 41, p. 151–154. Brown, L.M., Kelso, P.R., White, R.J., and Rexroad, C.B., 2007, A projectbased geoscience curriculum: Select examples: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 88, no. 52, abstract ED42A-02. Brown, L.M., Kelso, P.R., Nelkie, E., and Rexroad, C.B., 2008, Carbonate systems: A project-based undergraduate upper division course: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 4, p. 70. Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, 1997, Science Teaching Reconsidered: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 97 p. Cooper, J., 1995, You say cooperative, I say collaborative; let’s call the whole thing off: Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, v. 5, p. 1–2. Cuseo, J., 1992, Collaborative and cooperative learning in higher education: A proposed taxonomy: Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, v. 2, p. 2–5. Edelson, D.C., Pitts, V.M., Salierno, C.M., and Sherin, B.L., 2006, Engineering geosciences learning experiences using the Learning-for-Use design framework, in Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, p. 53–76. Elkins, J.T., and Elkins, N.M.L., 2007, Teaching geology in the field: Significant geoscience concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geology courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, p. 126–132. Englebrecht, A.C., Mintzes, J.J., Brown, L.M., and Kelso, P.R., 2005, Assessment strategies for a university-level physical geology course: Utilizing concept maps and interviews: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, p. 263–270. Esiobu, G.O., and Soyibo, K., 1995, Effects of concept and vee mappings under three learning modes on students’ cognitive achievement in ecology and genetics: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 32, p. 971–995, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660320908. Gonzales, D., and Semken, S., 2006, Integrating undergraduate education and scientific discovery through field research in igneous petrology: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 133–142. Ireton, M.F.W., Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., 1996, Shaping the Future of Undergraduate Earth Science Education: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union (also available at http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/ spheres/), 61 p. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A., 1991, Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom: Edina, Minnesota, Interaction Book Company, 270 p. Kali, Y., and Orion, N., 1996, Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geologic structures: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 33, p. 369–391, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199604)33 :4<369::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-Q. Kastens, K.A., and Ishikawa, T., 2006, Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences: A cross-disciplinary look at the intersection of the
two fields, in Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, p. 53–76. Kelso, P.R., and Brown, L.M., 2004, Strengthening an undergraduate geoscience department through a new project-centered curriculum: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 5, p. 352. Kelso, P.R., and Brown, L.M., 2008, A geology curriculum for the 21st century: Leading Edge (Tulsa, Oklahoma), v. 27, p. 1334–1339, doi: 10.1190/1.2996544. Kelso, P.R., Brown, L.M., Mintzes, J.J., and Englebrecht, A.C., 2001, A geology program revised: Geotimes, v. 46, p. 19. Kern, E.L., and Carpenter, J.R., 1986, Effect of field activities on student learning: Journal of Geological Education, v. 34, p. 180–183. Kirschner, J.G., 1997, Traditional field camp: Still important: Geotimes, v. 42, p. 5. Knapp, E.P., Greer, L., Connors, C.D., and Harbor, D.J., 2006, Field-based instruction as part of a balanced geoscience curriculum at Washington and Lee University: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 93–102. Libarkin, J.C., and Anderson, S.W., 2005, Assessment of learning in entry-level geoscience courses: Results from the Geoscience Concept Inventory: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, no. 4, p. 394–401. Loucks-Horsley, S., Clark, R.C., Kuerbis, P.J., Kapitan, R., and Carlson, M.D., 1990, Elementary School Science for the ’90s: Alexandria, Virginia, Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development, 166 p. Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., 2006, Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, 188 p. May, M.T., and Gibbons, M.G., 2004, Introducing students to environmental geophysics in a field setting: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 52, p. 254–259. McKenzie, G.D., Utgard, R.O., and Lisowski, M., 1986, The importance of field trips: Journal of College Science Teaching, v. 16, p. 17–20. Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J., and Novak, J., eds., 2005, Teaching Science for Understanding: A Human Constructivist View: San Diego, California, Academic Press, 360 p. National Research Council, 1996a, From analysis to action: Undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering and technology: Report of a convocation: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, p. 13–36. National Research Council, 1996b, National Science Education Standards: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 272 p. National Research Council, 2006, Learning to think spatially: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 313 p. National Science Foundation Advisory Board, 1996, Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: Arlington, Virginia, National Science Foundation Publication 96-139, 76 p. Nichols, G., 1999, Sedimentology and Stratigraphy: Malden, Massachusetts, Blackwell Science, 355 p. Noll, M.R., 2003, Building bridges between field and laboratory studies in an undergraduate groundwater course: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 51, p. 231–236. Pettijohn, F.J., 1975, Sedimentary Rocks (3rd edition): New York, Harper and Row, 628 p. Reynolds, S.J., Piburn, M.D., Leedy, D.E., McAuliffe, C.M., Birk, J.P., and Johnson, J.K., 2006, The Hidden Earth—Interactive, computer-based modules for geoscience learning, in Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, p. 157–170. Smith, G.L., 1995, Using field and laboratory exercises on local water bodies to teach fundamental concepts in an introductory oceanography course: Journal of Geological Education, v. 43, p. 480–484. Trop, J.M., Krockover, G.H., and Ridgway, K.D., 2000, Integration of field observations with laboratory modeling for understanding hydrologic processes in an undergraduate earth-science course: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 48, p. 514–521.
MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Experience One: Teaching the geoscience curriculum in the field using experiential immersion learning Robert C. Thomas Sheila Roberts Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Montana Western, Dillon, Montana 59725, USA
ABSTRACT At the University of Montana Western (UMW), geoscience classes are taught primarily through immersion in field research projects. This paper briefly describes: (1) why and how we achieved a schedule that supports immersion learning, (2) examples of two geoscience classes taught in the field, (3) assessment, and (4) the challenges of this model of teaching and learning. The University of Montana Western is the first public four-year campus to adopt immersion learning based on one-class-at-a-time scheduling. We call it “Experience One” because classes emphasize experiential learning and students take only one class for 18 instructional days. The system was adopted campus wide in the fall of 2005 after a successful pilot program funded by the U.S. Department of Education. The geoscience curriculum has been altered to reduce lecture and focus on field projects that provide direct experience with the salient concepts in the discipline. Students use primary literature more than textbooks, and assessment emphasizes the quality of their projects and presentations. Many projects are collaborative with land-management agencies and private entities and require students to use their field data to make management decisions. Assessment shows that the immersion-learning model improves educational quality. For example, the 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) showed that UMW has high mean scores compared to other campuses participating in the survey. Of the many challenges, none is more important than the need for faculty to change the ways in which they interact with students. INTRODUCTION
accomplished primarily through lecture-based field trips, shortduration field exercises, and spring- or fall-break trips. In order to engage students in authentic experiential research projects in the field, more time is needed, and conflicts with other courses must be eliminated. A scheduling system that provides this kind of immersion opportunity was successfully developed and implemented in the late 1960s by Colorado College (i.e., their “block plan”) and is still in use on that campus today. This system immerses students in one class at a time for 18 instructional days, followed by a four day break. It provides scheduling flexibility and an opportunity to concentrate on the subject
Seeds of Change Authentic field experiences are at the heart of the study of Earth. However, it is difficult to incorporate extended fieldwork into geology classes in the traditional semester system due to time constraints and conflicts with other classes. This has long been recognized and resulted in the inclusion of a required summer immersion “field camp” in most undergraduate geology programs. During the regular school year, field geology is typically
at hand without distractions from other classes. Their schedule is ideal for field-based experiential learning. Unfortunately, this scheduling approach is rare in North American higher education outside of between-semester interim sessions and summer sessions. Other than Colorado College, only a handful of campuses have adopted this system or a modified version of it, and all of them are private. So, why is this the case? The answer is undoubtedly complex; certainly, the inertia inherent in long-established educational methods and the fact that the burden is on faculty to fundamentally change how they interact with students are major factors. The longer time blocks cannot be effectively filled with traditional lecture presentations. Faculty must engage students in experiential applications or the larger time blocks can become an impediment to learning. A Need for Change at the University of Montana Western The University of Montana Western (UMW) was founded in 1893 as the state normal school. By the early 1990s, most campuses in Montana were training K–12 teachers, and UMW faculty began searching for ways to distinguish the campus as unique and necessary in the Montana University system. Because of limited campus resources and external pressures from the state Board of Regents (BOR) to limit duplicative programs, the options for change at UMW were greatly limited. To solve the problem, the UMW faculty developed interdisciplinary, liberal arts degrees that maximized limited faculty resources. In the sciences, we organized an interdisciplinary Department of Environmental Sciences and focused on fieldbased projects (Thomas et al., 1996). Anecdotal evidence suggested that students showed improved cognition and metacognition, and we concluded that they appeared to be learning scientific concepts and skills more “deeply” in these courses. The very low number of students missing the field classes indicated that they were more engaged than they were in the lecture courses, which sometimes saw a 40% absentee rate after the second week of the semester. The success of the program did not go unnoticed, however, and within a few years, undergraduate programs in environmental sciences appeared at several other campuses in the Montana University system. Our realization that programs could be duplicated and our growing frustration with the standard scheduling combined to create a watershed moment in the history of UMW. A small number of faculty from several departments realized that it was time to act on an earlier desire to do something fundamentally unique in higher education. The pedagogical impetus for choosing Experience One began with a faculty conclusion that student cognition and metacognition improved when they were immersed in their subject and had time to apply their learning to discipline-related problem solving. A wealth of published educational research and assessment has documented that experiential learning, inquiry-based learning, and immersion learning all improve the depth of concept understanding, so we were confident that this was the right thing
to do (e.g., Dewey, 1991; Kolb, 1984; Rogers and Freiberg, 1994; Johnson et al., 1998; Kolb and Kolb, 2005; Beard and Wilson, 2006). The next step in this process involved a recognition that the academic schedule itself was the primary impediment to engaging students in “authentic practice in the discipline,” our working definition of experiential learning (Thomas and Roberts, 2003). For geologists, teaching experientially requires time to transport students to field locations and engage them in extended project work, and we were still delivering most classes via the traditional 50-minute lectures and two-hour laboratory sessions. Environmental sciences faculty needed a practical solution that would facilitate our growing dependency on field-based courses to deliver experiential learning. We made several experimental attempts to free our department of this restriction (see “Challenges” section). The campus discussion turned to adapting the scheduling system pioneered by Colorado College. Colorado College adopted this system primarily to eliminate the problem of students prioritizing classes (Loevy, 1999; Taylor, 1999). For UMW, it was a comprehensive solution that benefited experiential learning and, it was hoped, might prove attractive enough to improve campus enrollment. So, during the winter of 1997, we traveled to Colorado College with the UMW dean of faculty to investigate the feasibility of adopting block scheduling. The report that circulated soon after the visit sparked in-house debate on the merits of making UMW the first public university in the United States to fully adopt block scheduling. Faculty support for the transition to block scheduling was strong from the start, but there were many skeptics as well. To facilitate a change of this magnitude, a grant was obtained from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) to run a three-year pilot program (Roberts et al., 2001). The pilot program consisted of 75 first-year students who volunteered to take their general education requirements one class at a time. In total, 16 professors from all general education disciplines volunteered to teach the classes, and the grant paid for temporary replacements so they could devote an entire semester to the pilot program. By every measure, the pilot program was very successful (Mock, 2005). After 3 years of operating the program with freshmen only, rigorous assessment of the results, vigorous campus discussion, contentious and exhaustive approval processes at meetings of the Board of Regents, and a unanimous vote in favor of adopting the system by the UMW Faculty Senate, the transition was approved. In 2005, the University of Montana Western became the first public, four-year campus in the United States to adopt one-class-at-atime immersion scheduling for the majority of classes. HOW DOES EXPERIENCE ONE WORK? Experience One works across the curriculum. At UMW, students take the vast majority of their courses one at a time (i.e., a block) over 18 instructional days, four credits per class. Most classes attain their required hours by meeting five days per week
Experience One: Teaching the geoscience curriculum in the field using experiential immersion learning
67
for an average of three hours per day, but there is flexibility in the way class time is distributed. At the end of each class, there is a four-day break for students before the next class begins. Students typically take four classes per semester for a total of 16 credits. They register for all classes at the beginning of the semester, but they can drop or add classes up to the second day of each block without penalty. Block classes are typically not scheduled after 3:15 p.m. to allow students to participate in athletics and work afternoon and evening jobs. However, flexibility in the distribution of time during each block, particularly for upper-division courses, provides educational opportunities during class time that is not typically available in the semester system. For example, in project-based courses, students may be immersed in data gathering all day long for a week or more, possibly preceded by a few days of preparatory lectures and reading and usually followed by less-structured time to analyze data and process information. Some classes involve extensive national and international travel that can consume several weeks of time for total immersion. Although the majority of classes are “blocked” in this way, some are scheduled for the entire semester (“stringer classes”), and some are scheduled for short periods of time during the semester. These allow flexibility, particularly for classes that require skill development over more than 18 instructional days (e.g., some art, music, and language classes). Many of the continuing education courses are taught as stringer classes, since the students who take these classes are commonly off-campus (e.g., online students) and taking classes while working full time. Students in block classes can add various one- or two-credit classes to a semester. Professors at UMW meet their 24-credit annual teaching obligation by teaching three of the four blocks per semester, and the fourth block is utilized for research, grant writing, professional travel, and course development. Breaks between classes provide time for grading and class preparation, although it is not uncommon for faculty to work through the weekend of a break in order to submit grades before the next class begins. The schedule is intense but satisfying.
rocks, minerals, and resources class is primarily laboratory based, with several field trips (sometimes multiple days). The geoscience program at UMW was designed to provide specific content emphases within interdisciplinary baccalaureate degrees in Environmental Science and Environmental Interpretation. Although the geology class descriptions look familiar on paper (UMW Course Catalog, 2009), the majority of them are structured very differently from comparable geology classes taught elsewhere. Lectures tend to be short and are used to introduce foundational aspects of the discipline and the field projects, and to expand on issues that arise during the applied experiences. Students often use the research literature more than textbooks. The emphasis is on field projects that provide students with direct experience with the most salient concepts and tools of the discipline. Students are typically assessed using authentic assessment practices (Ames and Archer, 1988), including the quality of their project participation, reports, and presentations. Beyond the entry level, the importance of exams and quizzes is much reduced, or these assessment vehicles may not be used at all. Many projects require students to use their data to make land-management decisions, sometimes in collaboration with land-management agencies or private consulting firms. The professor/supervisor job is different with groups of undergraduate students on a tight timetable than it is with individual graduate students working on a project over several years. Nonetheless, undergraduate students can accomplish a tremendous amount of meaningful research with careful supervision (Roberts et al., 2007; Thomas and Roberts, 2007). In order to provide examples of the ways that traditional geology courses have been altered at UMW to take advantage of the Experience One system, we describe two classes in our curriculum that are taught primarily in the field through research and management projects: (1) structural geology and (2) surficial processes.
EXAMPLES FROM THE GEOSCIENCES
The Dillon area is ideal for teaching structural geology in the field. In fact, many universities from around the globe use the area each summer to teach field geology because of great access to a variety of rock types and structural environments. To take advantage of this natural laboratory, the structural geology class at UMW does two projects over the course of 18 days that are centered on two different structural settings: (1) a convergent tectonic environment (see Block Mountain), and (2) a divergent tectonic environment (see Timber Hill). The class concludes with a field final that is intended to challenge the students to work independently, test their skills, and most importantly, prove to themselves that they can synthesize and interpret the data they have collected without the need for help (see Dalys spur). The class does not include a traditional lecture, but a small dry-erase board is used in the field to provide sketches, terminology, and other pertinent information. The class has no
The geosciences are well suited for Experience One. The entry-level classes at UMW are typically capped at 20–25 students, and the rest of the geoscience classes typically range from 10 to 20 students. The small classes and large blocks of time allow for field- and project-based work that is difficult to achieve in most geology classes on the semester and trimester (quarter) systems. Although not every class is taught completely in the field, they all have a large field component. The geoscience classes that do not have major field research experiences are the entry-level courses and a few upper-level courses (e.g., rocks, minerals and resources, and geology seminar). However, all classes have field experiences, including weekly trips in the entry-level courses to expose students to in-class concepts and projects that require students to work independently in the field (Thomas, 2001). The
Structural Geology
68
Thomas and Roberts
traditional laboratory, yet the students have office days to construct structural cross sections, process field data, conduct analyses, and write reports. The class does not have a textbook, but several copies of a structural geology text (Davis and Reynolds, 1996) are made available in the laboratory for students to look up information as needed, and they use pertinent published literature and web resources. In addition, students have the option to purchase a copy of the Geological Society of London handbook series on mapping geological structures (McClay, 1995), which many students choose to do even though the book is relatively expensive. Block Mountain Block Mountain is an extraordinary fold-and-thrust belt structure and a keystone mapping project for the many field camps in the Dillon area. The project lies within an area designated by the Bureau of Land Management as a Research Natural Area, and the structure consists of a north-plunging fold pair with a major folded thrust fault (and many minor thrust faults) within the stratigraphic sequence (Sears et al., 1989). Most field camps use the project to learn the skill of mapping and cross-section construction, but they rarely apply the data to solving geologic problems. At UMW, the structural geology students not only learn field skills (Fig. 1), but they also learn about the physical and chemical processes that form the structures by conducting descriptive, kinematic, and dynamic analyses on the data they have collected. Most importantly, they apply their understanding to solving geologic problems, such as interpreting the stresses that produced the deformation or determining the logical sequence of folding and thrust faulting. Students also apply their structural data to making landmanagement decisions and writing reports that assess economic resources. In the final report, they are required to include an analysis of the potential geologic resources within the map area, including a thorough explanation of why particular resources might occur within the map area and the probability that they occur at economic levels. In addition, they research the federal and state regulations required to develop these resources and make decisions about which resources to develop based on all of these factors. Their findings are compiled into reports that are modeled after the Environmental Assessment (EA) reports constructed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The project takes a minimum of six field days and three on-campus office days to complete. The students get a day off after the exercise and before they start the Timber Hill project. Timber Hill The Timber Hill area exposes mostly Paleogene and Neogene terrestrial sedimentary rocks that are cut by an active (but historically dormant) normal fault called the Sweetwater fault (Sears et al., 1995). The fault has ~700 ft (210 m) of offset and is part of the northwest-trending normal fault system in southwest Montana that lies within the Intermountain Seismic Belt (Stickney, 2007). The area contains a remarkable record of drain-
Figure 1. Students in structural geology learning field skills at Block Mountain.
age systems that came off of the track of the Yellowstone hotspot (Sears and Thomas, 2007) and is an ideal environment for students to learn about extensional structures and paleogeomorphology. A 6.0 Ma basalt flow, which can be traced for many kilometers toward its source on the Snake River Plain, holds up the topography in the area and provides a textbook example of inverted topography. The project requires the students to map a 1 mi2 (2.59 km2) area, and heavy emphasis is placed on mapping surficial deposits and landforms like landslides, rock falls, valley-fill alluvium, and alluvial fans. Students also identify areas of potential liquefaction and surface rupture related to the Sweetwater fault. The students not only map the area, but they also draw several cross sections and work out the geohistory of the area. They also take structural data, particularly from the joints and foliation in the underlying Archean metamorphic rocks in order to determine potential groundwater resources and flow paths. The land-management component requires the students to use these data to identify seismic and other geohazards associated with a proposed (fictitious) subdivision on the property. The students are asked to consider these natural hazards in placing a house,
Experience One: Teaching the geoscience curriculum in the field using experiential immersion learning water well, and septic tank on 20 lots located throughout the map area. They investigate and describe techniques used to stabilize landslides, rock falls, and other slope instabilities (e.g., areas of soil creep) that occur in the map area, and they are asked to determine the appropriate state and federal regulations for developing the property. The results are written up in a report format that is typical of those produced in the geotechnical consulting industry, examples of which are provided to the students for appropriate language and layout. This project takes a minimum of four field days and two on-campus office days to complete. The students get a day off at the end of the project to rest up for the “final exam” at Dalys spur. Dalys Spur This exercise serves as the final exam in structural geology. The one-day project involves mapping a <1.0 mi2 (2.59 km2) area composed of a sequence of Upper Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks that are folded and exposed as a west-dipping homocline in the map area. The exposure of the folded section is due to active extensional faulting, but no normal fault occurs within the map area. The fold limb is unconformably overlain by Neogene gravels and basalt, which forms inverted topography due to the resistance of the basalt cap and regional erosion by the Beaverhead River. Several landslides, rock falls, and alluvial fans also occur within the map area. The students map the area independently in about three hours, gathering structural data along with their mapping. They are told at the drop-off point that “this is their opportunity to prove to themselves that they can gather structural data on their own and use it to solve geologic problems.” Safety is not a major concern at this location, even though the students map alone, because the map area lacks trees and is small enough for the instructor to see the students at all times. When all students have completed their mapping, they are brought to a local restaurant to finish their projects and be rewarded with pizza for their efforts. They are evaluated on the quality of their geologic maps (inked and colored), cross sections, geological histories, and analyses of the potential economic resources and geohazards on the property.
69
Week 1 Students learn general introductory geomorphological principles using the textbook, student-lead discussions, lectures, and short laboratory exercises. The basic scientific goals of the field project are presented to students, who then participate in defining the actual scientific investigation, with hypotheses, methods, data collection and fieldwork plans, expectations for analyses, and presentation of the results. They also consider the professional audience for whom the results are intended, including reviewing examples of similar work. The class then investigates more specific geomorphic principles and applications that relate to the field project and reviews published methods for studying these landscapes in the field. Toward the end of the week, they began to research relevant recent primary literature. With professorial input, students then choose their individual and group segments and produce their fieldwork plans, which may be approved or returned for modifications. Week 2 Students work in the field, six to eight hours most days, supervised by the professor, often in cooperation with outside professionals (Fig. 2). Sometimes laboratory analyses are included, and groups usually begin to create their data tables and figures. Week 3 Students compile and analyze their data and create reports. They meet with the professor in the classroom or computer laboratory at the usual time to discuss progress and problems, but otherwise students work wherever and whenever they want. Students sometimes return to the field briefly to acquire more data or correct obvious errors. Literature searches continue, and the professor may provide short lectures and/or suggest readings.
Surficial Processes We use this class to integrate students’ understanding of the complex processes that interact to form the dynamic surface of Earth. The textbook emphasizes applied process geomorphology and provides a review of essential concepts of historical geomorphology. In the course of the class, students read and discuss most of the textbook and are tested only if participation appears to be lagging. The textbook is used to introduce the most important general concepts of the field and the project and as a disciplinerelated conversation backdrop during the class. The class field project usually has a major component that engages the whole group and supportive subunits accomplished by smaller groups. So far, each class has had a new field research project, but they all have a similar general dynamic:
Figure 2. Student in the surficial processes class learning surveying with a professional engineer from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
70
Thomas and Roberts
On Thursday or Friday, there is a preliminary run through the oral presentations with all students presenting and critiquing. At this point, they organize and compile the separate sections into a single report, discuss overall conclusions, forge connections between different segments of the project, and assign completion activities. Additional textbook readings and related activities during class time break up and enhance the third-week project activities. The third week is always exciting for everybody; the professor becomes a cheerleader, critic, and editor. Week 4 The final oral presentation (with interested outside personnel present) occurs on Monday or Tuesday, and the final written report is due on Wednesday. If the work warrants it, it is later presented at the spring campus Research Symposium and/or there may be a collaborative presentation at a professional meeting. Making an original contribution is always the goal, and the work is often publishable. In the last week, students also read papers and discuss the human impact on the global landscape. Taylor Creek Project (Fall 2006) Nine students worked with a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) archaeologist and a surveying engineer on a geomorphic analysis of a segment of a local creek valley. Amateurs had previously collected assorted archaeological artifacts at the surface, without any attention to their stratigraphic or geographic context. The archaeologist had requested our assistance locating sites where an excavation might discover materials of different ages stratigraphically separated by continuous or episodic deposition. We were recruited to help him understand the ways in which the people and the processes that formed the landscape might have interacted in the past and to locate places that might preserve a long, readable record. Together, we defined a study with seven reportable activities: (1) a topographic survey (all students), (2) an analysis of the geomorphic and geologic setting (all students), (3) a stream-reach classification (two students), (4) a reconnaissance field study of the larger area geomorphology (one student), (5) relative dating of high-level surfaces east of Taylor Creek (two students), (6) a vegetation survey comparing different geomorphic features (two students), and (7) a statistical investigation of lithic artifacts at the ground surface at a proposed ancient quartzite quarry on the site (two students). The first week of the class included the usual introductory readings and activities. We gave special attention to fluvial geomorphology and landslides and students began to research recent primary literature on archaeological geomorphology in fluvial environments. A guest lecture by the BLM archaeologist provided background about the study site and what we might add to his investigation. He described examples of the use of geomorphology to enhance archaeological investigations from his own experience and explained how to protect the cultural value of this sensitive area. He also critiqued the research plan and assisted in its finalization.
The second week began with a walk-around in the field with the BLM archaeologist and surveying engineer to narrow the specific area for the survey. With the professor and these professionals, students confronted line-of-site problems related to vegetation in the creek bottom, picked a central surveying station, and discussed the apparent geomorphic divisions they wanted the surveyed locations to define. Students also started their other projects, most of which required more specific definition and revision in response to what they found on that first day. During the rest of the second week, students worked in teams to complete the survey (Fig. 2) and gather data for their other field projects. On Monday of the third week, the class traveled to the Butte, Montana, BLM office to observe and participate in geographic information system (GIS) analysis of the survey data. Students chose the map contour interval (2 ft [0.6 m]) that best delineated the geomorphic units of the land surface for our purposes, looked for the best cross-section lines to show important geomorphic features, and observed the strengths and limitations of the survey data they had acquired. Printed maps were returned with the students for further analysis, and they made cross sections by hand later. In the next few days, students worked up their data from the other projects and shared their findings. The reconnaissance study and geomorphic interpretation of the survey data documented landslide aspects of the east side of the drainage and erosional hillslopes and alluvial-fan topography on the west side. Stream terraces were narrow and asymmetrical. Relative dating of surface exposures on the east side suggested that the landslide topography was created at about the same time (not the separate episodic movements we were looking for). The vegetation survey, which hoped to document the usefulness of vegetation for geomorphic mapping, was inconclusive. Students’ analysis of the stream in the area of investigation (pool-riffle) supported the conclusion that it is in relative equilibrium, probably not experiencing significant net erosion or deposition. The artifact investigation strengthened the interpretation that ancient people were using parts of the western hillslope as a quarry, based on variations in the degree of working of lithic fragments. Finally, combining all the data, students chose three sites on the west side of the drainage, on the lower slopes of small alluvial fans, downslope from quarry areas but closer to the creek and on flatter surfaces that might have been more attractive as sites for human shelters. In their presentation to the BLM staff on Monday, they presented all their work and recommended the three sites for exploratory excavations as areas where episodic debris flows or dilute debris flows onto the fans might have buried a succession of human artifacts of different time periods and where creek erosion seemed minor. We were invited to present this work at the Montana Archeological Society meeting the following April, and four of the students chose to invest extra time on that professional talk (Roberts et al., 2007). Linking Field Projects In spring 2007, the soil science class participated in archaeological excavations of two of the three sites recommended by the
Experience One: Teaching the geoscience curriculum in the field using experiential immersion learning surficial processes class. They dug the pits, sifted for artifacts, and mapped and described the soils, discovering four paleosols that correlated between the two pits and with occurrences of artifacts. The 2009 environmental geochemistry class, just completed, worked with interpreting a 14C date acquired on charcoal collected at the site. Results from the three classes are being compiled and will be submitted for publication. This linking of classes, which included many of the same students, provided a genuinely interdisciplinary field experience. Students gained a deeper understanding of interdisciplinary interaction in geoscience research, and more significant research was completed, which is more satisfying for the professor too. Field-project linking is just another possibility of teaching in Experience One (Roberts, 2007). ASSESSMENT Assessment begins with projected outcomes. Outcomes in our geoscience classes are guided by the principal that “authentic practice in the discipline” is the best possible learning experience for our students. That is, if we can show that students are fully and successfully participating in a variety of professional geological activities, then their learning is, by definition, authentic and may require no further justification as an educational process. The proof of professional quality comes from the oral and written reports, the usefulness of these projects to the public and the land management agencies, and the peer-review publication process. The relevant assessment question becomes, “is our program producing graduates who can address important geological problems in a professional manner?” We are collecting these types of data for the geosciences classes, and we will eventually be able to produce this type of assessment, but the program is young, and we have had little support for innovation in assessment. Within a few years, there should be enough data for statistical analysis. In addition, students’ success in competition for employment and graduate school positions will provide a reality check on the quality of their education, and these data are also being collected. In the meantime, assessment of Experience One has been conducted at both the campus level and at the disciplinary level. At the campus level, a Cornell Critical Thinking Test given at UMW in 2006 showed a marked increase in performance over an exam given in 2002, prior to the adoption of immersion scheduling. In addition, a 2006 Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) survey showed a significant increase in multiple categories of student satisfaction from a survey conducted in 1998, well before the adoption of Experience One (UMW Accreditation and Assessment Information, 2009). In areas such as “instructional effectiveness” and “student centeredness,” the Noel-Levitz data show significant improvements associated with the change to Experience One scheduling. Most recently (i.e., 2007–2008 academic year), the campus participated in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The survey, which was prompted by The Pew Charitable Trusts, was designed to query undergraduates directly about their
71
educational experiences and to determine the degree of engagement in their education. The premise of NSSE is that student persistence and subsequent success in college is directly related to the level of challenge and time on task (NSSE, 2009). It also contends that the educational research literature shows that the degree to which students are engaged in their studies impacts directly on the quality of student learning and their overall educational experience. As a result, NSSE contends that student engagement can serve as a proxy for educational quality (NSSE, 2009). If true, the UMW survey data show that our educational quality is very high. Unfortunately, UMW did not participate in the survey prior to the adoption of Experience One. The following graphs (Figs. 3, 4, and 5) are NSSE comparisons of the arithmetic average of student scores (weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size) in three important benchmarks of student engagement. For more information about the survey and statistical analyses of the data, readers are invited to visit the NSSE Web site (www.nsse.iub.edu). UM Western students scored higher than other institutions in our Carnegie classification and higher than the grouped participating institutions in all three benchmarks, with moderate to high significance in each category. The “level of academic challenge” (see Fig. 3) at UMW is slightly above both our Carnegie class and the average for all institutions that participated in the 2008 survey. This benchmark evaluates students’ perceptions of how hard they are working and,
Figure 3. The University of Montana Western’s performance in the 2008 NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement) survey in the level of academic challenge benchmark. In addition to the kinds and amount of class preparation and assignments, number and length of written reports, it queries the coursework emphasis on analysis, synthesis, and application of theories and concepts to practical problems, and making value judgments.
72
Thomas and Roberts
Figure 4. The University of Montana Western’s performance in the 2008 NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement) survey in the student-faculty interaction benchmark. Items include prompt feedback about their academic progress, working on research projects with faculty, discussing class material outside of class time, discussing career plans, and participating on committees.
Figure 5. The University of Montana Western’s performance in the 2008 NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement) survey in the active and collaborative learning benchmark. Items include how students see themselves in classes in terms of recalling asking questions, making class presentations, working with other students in or out of class, tutoring others, participating in community-based projects, and discussing ideas with others outside class.
probably more importantly, the conceptual level at which they are operating. These results are very encouraging because some educators have questioned our ability to maintain a high level of academic challenge in our more applied learning environment. The “student-faculty interaction” benchmark (see Fig. 4) at UMW is clearly higher than the average of our Carnegie class and the average for all institutions that participated in the 2008 survey. This is important because it tests whether students perceive that they are learning first-hand from faculty mentors, both in and out of class, and it is possibly the most important benchmark in terms of expected outcomes related to the transition to Experience One for the campus as a whole. UMW scored highest, relative to our Carnegie class and the total 2008 institutional average, in “active and collaborative learning” (see Fig. 5). For the geosciences, this rating is especially significant because our students spend a large proportion of their time working in collaborative teams with professors and other students, interacting in the field and on presentations. Many of our projects are community-based and demand significant effort outside class time. It is gratifying to see that UMW students, in general, are aware of this aspect of their education. Experience One has also greatly contributed to the fiscal health of the campus in a number of measurable ways. Since no other public university uses Experience One, it has provided the UMW campus with a crucial marketing niche to recruit new students, and since the adoption of Experience One, the UMW campus has experienced record enrollments. In 2000, prior to the adoption of Experience One, campus full-time equivalency (FTE) was 940; it is now at 1205 FTE (UMW Enrollment and Institutional Research, 2009). Although these numbers might seem small, campus FTE has never been over 1200, and the head-count–based funding model used in Montana makes these numbers significant in terms of resources available to the campus instructional budget. It is difficult to draw a direct correlation between Experience One and new-student enrollment growth because the admissions office does not conduct entrance interviews. However, the data show very clearly that Experience One did not hurt campus enrollment, as was feared by some members of the Dillon community prior to adoption of the system. More importantly, firstyear student persistence rates rose from 58% in 2004 (pre–Experience One) to 73% in 2008 (UMW Registrar, 2009, personal commun.). These data illustrate the power of the immersionlearning scheduling method to improve student persistence. Assessments of the impacts of Experience One at the disciplinary level have not been as thorough and tend to be more anecdotal, but the data are no less compelling (e.g., Thomas and Roberts, 2008). Across campus, faculty report anecdotal evidence that students are doing better on whatever types of assessments they are utilizing. In the geosciences, the only class for which we have not made significant changes in student-performance assessment vehicles is the introductory geology course. This class was taught annually by co-author, Dr. Robert C. Thomas from 1995 to 2008.
Experience One: Teaching the geoscience curriculum in the field using experiential immersion learning From 1995 to 2008, no changes were made in the assessment tools used in this class. The assessment consisted of ten laboratory exercises, three short-answer exams, and an independent, field-based rock project (Thomas, 2001). It is therefore the only class for which we can compare student success in terms of final grades. The ten-year average final grade (calculated as the percentage of the total points earned) in this course during the period of time between 1995 and 2005 (pre–Experience One) was 74%. From 2005 to 2008 (during Experience One), the average final grade increased to 82%. The only variable that changed was the scheduling model. Between 1995 and 2005, the students went from juggling four to five classes at the same time to immersing themselves in just one class at a time. As a result, these data provide evidence that Experience One improves academic performance. Class attendance has also dramatically improved. Prior to the adoption of Experience One, faculty reported up to 40% of the students not attending class on a regular basis. After Experience One, an average day has more than 90% attendance, and most students never miss a class. When queried informally, students list their reasons for improved attendance as (1) fear of missing important information or activities, (2) an appreciation of their responsibility toward other students and the professor (especially when working on projects), (3) an understanding that what they are learning applies to the “real” world, and (4) a reduced level of apathy (even excitement) that comes with engagement in project work. Students also quickly understand that missing one day of Experience One scheduling can be equivalent to missing approximately a whole week in the semester system. The environment for teaching and learning is dramatically different when we can assume that students will not miss class. Continuity or flow, already better because of extended hours and the absence of interruption by other classes, is probably the biggest improvement. Continuity at least partially offsets the “sacrifice” of content lecture time and exams in favor of field activities. We do not have to spend a lot of time repeating information and directions. Fjortoft (2005) showed that one of the most important variables motivating students to attend class was the chance that faculty might “apply information to solving real problems.” Since Experience One centers on solving real problems, it is likely that this is a very important factor in the near-perfect attendance we experience in geology classes at UMW. Since students in many of the geoscience courses are now assessed on the quality of project work, it is difficult to quantitatively compare students’ understanding of content in our classes versus the lecture-based approach. Reduced lecture time means students must take increased responsibility for learning terminology and concepts, or they simply have less exposure to those aspects of lecture. In trade, they gain far more direct experience with concepts, and they most likely gain a better understanding of the scientific process through research in the geosciences (Huntoon et al., 2001; Elkins and Elkins, 2007). In addition, students learn field and laboratory skills that can be very difficult to incorporate into traditionally scheduled classes. The practical benefits
73
for our graduates are resumes filled with experiences and skills, and usually one or more professional presentations or papers. Another revolution is occurring in the area of procrastination—there simply is not any time for it. We have received positive feedback on this from internship supervisors and employers, cooperating agencies, and even parents. Evidence of this comes from the fact that the students actually accomplish so much work of high quality in the three and a half weeks. As an example, a representative from the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks noted the professional quality of a restoration assessment report on the upper Big Hole River that was produced by students in an Environmental Field Studies class in the fall of 2008 (Thomas and Roberts, 2008). He pointed out that his agency did not have the resources to do the assessment work, so the UMW students were providing an essential service that would otherwise not have been completed. Several students involved in the class have gone on to do internships with the agencies involved in the upper Big Hole River project, and all of the students have utilized their copies of the 150-page assessment report as a keystone document in their portfolios for employment. CHALLENGES Attempting a Hybrid Initially, science faculty imagined we could overcome the scheduling impediment to immersion learning without involving the entire campus. The administration approved offering some courses with one hour of lecture and four hours of laboratory over two days each week, but that created enormous scheduling conflicts with other classes. We also tried blocking all four hours of single classes into one day per week, where each faculty member chose a different day and paid careful attention to within-department conflicts. This sometimes worked for avoiding conflicts among upper-division classes, but it was impossible with lower-division classes. There was also an unavoidable loss of students’ and professors’ attention during the days between classes. Of course, we tried working with professors across campus to make allowances for our students’ absences from their classes, and, in some cases, we even took turns with extended time blocks. This occasionally worked, but it was ad hoc and lacked any institutional strength and continuity. As more environmental sciences faculty switched to field-based courses, more scheduling conflicts arose with nonscience classes and within the program as well. In addition, as long as professors were distracted by obligations to other classes, the idea that we might be accomplishing immersion learning was an illusion. We do not recommend any of the partial approaches that we tried. For those considering a hybrid, be aware that unsuccessful attempts at rescheduling may erode student and administrative confidence in the entire process. We suspect that a large university might be able to create an immersion college within the university, or some students in some programs might complete their senior year this way. However, transfer students and students who
74
Thomas and Roberts
have changed their majors are often making up missed classes all the way to graduation and do not have years when they are only taking classes in their majors. Students with double majors have similar issues.
their fourth block to obtain overtime pay express being physically and mentally exhausted.
Finally Getting Started
Availability and affordability of transportation is a continuing problem, although moderate student laboratory fees can usually accommodate vehicle rental fees, mainly because the field locations are usually within a 50 mi (80 km) radius of campus. The need for vans to transport students to field sites is extreme, and our campus fleet is small, but growing. Classes that need two vans require two state-certified van drivers. We have not found a satisfactory solution for the costs of longer trips. So far, we have paid for them with one-time administrative money, departmental resources, increased student fees, one-time Student Senate funds, and even fundraisers like raffles, especially for international trips.
The most difficult issue, by far, was the processes by which the campus decided to adopt Experience One. Faculty support was strong from the start, something that the FIPSE grant administrator and administrators from other campuses found hard to believe. There was a great deal of trust between UMW faculty, and most of us certainly recognized the need for change. Experiential teaching and learning already had a strong foothold on the campus, extending across most disciplines. For example, faculty in the Education Department had been taking students off campus for extended field experiences and student teaching for many years, so they immediately saw the benefits of the large blocks of time provided by Experience One. In addition, the conceptual framework of the education program is social constructivism with a heavy emphasis on experiential learning (UMW Education Department Homepage, 2009). The resistance from staff, the UMW Foundation, alumni groups, and community members was much more intense and complex. Many people expressed concern that block scheduling would increase the cost of education, since only a few private universities had adopted it (it didn’t). A member of the local press asserted that the student population at Colorado College consisted of elite students, and therefore the system would not work for UMW students, many of whom are first-generation college students. There was community concern that the change would result in decreased enrollments, which would jeopardize the campus and hurt business in town. Without the FIPSE-funded pilot project, the opposition would have certainly prevailed. The grant gave us an opportunity to carefully assess an experimental program without much risk or major additional cost to the campus. The pilot demonstrated an irresistible combination of better learning and improved student retention, which gave our administrators the courage and ammunition they needed to facilitate the change. Faculty Burnout Experience One is not only an intense experience for the students, but it is for the faculty as well. Faculty who fully engage in experiential, immersion teaching find it to be very much more intense than the traditional semester system, requiring them to ignore illness, work around poor weather conditions, and be vigilant about the myriad of problems that can arise when students are working on projects. A few faculty see the fourth block each semester as a means by which to make extra money. This is a ticket to burnout, since the “professional development block” is a needed opportunity for professional development and time to prepare for upcoming classes. Faculty who choose to teach in
Transportation
Safety and Physical Disabilities Safety is always a concern in the field. We do not allow students to work alone in the field, and we go over emergency procedures and make sure that first-aid kits are available close to where fieldwork in being conducted. Fortunately, the UMW campus has a “dry” policy that extends to field trips (with the ability to request a waiver for special circumstances), which helps the professor to ban alcohol from the field-based courses. Students with physical disabilities may simply not be able to do some of the more physically demanding courses (e.g., structural geology). We make accommodations for these students to either participate in ways that are less demanding physically, or we provide another option, like a complementary independent study. This has the potential to be abused by students who are looking for ways to get out of class (especially when it is cold outside), but up to this point, we have not experienced any such abuse. Field Technology and Equipment When we made the change to Experience One, we suddenly needed more surveying equipment, global positioning system (GPS) and GIS technology, all sorts of field collection and analysis materials, and students who were trained in their use. Some of this training we provide on site. We require a “map, compass, and GPS” class and are revising our degree to add an introductory GIS seminar. In addition, field classes require an ever-increasing inventory of everything from hip boots and shovels to flow meters and orange vests. It could have been overwhelming, but we are gradually acquiring what we need for classes as they come up in rotation for campus funds, and we revise classes as equipment becomes available. Rapid Access to Literature and Analyses It was good timing and good luck that our change occurred simultaneously with the incredible advances in access to profes-
Experience One: Teaching the geoscience curriculum in the field using experiential immersion learning sional literature online, but it is still daunting. Although students usually have some exposure to searching out literature on their own, we often provide much of it. A luxurious and thorough literature search is just not possible during the field classes. All students take a geology seminar to reinforce their literature research skills. Students have to rapidly analyze their data; produce tables, maps, cross sections, charts, and graphs; acquire the right illustrative photographs; organize all this clearly and concisely; and construct conclusions that are based on the data. In addition, if chemical or other analyses are required, we must be able to do them at UMW or contract with others to deliver results rapidly without huge extra charges. This is the best training imaginable for students’ professional lives after UMW, but it can become hectic for the professor. It is a tribute to the flexibility of students working in a project-based format that, after a few years of this experience, they become proficient and some seem to actually look forward to the challenge of scrounging resources to get the job done. We hear from employers and graduate schools that this is one of the greatest assets of our students. Presentation of Project Results In the (usually) short time left after analysis of their data, students must produce written and oral reports for presentation. Often, these reports are delivered to an audience that includes members of federal, state, or county agencies or interested private parties who have supported the work and who expect a professional job because a professor supervised it. Effective PowerPoint presentations constructed and delivered in very limited time by student groups require a major effort. Like everything else, motivated students learn scientific and technical presentation skills experientially, but it is a bigger time commitment for both the professors and the students than we initially realized— and also a source of great satisfaction. To help out, the geology seminar class was designed to have the students give a minimum of three professional (20 minute) PowerPoint presentations, so some of them come into project-based classes with advanced presentation skills, reducing the workload on the faculty. Students’ Adjustment to Experiential Immersion Learning Most students need some time to adjust to this new way of learning. They may resist taking more responsibility and need a lot of assistance scheduling their time and effort. Group interactions can be messy, and it does not help that most professors have had no real training managing student group projects. Many undergraduate students are initially quite uneasy when they realize the professor does not already know the results of the research or (maybe worse) that the students are going to have to investigate and choose research methods themselves. However, students are truly motivated by doing real field research, and most illustrate growing metacognitive skills throughout the process. We can see incremental mastery of new equipment and procedures improves their confidence to go on to the next level.
75
Having a data set that they gathered themselves for a reason they helped define motivates them to analyze it. They express justifiable pride in the various presentations of their work. Students eventually come to expect this opportunity from us and complain if they do not get it. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank all of our colleagues at UMW for helping to make Experience One a reality. We also thank Dave Mogk and two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions that greatly improved this manuscript. REFERENCES CITED Ames, C., and Archer, J., 1988, Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes: Journal of Educational Psychology, v. 80, p. 260–267, doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260. Beard, C., and Wilson, J.P., 2006, Experiential Learning: A Best Practice Handbook for Educators and Trainers (2nd ed.): London, Kogan Page Ltd., 314 p. Davis, G.H., and Reynolds, S.J., 1996, Structural Geology of Rocks and Regions (2nd ed.): New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 776 p. Dewey, J., 1991, Logic: The theory of inquiry, in Boydston, J.A., ed., John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925–1953: Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press, v. 12, 576 p. Elkins, J.T., and Elkins, M.L., 2007, Teaching geology in the field: Significant geoscience concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geology courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, p. 126–132. Fjortoft, N., 2005, Students’ motivations for class attendance: American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, v. 69, p. 107–112. Huntoon, J.E., Bluth, G.J.S., and Kennedy, W.A., 2001, Measuring the effects of a research-based field experience on undergraduates and K–12 teachers: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, no. 3, p. 235–248. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A., 1998, Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom: Edina, Montana, Interaction Book Co., 140 p. Kolb, A.Y., and Kolb, D.A., 2005, Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education: Academy of Management Learning & Education, v. 4, no. 2, p. 193–212. Kolb, D.A., 1984, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 288 p. Loevy, R.D., 1999, Colorado College: A Place of Learning (1874–1999): Colorado Springs, Colorado College, 501 p. McClay, K., 1995, The Mapping of Geological Structures: Geological Society of London Handbook Series: Chichester, UK, John Wiley and Sons, 168 p. Mock, R.S., 2005, Report on the Experience One Pilot Project at the University of Montana Western: Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) program, 14 p. Available at www.umwestern.edu/ administration/VCAA(accessed 17 August 2009). NSSE, 2009, Using NSSE data: National Survey of Student Engagement: www .nsse.iub.edu, p. 1–17 (accessed 17 August 2009). Roberts, S., 2007, Linking field projects in different classes to maximize interdisciplinary interaction: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 6, p. 543. Roberts, S., Easter-Pilcher, A., Krank, H.M., and Ripley, A., 2001, Facilitating Experiential Learning with Immersion Scheduling: Unpublished grant proposal to the U.S. Department of Education Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education, 25 p. Available at ww.umwestern.edu/ administration/VCAA (accessed 17 August 2009). Roberts, S., Hill, J., Herman, K., Cox, G., and Brewer, J., 2007, Reconnaissance landscape analysis at an archaeological site, Taylor Creek, Beaverhead County, Montana: Montana Archaeological Society Abstracts with Programs, vol. 1, p. 3. Rogers, C., and Freiberg, H.J., 1994, Freedom to Learn (3rd ed.): Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 352 p. Sears, J.W., and Thomas, R.C., 2007, Extraordinary middle Miocene crustal disturbance in southwest Montana: Birth record of the Yellowstone hot
76
Thomas and Roberts
spot?, in Thomas, R.C., and Gibson, R.I., eds., Introduction to the Geology of the Dillon Area: Northwest Geology, v. 36, p. 133–142. Sears, J.W., Schmidt, C.J., Dresser, H.W., and Hendrix, T., 1989, A geologic transect from the Highland Mountains foreland block, through the southwest Montana thrust belt, to the Pioneer batholith: Northeastern Geology, v. 18, p. 1–20. Sears, J.W., Hurlow, H., Fritz, W.J., and Thomas, R.C., 1995, Late Cenozoic disruption of Miocene grabens on the shoulder of the Yellowstone hotspot track in southwest Montana: Field guide from Lima to Alder, Montana, in Mogk, D.W., ed., Field Guide to Geologic Excursions in Southwest Montana: Northwest Geology, v. 24, p. 201–219. Stickney, M., 2007, Historic earthquakes and seismicity in southwestern Montana, in Thomas, R.C., and Gibson, R.I., eds., Introduction to the Geology of the Dillon Area: Northwest Geology, v. 36, p. 167–186. Taylor, M.F., 1999, Colorado College: Memories and Reflections: Colorado Springs, Colorado College, 325 p. Thomas, R.C., 2001, Learning geologic time in the field: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, no. 1, p. 18–21. Thomas, R.C., and Roberts, S., 2003, One class at a time: Overcoming obstacles to incorporating experiential learning into the undergraduate geoscience curriculum: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 7, p. 194. Thomas, R.C., and Roberts, S., 2007, A progress report on the field-based immersion learning model at the University of Montana Western: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 6, p. 543.
Thomas, R.C., and Roberts, S., 2008, The impacts of immersion-learning scheduling on the geoscience curriculum at the University of Montana Western: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 6, p. 307. Thomas, R.C., Kirkley, J., Mock, S., Roberts, S., Ulrich, K., and Zaspel, C., 1996, The integration of the sciences at Western Montana College, Dillon, Montana: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 28, no. 7, p. A400. University of Montana Western (UMW) Accreditation and Assessment Information, 2009, UMW student response to Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (1998 & 2006): http://hal.umwestern.edu/administration/vcaa/ accreditation (accessed 17 August 2009). University of Montana Western (UMW) Course Catalog, 2009, 2008–2009 catalog: http://www.umwestern.edu/registrar/catalogs/ (accessed 17 August 2009). University of Montana Western (UMW) Education Department Homepage, 2009, Conceptual framework: www.umwestern.edu/shares/education/ (accessed 17 August 2009). University of Montana Western (UMW) Enrollment and Institutional Research, 2009, 10-year enrollment reports: www.umwestern.edu/registrar/ (accessed 17 August 2009).
MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
International geosciences field research with undergraduate students: Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica Jeffrey S. Marshall Geological Sciences Department, Cal Poly Pomona University, Pomona, California 91768, USA Thomas W. Gardner Department of Geosciences, Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas 78212, USA Marino Protti Observatorio Volcanológico y Sismológico de Costa Rica (OVSICORI-UNA), Universidad Nacional, Heredia, Costa Rica Jonathan A. Nourse Geological Sciences Department, Cal Poly Pomona University, Pomona, California 91768, USA
Marshall et al. projects pique student curiosity, sharpen awareness and comprehension, and amplify the desire to learn. Experiential learning pedagogy encourages students to define their own research agenda and solve problems through critical thinking, inquiry, and reflection. The potent combination of international fieldwork and experiential learning helps students to develop the self-confidence and reasoning skills needed to solve multifaceted real-world problems, and provides exceptional training for graduate school and professional careers in the geosciences.
INTRODUCTION In the natural sciences, the most effective student learning takes place during hands-on field experiences (Lonergan and Andresen, 1988; Manduca and Mogk, 2006). While classroom and laboratory instruction are important, students achieve greater comprehension and self-confidence while engaged in experiential field studies aimed at solving real-world problems (e.g., Kern and Carpenter, 1986; Elkins and Elkins, 2007). Fieldwork is considered an essential component of student learning in most undergraduate geosciences programs (Manduca and Carpenter, 2006; Drummond and Markin, 2008). As a degree requirement, geology majors are generally expected to complete a field methods course and some form of extended field camp or research program. Geology alumni often describe these field experiences as instrumental in preparing them for success in their careers as professional geoscientists (e.g., Kirchner, 1994; Manduca, 1996). The impact of natural sciences field learning is further enhanced when students are exposed to new environments that expand their perspective on the natural world, and broaden their understanding of global connections. Educational research has demonstrated that learning is most effective when students are challenged by uncertainty, whereby moderate levels of anxiety increase the motivation to learn (Citron and Kline, 2001). In particular, international study programs that are guided by experiential learning pedagogy (cf. Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 1984) have been shown to significantly increase student cognition by placing participants beyond the comfort and predictability of their home learning environment (Lutterman-Aguilar and Gingerich, 2002; Montrose, 2002). With careful planning and design, study abroad field experiences can provide exceptional opportunities for enhanced student learning by introducing new disciplinary perspectives and challenging students to think outside the box (e.g., McLaughlin and Johnson, 2006; Ham and Flood, this volume). International field projects that are rooted in research methodology and driven by student inquiry can be especially rewarding for participating students and faculty (Bolen and Martin, 2005; Mankiewicz, 2005). In this paper, we evaluate three different project models for international experiential field research with geosciences undergraduate students in Costa Rica, Central America (Figs. 1 and 2). Each one of these project models was employed in the same field area and had a common research theme and pedagogy, thereby allowing easy comparison of teaching methods, learning outcomes, and logistical advantages. We begin by exploring Costa
Rica as a premiere destination for international geosciences field projects. We then describe the tectonic and geologic significance of the project study area on Costa Rica’s Nicoya Peninsula. We continue by presenting a detailed overview of each of the three project models. Finally, we compare the project goals, teaching methods, logistics, costs, and learning outcomes of each model. Natural Sciences Field Study in Costa Rica In recent decades, Costa Rica has gained a global reputation as a premiere destination for natural sciences field trips and study programs. This politically stable nation has developed a thriving ecotourism industry (e.g., Laarman and Perdue, 1989; Fennell and Eagles, 1990; Lumsdon and Swift, 1998; Weaver, 1999) and is recognized internationally as a center for scientific field research (e.g., Clark, 1985; Stone, 1988; Silver and Dixon, 2001; León and Hartshorn, 2003; Bundschuch and Alvarado, 2007; Silver et al., 2007). Many U.S. universities now offer study abroad programs and field courses in Costa Rica focused on the natural and environmental sciences (e.g., McLaughlin, 2005; Parrott, 2005; Vadino, 2005). The world-renowned Costa Rican National Park and Nature Reserve system (Boza, 1993) currently encompasses over 25% of the country’s territory, protecting a spectacular array of neotropical landscapes, habitats, and ecosystems. The country is also known for world-class river rafting, spelunking, rain-forest trekking, canopy tours, and exotic wildlife. Costa Rica has a well-developed transportation infrastructure and offers a full range of lodging facilities that cater to a wide variety of travel needs. Access is easy from many countries worldwide, and airline fares are generally affordable from major airports. In particular, Costa Rica provides an especially attractive setting for international study trips and research experiences focused on geology and the environment (Marshall, 2005). In recent years, many geology departments and research consortia have organized successful Costa Rica field trips, courses, and research projects for undergraduate students (e.g., Gardner, 1999; Mango, 2003; Marshall et al., 2004b, 2005a; Flood and Ham, 2005; Marshall, 2005; Over et al., 2005). Within a relatively compact land area (51,100 km2), Costa Rica features a diverse assemblage of geologic terrains, microclimates, and ecosystems that offer rich educational field opportunities for visiting students. Located along the Middle America convergent margin (Fig. 1), Costa Rica spans a spectrum of morphotectonic provinces (Fig. 2), extending from the rugged coastlines of the
Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica
NOAM 90 W
80oW
o
100oW
79
CAR Costa Rica
MA T 10oN
PAN
COC
CR
PAC
CNS
1
PFZ
EPR
8.7
NAZ
CNS
0o
EPR
GHS
NAZ
CR2
SOAM
Figure 1. Digital elevation model (DEM) showing the tectonic setting of Costa Rica, Central America. Costa Rica is part of the Central American volcanic arc formed by northeastward subduction of the Cocos plate (COC) beneath the Caribbean plate (CAR) at the Middle America Trench (MAT). The Cocos plate encompasses seafloor formed along both the East Pacific Rise (EPR) and Cocos-Nazca Spreading Center (CNS). Hotspot volcanism at the Galapagos Islands (GHS) generates a rough domain of thickened CNS seafloor that includes the Cocos Ridge (CR1) on the Cocos plate, and the Carnegie Ridge (CR2) on the Nazca plate (NAZ). Sharp contrasts between East Pacific Rise and CNS seafloor on the subducting Cocos plate result in variations in upper-plate morphotectonics, seismicity, and volcanism along the Costa Rican Pacific margin. Arrow with number indicates the motion direction and rate of the Cocos plate relative to the Caribbean plate (DeMets et al., 1990). Box outlines the area shown in Figure 2. Additional tectonic features: PAC—Pacific plate, NOAM—North American plate, SOAM— South American plate, PAN—Panama microplate, PFZ—Panama fracture zone. (DEM is courtesy of the Institut für Meereswissenschatten [IFM-GEOMAR], Universität Kiel, Germany.)
86°W
84° 84°W 8 4°W 4°W °W
85°W °
11° 11°N 11 1°N 1
CARIB Ba ck
Vo lca nic N P
10°°N 1 10°N °N
Fo
M
re
A T
EPR
Ar c
Fro nt
Ar c
C
F
CNS-2 Q
COCOS 8°N
A
T OP
P
R
M
C
C
CNS-1 S
9°°N 9°N
PAN F
Figure 2. Digital elevation model (DEM) of Costa Rica showing the tectonic setting of the Nicoya Peninsula (see Fig. 1 for location). This image reveals the relationship between the morphology of the subducting Cocos plate (COCOS) and the morphotectonic structure of the overriding Caribbean plate (CARIB) and Panama microplate (PAN). Seafloor domains of the Cocos plate (yellow letters): EPR—smooth crust derived at East Pacific Rise, CNS-1—smooth crust derived at Cocos-Nazca spreading center, CNS-2—rough hotspot-thickened crust generated at the Galapagos hotspot. Plate boundaries (red letters): MAT—Middle America Trench, CCRDB—Central Costa Rica deformed belt. Offshore bathymetric features (orange letters): CR—Cocos Ridge, QP—Quepos Plateau, FSC—Fisher Seamount Chain. Onshore topographic features (blue letters): NP—Nicoya Peninsula, OP—Osa Peninsula, GVC—Guanacaste Volcanic Cordillera, CVC—Central Volcanic Cordillera, TrC—Tilarán Cordillera (extinct), AgC—Aguacate Cordillera (extinct), TmC—Talamanca Cordillera (extinct), FC—Fila Costeña thrust belt. (DEM courtesy of C. Ranero, Institut de Ciències del Mar–Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas [ICM-CSIC], Barcelona, Spain. Image derived from digital topographic data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission [NASA-SRTM] linked to R.V. Sonne multi-beam bathymetric data from the Institut für Meereswissenschaften [IFM-GEOMAR], Universität Kiel, Germany.)
80
Marshall et al.
Pacific forearc, across the mountainous cordilleras of the volcanic front, to the broad lowlands of the Caribbean backarc (Marshall, 2007). Abundant outcrops exhibit a wide range of rock types and textbook structures. Earthquakes, landslides, and volcanic eruptions are frequent, and their impact on Costa Rica’s landscape and human history are readily apparent. In addition to geology and natural hazards, students can also examine environmental problems related to population growth, deforestation, water resources, and tourism. Costa Rica’s two major universities, Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR) and Universidad Nacional (UNA), have active geosciences research and teaching programs, with talented faculty and modern facilities. Diverse government agencies and nongovernmental organizations also conduct geologic and environmental studies (e.g., Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telcomunicaciones [MINAET], Instituto Geográfico Nacional [IGN], Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad [ICE], Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo [RECOPE], Fundación Neotrópica [FN], Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad [INBio], Centro Científico Tropical [CCT], and Organization for Tropical Studies [OTS]). Together, these diverse academic, government, and nonprofit entities offer many opportunities for interaction and collaboration among visiting undergraduate students and Costa Rican scientists. Undergraduate Geosciences Research on Costa Rica’s Nicoya Peninsula Over the 10 yr period between 1998 and 2008, more than 40 undergraduate students from 14 colleges and universities participated in a sequence of related field research projects investigating active tectonics on the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica (Fig. 3). These projects were organized around three different models (Tables 1–3) encompassing a range of field education strategies. These were (1) a month-long summer research project conducted by 12 students and five faculty mentors (Keck Geology Consortium, 1998), (2) a series of 1 to 2 wk independent field study projects conducted by one to three students, and one or two faculty mentors (Cal Poly Pomona University and Trinity University, 2003–2008), and (3) a week-long field research module with 14 students and two faculty mentors (Cal Poly Pomona University, 2008). During each of these projects, the participating students engaged in hands-on field investigations utilizing techniques from multiple geoscience disciplines, including geomorphology, stratigraphy, structural geology, geochemistry, and geophysics. Each student’s fieldwork served as the basis for a research thesis or for field study credits at his or her home institution. Individual student projects were carefully designed to provide a quality field learning experience while adding a new piece to a larger research puzzle on the active tectonics of the Costa Rican Pacific margin. Collectively, these projects generated significant new data that support ongoing investigations of forearc deformation and subduction cycle earthquakes on the Nicoya Peninsula (e.g., Marshall, 2008; Marshall et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2008c).
Geologic Setting of the Nicoya Peninsula Costa Rica is part of the Central American volcanic arc, which is formed by subduction of the Cocos plate beneath the Caribbean plate at the Middle America Trench (Fig. 1). Plate convergence offshore occurs at a rapid rate of 8–9 cm/yr (DeMets et al., 1990). The subducting Cocos plate consists of seafloor produced along both the East Pacific Rise and the Cocos-Nazca spreading center (Hey, 1977; Barckhausen et al., 2001). Hotspot volcanism at the Galapagos Islands generates a rough domain of thickened seafloor that includes the Cocos Ridge and adjacent seamounts. Two major segment boundaries on the subducting Cocos plate intersect the Middle America Trench offshore of the Nicoya Peninsula in Costa Rica (Fig. 2). The first boundary is a triple-junction trace that divides crust derived at the East Pacific Rise (EPR crust) from that formed along the Cocos-Nazca spreading center (CNS-1 and CNS-2 crust). The second boundary is an abrupt morphologic break between smooth mid-oceanridge–derived seafloor to the northwest (EPR and CNS-1 crust), and rough hotspot-thickened seafloor to the southeast (CNS-2 crust). Contrasts in subducting plate morphology, thickness, and thermal structure across these boundaries produce along-strike variations in seismicity, volcanism, and upper-plate morphotectonics (e.g., Gardner et al., 1992, 2001; Protti et al., 1995; Fisher et al., 1998, 2004; Marshall et al., 2000, 2001, 2003a; Ranero and von Huene, 2000; von Huene et al., 2000; Fisher et al., 2003; Norabuena et al., 2004; Sak et al., 2004; DeShon et al., 2006; Sitchler et al., 2007; Morell et al., 2008). The Nicoya Peninsula spans an emergent segment of the northern Costa Rican forearc (Fig. 2), exposing Cretaceous seafloor basement (Nicoya Complex) overlain by an upward-shallowing sequence of Late Cretaceous–Quaternary marine sediments (Dengo, 1962; Lundberg, 1982; Baumgartner et al., 1984). Because of its proximity to the subduction trench (60–70 km), the Nicoya Peninsula is an ideal setting for the study of megathrust earthquakes and forearc deformation (Marshall, 2008). The peninsula’s landmass sits directly above the seismogenic zone, within a recognized high-potential seismic gap (Protti et al., 2001). The last major earthquake centered beneath the Nicoya Peninsula occurred in 1950, with a magnitude of Mw 7.7. This event produced widespread damage and generated abrupt coseismic uplift, followed by gradual interseismic subsidence along the peninsula’s coastlines (Marshall and Anderson, 1995; Marshall, 2008). The net pattern of late Quaternary deformation is recorded by emergent marine terraces along the peninsula’s coast and by incised alluvial-fill terraces within interior valleys (Hare and Gardner, 1985; Marshall and Anderson, 1995; Gardner et al., 2001; Marshall et al., 2001, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c). The primary research goal of the undergraduate field projects described in this paper was to investigate the geomorphic and geologic evidence for tectonic deformation, and to constrain the rates and patterns of active uplift along the Nicoya Peninsula. These studies reveal variations in the coastal uplift pattern that coincide with documented differences in the offshore structure and morphology of the subducting Cocos plate.
Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica
81
A N
Puntarenas
Nicoya Peninsula B6
Cabo Velas
A1-5 B1 B3
B9
B2 B3-4
C2-3 B5 B8
B7
Cabo Blanco
Punta Guiones
Caribbean plate
B
C1
Panama block
N
EPR
CNS-1
CNS-2
W
9 cm/yr Cocos plate
Figure 3. (A) Digital elevation model (DEM) of the Nicoya Peninsula (NASA-SRTM) showing the location of field study sites. Letters and numbers refer to the projects listed in Table 3. (B) Oblique-view DEM of northern Costa Rica (courtesy of C.J. Petersen, German Marine Sciences Institute, IFM-GEOMAR) showing the Nicoya Peninsula and segmented structure of the subducting Cocos plate offshore. CCRDB—Central Costa Rica Deformed Belt. (See Figs. 1 and 2 for location and explanation of symbols.)
82
Marshall et al.
THREE MODELS FOR FIELD RESEARCH PROJECTS
America, and the results from six of the student projects were published as part of a peer-reviewed research article in the journal Geology (Gardner et al., 2001). The Keck Summer Research Project consisted of five basic phases: (1) preproject preparation, (2) summer fieldwork, (3) independent research at home institutions, (4) abstract writing and presentations for the Keck Research Symposium, and (5) professional conference presentations and publication of a journal article. From the outset, the project was designed with the ultimate goal of generating publishable research results (Gardner, 1999). Students were selected for the project through a competitive application process. During the spring prior to the field season, the project director distributed background reading on the geology of the study area, and provided logistical information to prepare students for fieldwork in Costa Rica. In Costa Rica, the project began with several days of field trips to key localities designed to introduce the students to the field area and the research questions. Following this introduction, the students were asked to write project proposals outlining their research plan. These proposals were reviewed by project faculty and revised by the students following one-on-one discussion. Together, the group developed a set of major hypotheses to be tested through field research. The first hypothesis was that coastal uplift and faulting within the field area was controlled by seamount subduction beneath the Nicoya Peninsula’s southern tip. The second hypothesis was that the local stream networks were responding to the same deformation mechanism. The third hypothesis was that oceanic basement rocks in the field area shared a similar tectonic origin with those beneath mainland Costa Rica. To address these questions, the students and faculty spent the next 3 wk engaged in fieldwork (Figs. 4A–4F), utilizing techniques of geomorphology, stratigraphy, structural geology, geochemistry, paleomagnetism, and geodesy (Gardner et al., 1999a). Five students investigated uplifted Quaternary marine terraces by mapping and surveying terrace deposits and collecting samples for radiometric dating (Figs. 4D–4F; project A1; Table 3). These five students each worked in different, but contiguous field areas along the coastline. A sixth student examined stream channel morphology within all five of these areas, characterizing patterns
1. Keck Summer Research Project (1998) During the summer of 1998, the Keck Geology Consortium (Manduca, 1997; de Wet et al., this volume) sponsored a monthlong undergraduate research project on the southern Nicoya Peninsula (Gardner et al., 1999a). This project, referred to hereafter as the Keck Summer Research Project, involved 12 undergraduate students and five project faculty, including authors Gardner, Marshall, and Protti (Table 1). In addition, four faculty advisors from participating institutions visited the field area during the project. In all, the project participants represented a total of 11 different universities and colleges from the United States and Costa Rica. The Keck Geology Consortium provided full project funding, participant stipends, and logistical support (Table 2). The primary research focus of the 1998 Keck Summer Research Project was the tectonic impact of subducting seamounts on coastal geomorphology and structure at Cabo Blanco on the Nicoya Peninsula’s southern tip (Fig. 3). A secondary focus involved the tectonic origin of the peninsula’s oceanic basement crust. Following the established model for Keck Geology Consortium advanced-level projects (Manduca, 1999), each student engaged in an independent investigation that contributed toward the overall research goals of the group project (projects A1–A5; Fig. 3; Table 3). Participating students made a year-long commitment to their projects, developing and completing their original research in consultation with the project faculty and a “faculty sponsor” from their home institution. In most cases, the students’ individual projects formed the basis for a senior thesis that they completed during the academic year following summer fieldwork. A mid-year workshop at Trinity University provided a venue for discussion, data compilation, and planning for project completion (Gardner et al., 1999b). The students presented their final research results at the 1999 Keck Geology Consortium Undergraduate Research Symposium, and submitted four-page extended abstracts for publication in the symposium proceedings (projects A1–A5; Table 3). In addition, several students presented their research at regional meetings of the Geological Society of
TABLE 1. COSTA RICA FIELD PROJECTS: PARTICIPANTS AND DURATION Participants Duration Students Project Student to Visiting Teaching Participating faculty faculty ratio faculty assistants institutions Fieldwork Follow-up work A. Keck Summer Research Project (1998) 12 5 2:1 4 0 11* 1 mo 1 yr B. Independent Field Study Projects (2003–2008) 1–3 1–2 1:1–3:1
0–2
0
1–4
†
1–2 wk
4 mo–1 yr
C. Field Research Module (2008) § 14 2 7:1 4 2 2 1 wk 1 mo *Amherst College, Carleton College, Colorado College, Franklin and Marshall College, Pomona College, Trinity University, Washington and Lee University, Whitman College, Mississippi State University, Pennsylvania State University, and Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica. † Cal Poly Pomona University, Trinity University, Universidad de Costa Rica, and Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica. § Cal Poly Pomona University and California State University Northridge.
C. Field Research Module (2008) Ecolodge: Group $24,000 $1300 $1700 $190 $45 $720 65 35 $0 $0 Group SUV 4×4: buffet flight 4 rental 4 per room *Expenses reported here are approximate and are not corrected for inflation, changes in travel costs, or differences in exchange rate over the 10 yr project period from 1998 to 2008. † Total project cost includes airfare, ground transportation, lodging, meals, and field supplies for all participants (students, faculty, teaching assistants). These costs do not include participant stipends, contract services (e.g., radiometric dating), purchase of major field equipment, or donated equipment, vehicles, and services from host-country institutions. § Total cost per person equals the total project cost for all participants (students, faculty, teaching assistants) divided by the total number of participants. # Total cost per student equals the total project cost for all participants (students, faculty, teaching assistants) divided by the total number of students. **Total daily cost per student equals the total project cost per student divided by the project duration in days.
$0 $0 20–40 60–80 $400– $800 $60–$80 $160–$230 $1800– $3200 $1400– $2200 $4500– $6500 B. Independent Field Study Projects (2003–2008) Individual SUV 4×4: Ecolodge: Restaurant flights 1–2 rental 2 per room & grocery
$5000 $1200 0 100 $650 $30 $100 $2800 $2000 $34,000 A. Keck Summer Research Project (1998) Individual Ecolodge: Group SUV 4×4: 2 per room buffet flights 4 rental and 2 donated
Air travel
Proje ct logistics Field Lodging vehicles type
Meal plan
TABLE 2. COSTA RICA FIELD PROJECTS: LOGISTICS AND COSTS Project costs* Airfare Total cost Total cost Total daily Daily Total per per cost lodging and per project § # † person person student per student** meals per cost person
% paid by project grant
% paid by students
Student stipend
Faculty stipend
Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica
83
of bedrock incision and knickpoint retreat (Fig. 4C; project A2; Table 3). Two students studied structural deformation by collecting kinematic data from faults and folds within Tertiary marine sedimentary rocks (Fig. 4A; project A3; Table 3). Two students examined uplift patterns through geodetic leveling and dislocation modeling (project A4; Table 3). Finally, two students examined the origin of oceanic basement rocks through paleomagnetic and petrologic/geochemical studies (project A5; Table 3). The logistics of daily fieldwork (Figs. 4A–4F) required careful planning and considerable forward thinking by the project director and faculty. The primary field area encompassed two 40 km stretches of coastline that are nearly orthogonal to one another (Figs. 2 and 3). The area is rural with unpaved roads and rugged terrain. Six four-wheel-drive vehicles were available for regular use. Each student was required to work with a field partner, and each faculty member was in charge of a group of several students. Field partners were rotated on a daily basis to ensure that each student had the chance to visit the other students’ study areas while also having ample time to work in their own area. Likewise, the faculty also took turns working in different areas in order to spend field time with each student. Every evening following dinner, the group met to discuss that day’s results and to plan field logistics for the next day. On some evenings, the faculty gave presentations on regional geology, or on field research techniques. During the length of the Keck Summer Research Project, the students and faculty stayed at a rural ecotour lodge located within the field area near Cabo Blanco (Fig. 3). The project director reserved the entire facility, allowing for complete freedom of movement and use of public areas. The owner and staff attended to participant needs and prepared all meals, including sack lunches for the field. This arrangement provided a safe, secure, and comfortable home base for students and faculty. This was critical for engendering group camaraderie and maintaining morale during this month-long project. The covered outdoor dining area served as an excellent space for office work, group meetings, and presentations (Fig. 4B). An important aspect of this experiential learning project was to allow students to formulate their own hypotheses, research agenda, and data collection strategy. It was therefore critical for the faculty to anticipate the principal methods and equipment necessary to tackle the research problems. The equipment had to be brought from the United States, purchased in Costa Rica, or borrowed from the host-country institution (Observatorio Volcanológico y Sismológico de Costa Rica [OVSICORI-UNA]). Once at the rural field site, it was extremely challenging to acquire additional equipment. This required careful advance planning and the collaborative support of the host-country institution in moving equipment through customs, transporting it to the field site, and purchasing or lending additional required items. 2. Independent Field Study Projects (2003–2008) Over the 5 yr between 2003 and 2008, 12 undergraduate students from Cal Poly Pomona University, Trinity University, and
#
#
#
14
N.A.
14
14
N.A.
0
14
5
1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0
0
N.A.
4
0 [1] 1 [1] 0 0 0 0 [1]
10
0
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
0
N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
12
0
0
0
0
14
0 8 7 1 0 5 5 0 4
4
0
0
0
0
[2]
[1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1]
1
See above
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
See above
ff q, r, s, t, u, aa, bb, cc, gg v, w, y, z, aa, bb, cc, gg x, gg ff y, z, aa, bb, cc, gg y, z, aa, bb, cc, gg ff aa, bb, cc, dd, gg
See above
f, k j, l, p
a, b, c, e, g, m, n, o, ee h, ee d, i
§
References
*See Figure 3 for study site locations. † Numbers in brackets (e.g., [1]) indicate report or publication incomplete or in preparation; N.A.—not applicable. § Letters refer to the following publications (see reference section for complete citations): Symposium short papers: (a) Bee (1999); (b) Burgette (1999); (c) Burton (1999); (d) Claypool (1999); (e) Cooke (1999); (f) Hernández (1999); (g) Kehrwald (1999); (h) Kraal (1999); (i) Krull (1999); (j) Reeves (1999); (k) Shearer (1999); (l) Stamski (1999). Conference abstracts: (m) Burgette et al. (1999); (n) Cooke et al. (1999); (o) Gardner et al. (1999c); (p) Stamski et al. (1999); (q) Khaw et al. (2003); (r) Marshall et al. (2003b); (s) Khaw and Marshall (2004); (t) Marshall et al. (2004a); (u) Marshall et al. (2004b); (v) Marshall et al. (2005b); (w) LaFromboise et al. (2006); (x) Utick et al. (2006); (y) Marshall et al. (2007a); (z) Marshall et al. (2007b); (aa) Marshall et al. (2008a); (bb) Marshall et al. (2008b); (cc) Marshall et al. (2008c); (dd) Morrish and Marshall (2008). Journal articles (cited as personal commun. if not yet accepted): (ee) Gardner et al. (2001); (ff) T.W. Gardner (2009, personal commun.); (gg) J.S. Marshall (2009, personal commun.). N.A.—not applicable. # The totals reported here are the total number of student co-authored reports and publications from each field project. These totals do not necessarily equal the sum of the numbers listed in the columns above because some of the reports and publications may incorporate the results of more than one research topic or student project.
Total project reports and publications
C. Field Research Module (2008) 1. Volcanic stratigraphy and cross section of the Poás Volcano summit crater 2. Geology and geomorphology of Cobano marine terraces and basement rocks 3. Structural analysis of folded and faulted Cabo Blanco marine sedimentary rocks
Total project reports and publications
B. Independent Field Study Projects (2003–2008) 1. Tectonic uplift and marine terraces of the Cobano surface (2003) 2. Tectonic uplift and marine terraces of the Iguanazul surface (2003) 3. Uplift rate variations between Iguanazul and Cobano surfaces (2005) 4. Geomorphology and petrology of Holocene beach deposits (2005) 5. Uplift and faulting of Cobano surface marine terraces (2005) 6. Geomorphology and tectonics of La Mansión alluvial terraces (2007) 7. Uplifted marine terraces of the Carillo-Camaronal surface (2007) 8. Stratigraphy of uplifted marine sandstones and terrace deposits (2007) 9. Geomorphology and tectonics of Rio Ora alluvial terraces (2008)
Total project reports and publications
TABLE 3. COSTA RICA FIELD PROJECTS: RESEARCH TOPICS, REPORTS, AND PUBLICATIONS † † Costa Rica field projects and student research topics* Student co-authored publications Student reports Senior Field Symposium Conference Journal thesis report short paper abstract article A. Keck Summer Research Project (1998) 1. Quaternary marine terrace uplift in response to subducting seamounts 5 N.A. 5 3 1 2. Stream incision and knickpoint retreat in response to tectonic uplift 1 N.A. 1 0 1 3. Deformation kinematics in folded and faulted marine sedimentary 2 N.A. 2 0 0 rocks 4. Geodetic leveling and dislocation modeling of tectonic uplift and tilting 1 N.A. 2 0 0 5. Origin of Nicoya basement terrane: Paleomagnetism and 1 N.A. 2 1 0 geochemistry
84
Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica
85
Figure 4. Students of the 1998 Keck Summer Research Project, Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica. (A) Alix Krull (Pomona College), Natalie Kehrwald (Colorado College), and project faculty member Dr. Ed Beutner (Franklin and Marshall College) recording structural data from a tidal platform outcrop of the Miocene Malpaís Formation at Santa Teresa. (B) Natalie Kehrwald (Colorado College) and project director Dr. Tom Gardner (Trinity University) discussing field data on the outdoor patio of Nature Lodge Finca los Caballos near Cobano. (C) Erin Kraal (Washington and Lee University) and faculty sponsor Dr. Dave Harbor surveying a channel longitudinal profile for a knickpoint study along the Río Lajas. (D) Bhavani Bee (Franklin and Marshall College) collecting shell samples for radiocarbon dating on an outcrop of uplifted Holocene beach gravels at Cabo Blanco. (E) Emily Burton (Carleton College) describing a soil profile on uplifted Holocene beach deposits at Santa Teresa. (F) Reed Burgette (Whitman College) surveying a topographic profile across uplifted Holocene beach ridges at Malpaís.
86
Marshall et al.
the Universidad de Costa Rica participated in a series of independent geosciences research projects on the Nicoya Peninsula (Fig. 3) directed by authors Marshall and Gardner (Table 1). These projects, hereafter referred to as the independent field study projects, served as the basis for either a required geology senior thesis, or for independent study credits at the students’ home institution. These projects were funded by a combination of small campus research grants, faculty travel funds, and existing National Science Foundation (NSF) grants for related regional investigations (Table 2). In some cases, students contributed their own funds to cover some costs, such as airfare or food. Fieldwork for the independent field study projects generally lasted between 1 and 2 wk (Table 1) and involved one to three students per trip (Figs. 5A–5G). These field projects were carefully designed to generate new data that would contribute to the broader collaborative research efforts of the two faculty advisors. The overall focus of these research projects (projects B1–B9; Fig. 3; Table 3) was to investigate variations in tectonic deformation patterns along the Nicoya Peninsula segment of the Middle America Trench (e.g., Marshall et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2008c). The students utilized field techniques of geomorphology, stratigraphy, structural geology, and geochronology to investigate the uplift and depositional history of Quaternary marine terraces (Figs. 5A–5B), coastal sediments (Fig. 5D), and fluvial deposits (Figs. 5E–5G). The participating students also had opportunities for professional interaction with Costa Rican scientists working on related problems (Fig. 5C). Project results have been presented in senior theses, independent studies reports, and studentcoauthored abstracts, posters, and talks, presented at regional, national, and international professional meetings (projects B1– B9; Table 3). The field areas for the independent field study projects included four principal locations on the Nicoya Peninsula, three along the coast and one in the peninsula’s interior (projects B1– B9; Fig. 3; Table 3). Four of the projects focused on the Cabo Blanco area, site of the 1998 Keck Summer Research Project and the 2008 field research module. This location lies inboard of a chain of subducting seamounts (Fig. 2) that generates rapid coastal uplift and the formation of a prominent flight of marine terraces. The students working on independent field study projects in this area focused their research on the geomorphology and stratigraphy of uplifted Pleistocene terraces (projects B1, B3, B5, and B8; Fig. 3; Table 3). This work expanded on the results of earlier investigations in this area, which had focused primarily on emergent Holocene terraces (Marshall and Anderson, 1995; Gardner et al., 2001). Together, these studies assembled a comprehensive picture of the late Quaternary uplift history at the Nicoya Peninsula’s southern tip. New age constraints (14C and optically stimulated luminescence [OSL]) on the Cabo Blanco coastal terraces established a framework for terrace correlation to other sites along the Nicoya coast (e.g., Marshall et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2008c). During other field seasons, students examined marine terraces and beach sediments along the northern and central
segments of the Nicoya Peninsula coastline (projects B2–B4 and B7; Fig. 3; Table 3). These sites lie inboard of relatively smooth subducting seafloor (Fig. 2), and thus uplift rates are an order of magnitude lower than at Cabo Blanco. The marine terraces at these sites had not yet been studied in detail. These projects, therefore, played an important role in expanding the database on Nicoya Peninsula coastal uplift patterns. In addition to marine terraces, several students also examined alluvial gravel terraces along river valleys near the coast and within the peninsula’s interior (projects B6 and B9; Fig. 3; Table 3). These projects built upon prior river terrace studies on the Nicoya Peninsula (Hare and Gardner, 1985) and elsewhere along the Costa Rican Pacific margin (Marshall et al., 2001). Correlation of the fluvial and marine terrace sequences is expanding our coverage of tectonic uplift patterns on the Nicoya Peninsula. Students were selected for these independent research projects based on their level of interest, academic preparation, and prior field experience. The faculty advisors generally prepared the participants for fieldwork several months in advance, through individual conversation and group meetings. The students received logistical information, background reading, and necessary field maps. Prior student research reports and posters were used as a means to instruct and inspire project participants. A set of research questions and a general plan for fieldwork were developed through faculty-student discussion. In Costa Rica, the projects usually began with reconnaissance field trips, designed to familiarize the students and faculty with the study area. The students were encouraged to ask questions and to suggest ideas for the upcoming fieldwork. The faculty introduced the students to the field equipment, including global positioning system (GPS) units, altimeters, and surveying gear. After returning to the hotel from field reconnaissance, the group would usually examine aerial photographs under a stereoscope, and look over topographic and geologic maps of the study area. At this point, the students and advisor would develop a schedule for fieldwork during the ensuing days. The daily field routine for each of these projects depended on the research goals, study area, length of stay, number of students, and weather conditions. Nearly all projects involved field mapping of coastal terraces and deposits (Figs. 5A–5B), and the surveying of topographic profiles using differential GPS, barometric altimetry, and hand levels with stadia rods (Fig. 5G). Other typical field activities included measuring stratigraphic columns, describing sediments and soils, and collecting samples for isotopic dating and thin sections (Figs. 5D–5E). Each evening, the students and faculty worked together on field data (Fig. 5F), discussed new findings and project progress, and planned fieldwork for the following day. Field accommodations for these projects consisted of reputable tourist hotels throughout the Nicoya Peninsula (Table 2), including the lodge used in both the Keck Summer Research Project and the field research module. Rental four-wheel-drive vehicles were used for travel during each field season.
Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica
87
Figure 5. Students of the 2003–2008 independent field study projects, Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica. (A) Fookgiin Khaw and Julie Parra (Cal Poly Pomona) near an uplifted Holocene beachrock horizon on Playa Pochotes. (B) Fookgiin Khaw, Julie Parra, and Lauren Annis inspecting an outcrop of Nicoya Complex oceanic basement at Playa Junquillal. (C) Eli LaFromboise and John Utick (Cal Poly Pomona) with project director Dr. Jeff Marshall and Costa Rican seismologist Dr. Marino Protti at the Observatorio Volcanológico y Sismológico de Costa Rica, Universidad Nacional (OVSICORI-UNA), Heredia. (D) Eli LaFromboise and John Utick (Cal Poly Pomona) collecting beach sand samples on Playa Negra. (E) Shawn Morrish (Cal Poly Pomona) describing soil profile on uplifted river terrace deposits along the Río Ora. (F) Shawn Morrish (Cal Poly Pomona) generating river terrace topographic profiles on a laptop at Hotel Villas Kalimba, Playa Sámara. (G) Shawn Morrish (Cal Poly Pomona) recording global positioning system (GPS) coordinates of a marine breccia outcrop at Puerto Carrillo.
88
Marshall et al.
3. Field Research Module (2008) During spring break of 2008, the Geological Sciences Department at Cal Poly Pomona University ran a week-long field studies course in Costa Rica, focusing on the Nicoya Peninsula (Figs. 2 and 3). This course, referred to hereafter as the field research module, was led by authors Marshall and Nourse, and it involved 14 undergraduate students from two different California State University campuses, Cal Poly Pomona and Cal State Northridge (Table 1). The students completed a series of field exercises (Figs. 6A–6G) and earned a total of four units of course credit for two sections of “Geology Field Module.” Because Cal Poly Pomona does not offer its own geology summer field camp, majors have the option of taking four twounit field modules as a substitute. The 2008 Costa Rica field research module counted as two field module sections because of the intensity of fieldwork involved, and the participation of two faculty members with different field specialties. The course also included two teaching assistants: an advanced Cal Poly Pomona undergraduate student, and a Cal State Northridge master’s degree student who was doing his thesis research on the Nicoya Peninsula. A graduate student from the Cal Poly Pomona Biological Sciences Department also participated in the course, conducting independent research in the same field area. Funding for the field research module was provided by a grant from the Cal Poly Pomona College of Science, supplemented by student contributions (Table 2). The focus of the 2008 field research module was the active tectonics and geomorphology of the Middle America convergent margin in Costa Rica. The group visited two active volcanoes within the Central Volcanic Cordillera (Fig. 2) and spent three field days in the Cabo Blanco area at the southern tip of the Nicoya Peninsula (Fig. 3). The students engaged in three field projects (projects C1–C3; Fig. 3; Table 3) during the course: (1) a geologic cross section exercise at Poás Volcano (Fig. 6E), (2) a geologic and geomorphic mapping exercise along a Nicoya Peninsula road transect (Figs. 6A, 6B, and 6D), and (3) a structural geology exercise on a tidal platform in the same area (Fig. 6C). Each morning began with a “field briefing” during which the faculty and students discussed the day’s assignments and strategy for fieldwork (Fig. 6F). In the field, the students worked with partners, making field measurements and recording data and observations in field notebooks and on topographic maps (Figs. 6A–6E). The faculty and teaching assistants circulated among the students to provide guidance and to answer questions (Fig. 6B). At the close of each field day, the students worked on their maps and notebooks and completed preliminary assignments that were due at the end of each exercise. In the evenings, the students read assigned research papers (Fig. 6G) and gave summary presentations to the group. On one occasion, the students had the opportunity to discuss Nicoya Peninsula tectonics with a visiting group of U.S. and Costa Rican seismologists and geodesists. One month after return to the United States, the students were required to submit
a final research report on all three of the field projects (projects C1–C3; Table 3). This report was to include 5–10 pages of text, maps, cross sections, stratigraphic columns, and field photos. The students were also asked to submit their field notebooks for grading. The project faculty members were available during this time for questions and consultation. Students were selected for the field research module through a competitive application process. A series of required planning meetings was held over a period of 4 mo leading up to the trip. The group traveled to Costa Rica together on a single flight. On the first day, the group visited Poás Volcano National Park and walked on trails to the active summit crater and extinct crater lake. The faculty gave short field lectures on the geology, tectonics, and eruption history of the Central American volcanic arc and Poás volcano itself. The students were given a set of topographic and geologic maps of the crater area. They were instructed to sketch the crater in their notebooks (Fig. 6E), and record descriptions of volcanic units exposed along the crater rim. The assignment for this project was to construct a topographic profile and geologic cross section across the volcano’s summit. The following day, the group traveled by highway and ferry to the southern Nicoya Peninsula (Fig. 3). Multiple field trip stops were made en route to illustrate the geology and tectonics of the central Costa Rican volcanic arc and forearc region. Prior to departure for Costa Rica, each student was assigned a set of three research articles that they were asked to read (Fig. 6G) and present to the group. For three consecutive evenings, beginning with the first night on the Nicoya Peninsula, each student presented a 5 min summary of one of his/her articles. A group discussion followed. The reading/presentation list was organized to cover a deliberate set of research topics related to the course theme and students’ fieldwork. Prior to their presentations, the students were encouraged to consult with the project faculty. The students were graded based on their general understanding of the paper and clarity of presentation. The mapping exercise began the next day with a field trip to introduce students to the geology and geomorphology of the study area (project C1; Fig. 3; Table 3). Stops were made along their mapping transect to describe geologic units ranging from oceanic basalt basement, to marine turbidite deposits, to emergent Quaternary marine terraces. In addition, students were shown examples of critical structures such as faults, folds, and unit contacts. Prior to the field trip, the students were given a set of topographic maps ranging in scale from 1:12,000 to 1:50,000. During the course of the day, they used these maps and handheld GPS units to locate the field-trip stops. The students were also given a blank topographic profile of the mapping transect, a copy of the Quaternary sea-level curve, and geochronologic data from marine terrace deposits and bedrock units. The next morning, students began mapping at the inland end of a 2 km road transect that descended 160 m in elevation to the beach. They worked in teams of two or three students (Fig. 6A) with one GPS unit, a hand level, and at least one Brunton compass per team (Fig. 6D). The faculty and teaching assistants
Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica
Figure 6. Students of the 2008 field research module, Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica. (A) Brian Oliver and Travis Avant (Cal Poly Pomona) recording field data during a mapping exercise near Delicias. (B) Cristo Ramírez (Cal State Northridge) and project faculty member Dr. Jon Nourse (Cal Poly Pomona) checking map location near Delicias. (C) Andrew Keita and Azad Khalighi (Cal Poly Pomona) discussing field strategy during structural geology exercise on Cabuya tidal platform. (D) Azad Khalighi (Cal Poly Pomona) measuring strike and dip of Delicias thrust fault. (E) Jessica Bruns and Shawn Morrish (Cal Poly Pomona) taking field notes at the crater of Poás Volcano. (F) Students and faculty during morning field briefing on the patio of Nature Lodge Finca los Caballos near Cobano. (G) Julie Brown and Daniel Heaton (Cal Poly Pomona) reading research articles on the Paquera ferry, Golfo de Nicoya.
89
90
Marshall et al.
spread out along the mapping transect to provide assistance (Fig. 6B). The students were instructed to record all field locations and data (e.g., UTM, strike, and dip) on their base maps and in their notebooks. They were also encouraged to sketch outcrops, make detailed lithologic descriptions, and collect representative samples of all mapping units. The students used the blank topographic profile to sketch a conceptual cross section, and they used the Quaternary sea-level curve to develop a working model for coastal uplift and marine terrace formation. Upon return to the lodge, the rock samples were placed in a common area, and students were provided with additional maps, aerial photos, and stereoscopes. The students then worked on refining their field maps and notebook descriptions. The last field day on the Nicoya Peninsula was devoted to the structural geology project (project C2; Fig. 3; Table 3). This project involved collecting structural measurements from complex folds and faults within a highly deformed marine turbidite unit exposed at the coast in a level wave-cut tidal platform (Fig. 6C). The students first created a base map on graph paper by measuring the study site dimensions using GPS. During falling tide, the students worked in teams of two or three using Brunton compasses to measure and record the orientation of bedding, fold hinges, axial planes, and faults. The students were encouraged to spread out across the tidal platform in order to increase the total group coverage of the study site. The maps and data from each team were later compiled by the faculty and provided to each student after returning home to Cal Poly Pomona. The final assignment was to create a structural map of the study site and write a report interpreting the data and summarizing the deformation history of this unit. The next day, the group made the return trip to the capital city San José in Costa Rica’s Central Valley. That evening, the students drafted preliminary maps and illustrations from each of their three field projects, due the following morning. On the last day in Costa Rica, the group made a field trip to Irazú Volcano National Park and the colonial capital city of Cartago. The students visited the active crater of Irazú and sites in Cartago affected by the devastating 1910 earthquake and deadly lahars of 1964. No assignments were required from this trip. Accommodations for the 2008 field research module included two well-established tourist lodges, one in the capital city San José and the other near Cabo Blanco on the Nicoya Peninsula (Fig. 3). The authors had used both of these establishments for well over a decade. The Nicoya Peninsula hotel was the same one used in the 1998 Keck Project and several of the independent study projects. This rural ecotour lodge, located a short distance from the field area, provided a secure and comfortable home base for students and faculty (Fig. 6F). The group ate all meals at the lodge, reducing the chance of food- or waterborne illness. Returning to the lodge at midday for lunch also helped to mitigate the effects of heat and dehydration. Four four-wheel-drive rental vehicles were used for travel during the project. This allowed for greater mobility on the rural dirt roads in the field area.
COMPARISON OF FIELD PROJECT MODELS Project Goals and Teaching Methods Our three project models share a common research theme, field area, and overarching pedagogy, allowing for easy comparison of project goals, teaching methods, logistics, costs, and learning benefits. In each case, the students investigated forearc tectonics and coastal geomorphology on Costa Rica’s Nicoya Peninsula (Figs. 2 and 3). These projects were based around experiential learning pedagogy (cf. Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 1984) in which students adopted a holistic view of their study topic and played an active role in guiding the learning process. A key element of this approach is to encourage students to develop their own research agenda, and to engage them in the deliberate practice of hands-on problem solving through critical thinking, inquiry, and reflection (e.g., Montrose, 2002). Each of our projects used experiential learning as a potent strategy for developing the self-confidence and reasoning skills necessary for solving multifaceted real-world problems in the geosciences. The goals and methods for accomplishing this differed between each of the projects depending on group size, faculty-student ratio, project duration, and expected outcomes and products (Tables 1–3). Project Goals The principal goal of the longer-duration Keck Summer Research Project was to engage students in a comprehensive field research experience, including a year-long commitment to post–fieldwork analysis, interpretation, and presentation of results through thesis writing, conference presentations, and journal publications. Like the Keck project, the goal of the independent field study projects was to engage students in comprehensive research; however, expectations for follow-up activities and products varied among students, ranging from short-term writing of a field report, to a full year of data analysis and preparation of a senior thesis, thesis defense, and conference presentations. In contrast, the primary goal of the shorter field research module was to develop technical and cognitive field skills within a narrower research context, leading to a concise, written report on field results. Both the Keck Summer Research Project and the independent field study projects can be defined as “research apprenticeships” (Seymour et al., 2004), in which the faculty mentors guide small groups of junior- to senior-level students through longer-duration comprehensive research experiences. The field research module, on the other hand, can be defined as a “research-based learning course” (Seymour et al., 2004), in which research-like experiences form the pedagogical foundation for coursework. Teaching Approach The two longer-duration “research apprenticeships” (Keck Summer Research Project and independent field study projects) devoted more time to building the research context and allowing students to formulate their own hypotheses and strategies
Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica for fieldwork. In contrast, the shorter “research-based learning course” (field research module) bypassed the formulation of hypotheses and jumped straight to focused inquiry on the nature of field data and data collection techniques needed to answer specific research questions. For example, the Keck Summer Research Project and independent field study projects both began with students exploring their entire field area, and thinking about the impact of tectonics, climate, and sea-level change on the landscape. Through group discussion, the students then developed a set of hypotheses that could be investigated during their fieldwork. The students then worked on identifying the type of field evidence that could be used to address their hypotheses and determining appropriate techniques of data collection and analysis. They formulated a research plan and field strategy, and then they engaged in fieldwork and data evaluation. The field research module, on the other hand, was based on a strategy of visiting previously known outcrops that exposed useful geologic information (e.g., a road cut through a dated marine terrace) and asking students about the type of data that could be collected at the site to answer a specific research question (e.g., the terrace uplift rate). Through faculty-guided inquiry, the students then learned how to collect a particular data set (e.g., terrace topographic profile and inner-edge elevation). The fieldwork, therefore, was more “cookbook” in nature and involved less “big picture” inquiry. In all three projects, however, the students were challenged to interpret the significance of the data they collected. For the field module students, this was limited to relatively simple, localized interpretations, whereas the Keck and independent study students had more latitude and time to integrate their interpretations within the broader research context. Student Mentoring The ratio of students to faculty (Table 1) was an important factor influencing the teaching methods and intensity of student mentoring in the field. The Keck Summer Research Project had a ratio of 12 students to 5 faculty members (<3:1), and for most of its duration, additional faculty sponsors visited the field area. For most of the project, therefore, the student to faculty ratio was maintained at near 2:1. This allowed for significant facultystudent mentoring in the field and also facilitated the overall project structure of students working simultaneously at separate field sites, with rotating field partners and faculty mentors. Students and faculty were able to devote entire days to tackling specific problems at individual field sites, and the students were able to benefit from the varied input of different faculty on different days. This approach, however, involved significant logistical complexity and required careful planning and forethought. The independent field study projects also had low student to faculty ratios (3:1–1:1), allowing for individualized field mentoring guided by the particular needs of students and their research goals. This project model offered the most consistent, and likely the most effective mentoring, because of the smaller group size and simpler logistics. It is important to consider, however, that there may be a trade-off between the perceived learning benefits
91
of small group mentoring, and the learning gains engendered by large group competition, camaraderie, and peer mentoring. In contrast to the other two projects, the field research module had a relatively high ratio of 14 students to 2 faculty members (7:1). This necessitated a different approach in which the students worked each day in small teams on the same problem in a common field area. As the student teams moved through the area, the faculty and two teaching assistants would circulate among them to facilitate inquiry and answer questions. The benefit of this approach was that students could learn through discussion with their field partners and other teams, and the faculty could bring all of the teams together on occasion to address common questions. The field logistics were much simpler than the other large-group project (Keck Summer Research Project), and the overall group safety was enhanced by having all participants in the same area at the same time. Project Preparation and Follow-Up All three projects involved both precursory and follow-up activities to prepare students for fieldwork and to facilitate data analysis and completion of assignments. These included required group meetings, reading assignments, presentations, and Internet bulletins or discussion. For the Keck Summer Research Project, face-to-face preparatory meetings were impossible due to the wide geographic distribution of participants. In this case, Internet communication between students and faculty was essential prior to fieldwork. The postproject workshop, held at Trinity University six months after fieldwork (Gardner et al., 1999b), was critical for compiling all of the project data and determining common strategies for data analysis and presentation. Students of the independent field study projects and field research module came mostly from the same institutions, allowing for face-to-face group meetings both before and after fieldwork. Pretrip meetings were an essential part of preparing students for the field. These meetings allowed faculty to introduce the research context, discuss assignments and expectations, provide logistical and safety information, complete forms and financial transactions, and engender group camaraderie and enthusiasm. Post-trip meetings provided an important opportunity for project debriefing, discussions of results and data analysis, reminders about assignments and expectations, and celebrations of student achievements. Project Logistics and Costs The three project models discussed in this paper varied significantly in logistical complexity and project costs (Table 2). However, because these projects were run in the same general field area, they shared similar logistical challenges and budgetary structure. The later projects benefited greatly from lessons learned during earlier projects. It is important to note that the logistics of larger group projects are exponentially more complex than for smaller groups. This is especially true for international projects due to the challenges of overseas air travel, and of transporting, housing, and feeding large groups in a foreign country. It
92
Marshall et al.
is also important to consider that the average daily cost of international projects is strongly influenced by two factors, the cost of airfare and the impact of group rates for lodging and meals. Regardless of project duration, the cost of air travel for a particular project will be the same. Therefore, with air travel included in the total cost, shorter projects have a higher average daily cost per person than longer projects (Table 2). While larger groups introduce more logistical challenges, group rates for lodging and meals can significantly lower the daily cost per person. In addition, travel costs can vary widely depending on the season, travel days, type of facilities used, and longer-term fluctuations in currency exchange rates and the global economy. The complex logistics of organizing and executing the month-long Keck Summer Research Project required strong leadership by the project director (Gardner), and careful teamwork among the project faculty, the students, and the respective staffs of the Keck Geology Consortium, host-country institution (OVSICORI-UNA), and project lodging facilities. To achieve success, this type of large multi-institutional project required the administrative and financial support of an experienced undergraduate research organization like the Keck Geology Consortium (Manduca, 1997; de Wet et al., this volume). It would be difficult to organize a project of this magnitude through a single geology department. In addition to logistical and clerical support, the Keck Consortium provided full project funding, including student and faculty stipends. The total cost of the project was high (Table 2), but because of its long duration (1 mo), and the impact of group discounts, the average daily cost per student was low compared to the other two projects. Considering the project outcomes (Table 3), learning benefits, and average daily cost per student, it is clear that the 1998 Costa Rica Keck Summer Research Project was an exceptionally good investment. This was an investment, however, that could only be afforded by a well-funded institution/organization, or by faculty supported by a substantial external grant. The logistics of the independent field study projects were much simpler than the two large-group projects. Travel arrangements and planning for fieldwork are generally much easier for small groups of four or less people. A more open time frame for these projects allowed for greater flexibility. In general, the students and faculty had more time for interaction and one-on-one mentoring. The students took great pride in their projects, and self-confidence clearly increased. One particular flaw, however, is that without clear project boundaries and the group competition typical of larger projects, independent research students often become overwhelmed and face challenges in bringing their projects to completion. This is especially true for public university senior thesis students faced with heavy course loads, work responsibilities, and family demands. Overcoming these issues often requires careful mentoring by the faculty advisor. In general, these projects were relatively inexpensive (Table 2) and were funded through a combination of small research grants, travel funds, and student contributions. However, due to the lack of group discounts, and the low student to faculty ratio, the aver-
age daily project cost per student was highest for the independent field study projects compared to the other two models. The daily logistics of the field research module were easier to manage than the other large-group project (Keck Summer Research Project), but they were still more complex than the small-group projects (independent field study projects). Orchestrating the travel logistics for 18 participants required a significant investment of time and energy by the project director (Marshall). Because of its short duration, this project required careful advance planning and knowledge of the field area to ensure efficient use of time. A short field course of this type is more affordable and manageable for a small geology department in a financially limited public university. However, without the support of an undergraduate research consortium or university study abroad program, the project logistics, financial management, and liability issues became the sole responsibility of the project faculty. In this case, the prior Keck Summer Research Project provided a useful model for project design and planning. In addition, the project director had also led two prior large-group field trips in this area, a study trip in 2000 for students of Franklin and Marshall College, and a preconference field trip for the 2001 National Science Foundation MARGINS Program Central America workshop (Marshall et al., 2001). One advantage of a short-duration project like the field research module is that it requires less time commitment by students. This is especially important for a public commuter university like Cal Poly Pomona, where many students have jobs and families. This project was particularly attractive to students because the bulk of costs were covered by a college grant to the project director. With careful budgeting and project planning, the total costs were low (Table 2), while the student learning benefits were high. The average daily cost per student for this project was nearly double that of the Keck Summer Research Project but less than the independent field study projects. Student Learning Outcomes While no formal assessments of student learning outcomes were conducted for the three Costa Rica field projects, their overall success can be evaluated using several qualitative indicators. These include: (1) student enthusiasm and engagement, (2) advances in technical and cognitive field skills, (3) productivity and quality of student-authored publications, reports, and presentations, and (4) impacts on student self-confidence and professional identity. Student Enthusiasm and Engagement The high level of student enthusiasm and commitment during each of these projects provides a first-order indication of their success in engaging participants in the field learning process. Based on faculty observations and interactions with participating students, all three of the Costa Rica field projects generated an exceptional level of student enthusiasm relative to traditional field activities at their home institutions. A fundamental difference
Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica between international field experiences and typical fieldwork in the United States is the excitement of total immersion in a new physical and cultural environment, including unique landscapes, climate, wildlife, language, food, and culture. Costa Rica is especially attractive to undergraduate students because of its global reputation as a premiere destination for ecotourism and adventure travel. The heightened excitement of a study abroad experience tended to amplify student enthusiasm for fieldwork and scientific inquiry. Their research engagement was also piqued by interaction with Costa Rican scientists, and by the obvious implications of their studies toward understanding the natural hazards threatening the local people they encountered during fieldwork. Technical and Cognitive Field Skills Another indication of student learning during these projects was the observed advances made in technical field skills and higher-order integrative thinking. In nearly all cases, the students participating in these projects had prior field experience through regular coursework, field methods courses, field modules, summer field camps, and other research experiences. This preparation allowed most of the students to quickly engage in project activities without need for remedial field training. Less prepared students generally had the opportunity to learn from those with more experience. The daily intensity of living and working together in a rural Costa Rican landscape engendered strong group camaraderie and peer mentoring relationships. In most cases, the students quickly recognized that the quality of their own learning experience was dependent on the success of the entire group. This led to a situation in which few students were ever “left behind,” and the students worked cohesively to develop the skills and thought processes needed to tackle their common research problems. Unfortunately, we did not have the foresight to conduct pre– and post–fieldwork learning assessments. However, the authors all agree that we observed an exceptional level of student advancement in technical skills and critical thinking during these international field projects compared to similar domestic projects in the United States. Other faculty mentors have reported similar benefits associated with international fieldwork (e.g., Mankiewicz, 2005; McLaughlin and Johnson, 2006). Research on learning indicates that the unfamiliar setting of study abroad experiences stimulates student awareness and cognition, and motivates them to engage in their studies with exceptional focus and intensity (e.g., Citron and Kline, 2001). During each of the three Costa Rica projects, the students learned practical field skills, new applications of field instruments, and valuable lessons in project design, teamwork, and time management. The Keck Summer Research Project and independent field study projects immersed students in a high-intensity integrated research experience that mimicked the reality of graduate school and academia. The students participated in every aspect of research, from initial formation of ideas and hypotheses, to planning and execution of fieldwork, to data analysis and synthesis, and finally, communication of results through writing, presentations, and publication. The independent field study projects,
93
however, were less influenced by peer competition and required more self-motivation. These projects provided excellent training for students headed to graduate school, or seeking projectlevel employment in the consulting industry. The field research module offered a much more compact, yet still intense learning experience that emphasized field techniques, data collection, and concise interpretation of results from focused problems. This learning strategy is valuable for building student confidence in their ability to conduct fieldwork and solve problems. Student Publications, Reports, and Presentations An additional measure of learning outcomes for the Costa Rica field projects is the overall productivity in generating student-authored research reports, publications, and conference presentations (Table 3). The Keck Summer Research Project was highly successful in generating individual senior theses (10) and short papers (12) for the Keck Research Symposium (Gardner et al., 1999a). These outcomes were an integral part of the initial project goals, and students were acutely aware throughout that their success at fieldwork would determine the quality of these final products. The level of expectations and friendly competition were high among these students, resulting in exceptional quality in their final papers. This success was also facilitated by thoughtful project planning, a fruitful midyear workshop, advising by home-campus faculty sponsors, and prior academic training at well-funded, small, liberal arts colleges. The most significant product of the Keck Summer Research Project was a studentcoauthored paper published in the journal Geology (Gardner et al., 2001). This also had been part of the original project goals and design (Gardner, 1999). Much of the midyear workshop (Gardner et al., 1999b) was focused on compiling and standardizing student data for this publication, and for a preliminary poster presentation at a national conference (Gardner et al., 1999c). Engaging undergraduate students in the process of publishing a journal article was one of the most beneficial learning outcomes of this project. Interestingly, only three of the project’s 12 students also presented individual posters or talks at professional meetings outside of the Keck Research Symposium (Table 3). This may reflect that the bulk of their attention was focused on completing senior theses, symposium presentations, and the journal article. Publication productivity and quality were also quite high among students of the independent field study projects (Table 3). Unlike the Keck project, the requirements for project reports and presentations varied among the independent study students. Four of the Cal Poly Pomona students were expected to complete a written senior thesis, thesis defense, and professional conference presentation. Two additional Cal Poly Pomona students participated in the projects for field credits, but they were only expected to prepare conference abstracts and presentations. All five of the Trinity University students were required to complete short field reports for independent study credits. The one participating student from the Universidad de Costa Rica was conducting fieldwork for a professional license thesis (“Licenciatura”). In total, the independent field study projects thus far have generated 14
94
Marshall et al.
student-coauthored abstracts and presentations for professional conferences, five field research reports, and one complete senior thesis, with three additional theses pending (Table 3). Four of the Cal Poly Pomona student researchers have been lead authors on five abstracts for poster presentations at professional meetings. All six of the Cal Poly Pomona students have attended professional conferences and participated in the preparation and presentation of posters and talks. Two of these students have attended conferences in Costa Rica, where they interacted with researchers from the international community. Both faculty advisors (Marshall and Gardner) are currently working on student-coauthored journal articles that will present a summary of research results from the independent field study projects. One unique flaw of these projects, due to their open-ended time frame, is the tendency of senior thesis students to gain employment before finishing their thesis and degree. Despite their success in completing the research and professional presentations, two of these students have not yet completed their written thesis due to current work responsibilities. An important strategy for mitigating this problem is to establish a rigid schedule for student progress listing specific attainable short-term goals. In contrast to the other two projects, the field research module was not intended to generate publishable research results or student professional presentations. Instead, the students were required to submit a single research report summarizing the results of their three field projects (Table 3). The fieldwork from these projects did, however, generate new data and observations that will influence research interpretations and future publications by the project faculty. Over two-thirds (10) of the participating students generated written project reports and illustrations that showed a strong level of learning and comprehension (grade ≥ A–). The other third (4) submitted acceptable reports that demonstrated only a basic level of understanding (grade ≤ B). The lesser motivation of this latter group likely resulted from the lack of a long-term commitment to the project. The students were aware that they would receive a passing grade if they submitted a complete report. The fact that the field research module was not linked to a larger academic outcome (e.g., a senior thesis) led some students to complete marginally acceptable work. The majority of students, however, turned in reports and illustrations that showed substantial learning, and that demonstrated the overall success of this project. Student Self-Confidence and Professional Identity A final indicator of learning outcomes for these projects was an apparent enhancement of student self-confidence and professional identity. Conversations with student participants revealed a common perception that these projects had a significant impact on developing their identity as geoscientists. A number of students indicated that the experiential learning approach allowed them to build the self-confidence necessary to tackle complex field problems. Students participating in the Keck Summer Research Project and independent field study projects, in particular, have suggested that these research experiences confirmed their career
choice and reinforced their motivation to pursue graduate studies and professional geosciences careers. Nine of the 12 students from the Keck Summer Research Project went on to graduate schools for M.S. and/or Ph.D. degrees. At least four are currently university faculty members or postdoctoral researchers, three are employed as geoscientists for government agencies or energy companies, and one is a schoolteacher. Half of the 14 students from the field research module have recently graduated, and five are now in graduate school, while three have accepted consulting jobs. Of the 12 students who completed independent field study projects, four continued on to graduate studies, and at least three are working as geoscientists for consulting firms. One of the independent study students who entered graduate school has continued researching Nicoya Peninsula tectonics for his M.S. thesis. This same student served as a teaching assistant for the field research module and as a field advisor for a current independent study student. Such mentoring relationships are one of the benefits of the independent field study projects as new students build on the research of prior participants. CONCLUSION International field experiences offer exceptional opportunities for effective student learning in the geosciences. This paper examined three project models for undergraduate field research in Costa Rica, Central America: (1) a month-long summer research project (Keck Geology Consortium, 1998), (2) a series of 1 to 2 wk independent field study projects (Cal Poly Pomona University and Trinity University, 2003–2008), and (3) a weeklong field research module (Cal Poly Pomona University, 2008). These three project models shared a common research theme (active tectonics), field area (Nicoya Peninsula), and overarching pedagogy (experiential learning), allowing for easy comparison of teaching methods, logistics, and learning outcomes. Each project model has unique pedagogical benefits and challenges and is therefore better suited for a different range of group size, student to faculty ratio, duration of fieldwork, and project budget. With thoughtful consideration of these factors and careful project planning, each of these teaching models can have substantial positive impacts on student learning. The Keck Summer Research Project classifies as a “research apprenticeship” (Seymour et al., 2004), in which the primary goal was to engage students in a comprehensive field research experience, including post–fieldwork analysis, interpretation, report writing, and conference presentations. With 12 students, five project faculty members, and four visiting faculty sponsors (Table 1), this project maintained a low student to faculty ratio (~2:1). The teaching strategy consisted of the faculty mentoring individual students who were working at multiple field sites on a range of related research problems. This strategy required careful logistical planning to integrate all of the research efforts and to manage rotating teams of field partners and faculty mentors. This project generated multiple student-authored publications (Table 3), including symposium short papers, conference abstracts, senior
Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica theses, and a major journal article. Of the three project models, the Keck Summer Research Project had the highest total cost (Table 2), but it also had the lowest average daily cost per student because of its longer duration and large group size. The success of this complex project was largely dependent on five factors: (1) the low student to faculty ratio, (2) the extended duration of fieldwork (1 mo), (3) careful planning and management by the project director and faculty, (4) post–fieldwork advising by faculty sponsors, and (5) substantial funding and logistical support provided by the Keck Geology Consortium and the host-country institution, OVSICORI-UNA. Like the Keck project, the Cal Poly Pomona and Trinity independent field study projects classify as “research apprenticeships” (Seymour et al., 2004). The primary goal of these projects was to engage individual students in comprehensive research leading to the completion of a research report, thesis, and/or professional conference presentations. The teaching strategy consisted of intensive inquiry-based field mentoring of small student groups (1–3). A distinct advantage of this model was the flexibility to tailor projects to the specific academic needs and interests of individual students. Because these projects involved only a few participants (Table 1) and short field seasons (1–2 wk), the logistics were relatively simple, and project plans could be easily adjusted at any time if needed. These projects generated a large number of student co-authored professional presentations and abstracts (Table 3), and two major journal articles are planned. The total cost per field season was significantly lower than the large group projects (Table 2), allowing for funding through small university travel grants. The average daily cost per student, however, was the highest among the three project models because of the short duration of fieldwork and lack of group discounts. The Cal Poly Pomona field research module classifies as a “research-based learning course” (Seymour et al., 2004), in which the primary goal was to develop specific technical and cognitive field skills within a narrower research context. The teaching strategy for this project differed significantly from the other largegroup (Keck) project due to its shorter duration (1 wk) and higher student to faculty ratio (7:1) (Table 1). This project was based around a series of short group exercises in which all 14 students, two faculty, and two field assistants worked together in the same field area. Publications were not one of the project goals, but students were required to present their results and interpretations in a final field report (Table 3). While field logistics were less complex, the success of this short-duration large-group project required substantial advance planning and knowledge of the field area to ensure efficient use of time. The total project cost was less than the Keck project (Table 2), but the average daily cost per student was nearly twice as high, due to the short duration. This project was funded by a moderate university grant to the project director supplemented by student contributions. The learning outcomes of the three Costa Rica field projects were substantial, as indicated by high levels of student engagement and enthusiasm, observed gains in technical and cognitive field skills, and exceptional productivity of student-authored
95
publications, reports, and presentations. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many students viewed these projects as instrumental in shaping their professional identity as geoscientists. By placing students beyond the comfort of their home learning environment, the Costa Rica field projects piqued student curiosity, sharpened awareness and comprehension, and amplified the desire to learn. The intensity of living and working in an exotic international field setting engendered strong group camaraderie and productive mentoring relationships among students and faculty. Throughout these projects, experiential learning pedagogy played a critical role in enhancing the learning effectiveness of fieldwork. The students were encouraged to define their own research agenda, and to engage in hands-on problem solving through critical thinking, inquiry, and reflection. Through this approach, students developed the self-confidence and reasoning skills needed to solve multifaceted geologic problems. This blend of international field research and experiential learning pedagogy creates a powerful synergy that captures student imagination and motivates learning. This potent combination of field education strategies provides exceptional training for graduate school and professional careers in the geosciences. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for our Costa Rica field projects was provided by the Keck Geology Consortium, National Science Foundation (Tectonics Program), Trinity University (Tinker Fund), and Cal Poly Pomona University (Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity Program, College of Science Quality Learning Fund, and Provost’s Teacher-Scholar Program). We greatly appreciate the fieldwork and student advising of Keck Geology Consortium “Project Faculty” D. Merritts and E. Beutner, and “Faculty Sponsors” D. Bice, D. Harbor, T. Harms, E. Leonard, B. Panuska, K. Pogue, and L. Reinen. We thank the field module teaching assistants, R. Ellis and E. LaFromboise, for their efforts. We also acknowledge the contributions of D. Fisher, P. Sak, K. Morrell, M. Cupper, and G. Simila. We especially thank the Costa Rican Volcanologic and Seismologic Observatory, Universidad Nacional (OVSICORI-UNA), and the Central American School of Geology, Universidad de Costa Rica (ECG-UCR) for their continued support of our field projects. We are grateful to the kindhearted residents of the Nicoya Peninsula who have welcomed us onto their properties and into their homes. We also appreciate the hard work and critical support of the owners and employees of Costa Rican hotels and restaurants, including Nature Lodge Finca los Caballos (Cobano), Villas Kalimba (Playa Sámara), Hotel Giada (Playa Sámara), Hotel Iguanazul (Playa Junquillal), Hotel Río Tempisque (Nicoya), and Apartotel La Sabana (San José). We especially thank Barbara MacGregor and Christian Klein of Nature Lodge Finca los Caballos for providing a comfortable and safe home base for our two large-group projects. We thank M. Swanson, S. Whitmeyer, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
96
Marshall et al.
REFERENCES CITED Barckhausen, U., Ranero, C.R., von Huene, R., Cande, S.C., and Roeser, H.A., 2001, Revised tectonic boundaries in the Cocos plate off Costa Rica: Implications for segmentation of the convergent margin and for plate tectonic models: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 106, p. 19,207–19,220, doi: 10.1029/2001JB000238. Baumgartner, P.O., Mora, C.R., Butterlin, J., Sigal, J., Glacon, G., Azéma, J., and Burgois, J., 1984, Sedimentación y paleogeografía del Cretácico y Cenozoico del litoral pacífico de Costa Rica: Revista Geológica de América Central, v. 1, p. 57–136. Bee, B., 1999, Rapid Quaternary uplift of marine terraces: Cabo Blanco to Montezuma area, Península de Nicoya, Costa Rica, in Mendelson, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium in Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consortium, p. 168–171. Bolen, M.C., and Martin, P.C., 2005, Undergraduate research abroad: Challenges and rewards: Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, v. 12, p. xi–xvi. Boza, M.A., 1993, Conservation in action: Past, present, and future of the national park system of Costa Rica: Conservation Biology, v. 7, no. 2, p. 239–247, doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07020239.x. Bundschuh, J., and Alvarado, G., eds., 2007, Central America: Geology, Hazards, and Resources: London, Taylor and Francis, 1340 p. Burgette, R.J., 1999, Rate and style of Holocene uplift in response to subducting seamounts, Malpaís area, Península de Nicoya, Costa Rica, in Mendelson, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium in Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consortium, p. 172–175. Burgette, R.J., Shearer, M.T., Gardner, T.W., Protti, M., Marshall, J.S., and Merritts, D.J., 1999, Holocene deformation in response to subducting seamounts, southern Peninsula de Nicoya, Costa Rica: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 31, no. 4, p. A-6. Burton, E.O., 1999, The marine terrace record of Holocene uplift, Península de Nicoya, Costa Rica, in Mendelson, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium in Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consortium, p. 176–179. Citron, J.L., and Kline, R., 2001, From experience to experiential education: Taking study abroad outside the comfort zone: International Educator, v. 10, no. 4, p. 18–26. Clark, D.B., 1985, Ecological field studies in the tropics: Geographical origin of reports: Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, v. 66, p. 6–9. Claypool, A., 1999, Faults and folds in the Cabo Blanco Formation, Península de Nicoya, Costa Rica, in Mendelson, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium in Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consortium, p. 196–199. Cooke, J., 1999, Forearc deformation in response to subducting seamounts, Península de Nicoya, Costa Rica, in Mendelson, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium in Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consortium, p. 180–183. Cooke, M.J., Gardner, T.W., Marshall, J.S., and Merritts, D.J., 1999, Forearc deformation in response to subducting seamounts, Península de Nicoya, Costa Rica: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 31, no. 1, p. A-5. DeMets, C., Gordon, R.G., Argus, D.F., and Stein, S., 1990, Current plate motions: Geophysical Journal International, v. 101, p. 425–478, doi: 10.1111/ j.1365-246X.1990.tb06579.x. Dengo, G., 1962, Estudio Geológico de la Región de Guanacaste, Costa Rica: San José, Costa Rica, Instituto Geográfico Nacional, 112 p. DeShon, H.R., Schwartz, S.Y., Newman, A.V., González, V., Protti, M., Dorman, L.M., Dixon, T.H., Sampson, D.E., and Flueh, E.R., 2006, Seismogenic zone structure beneath the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica, from three-dimensional local earthquake P- and S-wave tomography: Geophysical Journal International, v. 164, p. 109–124, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2005.02809.x. de Wet, A., Manduca, C., Wobus, R.A., and Bettison-Varga, L., 2009, this volume, Twenty-two years of undergraduate research in the geosciences— The Keck Experience, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(14). Dewey, J., 1938, Experience and Education: New York, MacMillan Company, 116 p.
Drummond, C.N., and Markin, J.M., 2008, An analysis of the bachelor of science in geology degree as offered in the United States: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 56, no. 2, p. 113–119. Elkins, J.T., and Elkins, N.M.L., 2007, Teaching geology in the field: Significant geoscience concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geology courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, p. 126–132. Fennell, D.A., and Eagles, P.F.J., 1990, Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A conceptual framework: Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, v. 8, no. 1, p. 23–34. Fisher, A.T., Stein, C.A., Harris, R.N., Wang, K., Silver, E.A., Pfender, M., Hutnak, M., Cherkaoui, A., Bodzin, R., and Villinger, H., 2003, Abrupt thermal transition reveals hydrothermal boundary and role of seamounts within the Cocos plate: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 30, p. 1550, doi: 10.1029/2002GL016766. Fisher, D.M., Gardner, T.W., Marshall, J.S., Sak, P.B., and Protti, M., 1998, Effect of subducting sea-floor roughness on forearc kinematics, Pacific coast, Costa Rica: Geology, v. 26, p. 467–470, doi: 10.1130/0091-7613 (1998)026<0467:EOSSFR>2.3.CO;2. Fisher, D.M., Gardner, T.W., Sak, P.B., Sanchez, J.D., Murphy, K., and Vannuchi, P., 2004, Active thrusting in the inner forearc of an erosive margin, Pacific coast, Costa Rica: Tectonics, v. 23, p. TC2007, doi: 10.1029/2002TC001464. Flood, T.P., and Ham, N.R., 2005, Undergraduate geology field trip to Costa Rica: Logistics, challenges, and successes: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 7, p. 193. Gardner, T.W., 1999, Multi-institutional, senior-level research in a foreign country: A strategy for the design and integration of individual theses into a publishable whole: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 31, no. 7, p. A-386. Gardner, T.W., Verdonck, D., Pinter, N.M., Slingerland, R., Furlong, K.P., Bullard, T.F., and Wells, S.G., 1992, Quaternary uplift astride the aseismic Cocos Ridge, Pacific coast, Costa Rica: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 104, p. 219–232, doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1992)104<0219 :QUATAC>2.3.CO;2. Gardner, T.W., Beutner, E.C., Marshall, J.S., Merritts, D.J., and Protti, M., 1999a, Effects of seamount subduction on forearc kinematics and origin of the Nicoya Complex, Costa Rica, in Mendelson, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium in Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consortium, p. 161–167. Gardner, T.W., Beutner, E.C., Marshall, J.S., Merritts, D.J., and Protti, M., 1999b, Costa Rica project workshop, in Mendelson, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium in Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consortium, p. 19–21. Gardner, T.W., Marshall, J., Merritts, D., Bee, B., Burgette, R., Burton, E., Cooke, J., Kehrwald, N., and Protti, M., 1999c, Holocene, inner forearc deformation in response to seamount subduction, Peninsula de Nicoya, Costa Rica: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 31, no. 7, p. A-48. Gardner, T., Marshall, J., Merritts, D., Protti, M., Bee, B., Burgette, R., Burton, E., Cooke, J., Kehrwald, N., Fisher, D., and Sak, P., 2001, Holocene forearc block rotation in response to seamount subduction, Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica: Geology, v. 29, p. 151–154, doi: 10.1130/0091 -7613(2001)029<0151:HFBRIR>2.0.CO;2. Ham, N.R., and Flood, T.P., 2009, this volume, International field trips in the undergraduate geology curriculum: Philosophy and perspectives, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(09). Hare, P.W., and Gardner, T.W., 1985, Geomorphic indicators of vertical neotectonism along converging plate margins, Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica, in Morisawa, M., and Hack, J.T., eds., Tectonic Geomorphology: Proceedings of the 15th Annual Binghamton Geomorphology Symposium: Boston, Allen and Unwin, p. 76–104. Hernández, E., 1999, Leveling techniques applied to the southern part of the Nicoya Peninsula in northern Costa Rica, in Mendelson, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium in Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consortium, p. 212–214. Hey, R., 1977, Tectonic evolution of the Cocos-Nazca spreading center: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 88, p. 1404–1420, doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1977)88<1404:TEOTCS>2.0.CO;2. Kehrwald, N.M., 1999, A tale of eight terraces: Landscape response to active tectonic of the southern Península de Nicoya, Costa Rica, in Mendelson, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium in
Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consortium, p. 184–187. Kern, E.L., and Carpenter, J.R., 1986, Effect of field activities on student learning: Journal of Geological Education, v. 34, no. 3, p. 180–183. Khaw, F., and Marshall, J.S., 2004, Active tectonics and Quaternary marine terraces along a convergent plate margin, Península de Nicoya, Costa Rica: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 4, p. 91, abs. 42-11. Khaw, F., Parra, J.G., Annis, L.K., and Marshall, J.S., 2003, Marine terraces, subduction earthquakes, and Quaternary uplift of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica, Central America, in Shokair, S.M., ed., Building a Culture of Undergraduate Research: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Southern California Conference on Undergraduate Research: Irvine, California, University of California, p. 158. Kirchner, J.G., 1994, Results of an alumni survey on professional and personal growth at field camp: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 42, p. 125–128. Kolb, D.A., 1984, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall Inc., 256 p. Kraal, E.R., 1999, Bedrock incision and knickpoint processes in streams along an uplifting coast, southern Península de Nicoya, Costa Rica, in Mendelson, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium in Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consortium, p. 188–191. Krull, A.E., 1999, Fault kinematics in the Malpaís sandstones of the Península de Nicoya, Costa Rica, in Mendelson, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium in Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consortium, p. 192–195. Laarman, J.G., and Perdue, R.R., 1989, Tropical science and tourism: The case of OTS in Costa Rica: Tourism Management, v. 10, no. 1, p. 29–38, doi: 10.1016/0261-5177(89)90032-0. LaFromboise, E.J., Marshall, J.S., and Utick, J.D., 2006, Differential upper plate deformation in response to contrasts in subducting seafloor roughness, Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 5, p. 8, abs. 6-1. León, P.E., and Hartshorn, G.S., 2003, eds., Tropical science for the 21st century: Where science and nature converge, in Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS) 40th Anniversary Symposium Volume: San José, Costa Rica, University of Costa Rica, p. 4. Lonergan, N., and Andresen, L.W., 1988, Field-based education: Some theoretical considerations: Higher Education Research & Development, v. 7, p. 63–77, doi: 10.1080/0729436880070106. Lumsdon, L.M., and Swift, J.S., 1998, Ecotourism at a crossroads: The case of Costa Rica: Journal of Sustainable Tourism, v. 6, no. 2, p. 155–172, doi: 10.1080/09669589808667308. Lundberg, N., 1982, Evolution of the slope landward of the Middle America Trench, Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica, in Legget, J.K., ed., TrenchForearc Geology: Geological Society of London Special Publication 10, p. 131–147, doi: 10.1144/GSL.SP.1982.010.01.9. Lutterman-Aguilar, A., and Gingerich, O., 2002, Experiential pedagogy for study abroad: Educating for global citizenship: Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, v. 8, p. 41–82. Manduca, C.A., 1996, The value of undergraduate research experiences: Reflections from Keck Geology Consortium alumni: Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, v. 16, no. 3, p. 176–178. Manduca, C.A., 1997, Learning science through research: The Keck Geology Consortium undergraduate research program: Geotimes, v. 42, no. 10, p. 27–30. Manduca, C.A., 1999, The Keck Geology Consortium, in Mendelson, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium in Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consortium, p. 1–3. Manduca, C.A., and Carpenter, J.R., eds., 2006, Teaching in the field: Special issue of the Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, no. 2, 178 p. Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., 2006, Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, 188 p. Mango, H., 2003, Costa Rica as ideal geology field trip: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35, no. 6, p. 359. Mankiewicz, C., 2005, Student science research in education abroad: Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, v. 12, p. 123–125. Marshall, J.S., 2005, Costa Rica, Central America: A prime destination for international earth science field experience: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 7, p. 191.
97
Marshall, J.S., 2007, Geomorphology and physiographic provinces of Central America, in Bundschuh, J., and Alvarado, G., eds., Central America: Geology, Hazards, and Resources: London, Taylor and Francis, p. 75–122. Marshall, J.S., 2008, Megathrust earthquakes, coastal uplift, and emergent marine terraces of Costa Rica’s Nicoya Peninsula, in Bierman, P., and Montgomery, D., eds., Teaching Geomorphology in the 21st Century, Topical Resources, Geomorphology Vignettes [web site]: Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota, On the Cutting Edge Program, Science Education Resource Center, http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/ geomorph/vignettes/25559.html (accessed 25 August 2009). Marshall, J.S., and Anderson, R.S., 1995, Quaternary uplift and seismic cycle deformation, Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 107, p. 463–473, doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1995)107<0463 :QUASCD>2.3.CO;2. Marshall, J.S., Fisher, D.M., and Gardner, T.G., 2000, Central Costa Rica deformed belt: Kinematics of diffuse faulting across the western Panama block: Tectonics, v. 19, p. 468–492, doi: 10.1029/1999TC001136. Marshall, J.S., Gardner, T.W., Fisher, D.M., Sak, P.B., and Protti, M., 2001, Quaternary Neotectonics of the Costa Rican Coastal Forearc: Field Guide for the NSF MARGINS Program Central America Focus Site Workshop, Heredia, Costa Rica, July 2001: Palisades, New York, National Science Foundation MARGINS Program, 62 p. Marshall, J.S., Idleman, B.D., Gardner, T.W., and Fisher, D.M., 2003a, Landscape evolution within a retreating volcanic arc, Costa Rica, Central America: Geology, v. 31, p. 419–422, doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(2003)031<0419 :LEWARV>2.0.CO;2. Marshall, J.S., Khaw, F., Parra, J.G., Annis, L.K., and Protti, M., 2003b, Marine terraces, subduction earthquakes, and Quaternary uplift of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica, Central America: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35, no. 6, p. 515, abs. 224-22. Marshall, J.S., Annis, L.K., Khaw, F., Parra, J.G., and Protti, M., 2004a, Coastal deformation patterns along the Nicoya seismic gap, Pacific coast, Costa Rica, Central America: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 85, no. 47, Fall Meeting supplement, abs. T13C-1393. Marshall, J.S., Khaw, F., Parra, J.G., Annis, L.K., and Protti, M., 2004b, Undergraduate geosciences field research in Costa Rica, Central America: A study of marine terrace uplift and subduction cycle earthquakes, in Bettison-Varga, L., Husic, D., and Wenzel, T., eds., Crossing Boundaries—Innovations in Undergraduate Research, Council on Undergraduate Research 10th National Conference, University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, 23–26 June 2004, Workshop and Poster Abstracts: Washington, D.C., Council on Undergraduate Research, p. 46. Marshall, J.S., Gardner, T.W., and Protti, M., 2005a, International field research with undergraduate students: Investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 86, Fall Meeting supplement, abs. ED41B-03. Marshall, J.S., LaFromboise, E.J., Utick, J.D., Khaw, F., Annis, L.K., Parra, J.G., and Protti, M., 2005b, Variations in Quaternary coastal emergence along the Nicoya Peninsula seismic gap, Costa Rica: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 7, p. 560, abs. 256-12. Marshall, J.S., LaFromboise, E.J., Gardner, T.W., and Protti, M., 2007a, Upper plate faulting and uplift along the Nicoya Peninsula seismic gap, northern Costa Rica forearc, in Silver, E., Plank, T., Hoernle, K., Protti, M., Alvarado, G., and González, V., eds., National Science Foundation MARGINS Program Workshop to Integrate Subduction Factory and Seismogenic Zone Studies in Central America, 18–22 June 2007, Heredia, Costa Rica, Abstract Volume: Boston, National Science Foundation MARGINS Program, p. 70. Marshall, J.S., LaFromboise, E.J., Gardner, T.W., and Protti, M., 2007b, Segmented forearc deformation along the Nicoya Peninsula seismic gap, Costa Rica: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 88, Fall Meeting supplement, abs. T53A-1121. Marshall, J.S., LaFromboise, E.J., Utick, J.D., Khaw, F., Morrish, S.C., Piestrzeniewicz, P., Gardner, T.W., Protti, M., and Spotila, J.A., 2008a, Tectonic geomorphology and paleoseismology of the Nicoya Peninsula seismogenic zone, Costa Rica, in Bangs, N., Reed, D., Saffer, D., and Schwartz, S., eds., National Science Foundation MARGINS Program, The Next Decade of the Seismogenic Zone Experiment, 22–26 September 2008, Mt. Hood, Oregon, Abstract Volume: Palisades, New York, National Science Foundation MARGINS Program, p. 25. Marshall, J.S., LaFromboise, E.J., Utick, J.D., Khaw, F., Morrish, S.C., Piestrzeniewicz, P., Gilbert, R.C., Gardner, T.W., and Protti, J.M., 2008b,
98
Marshall et al.
Tectonic geomorphology and forearc deformation along the Nicoya Peninsula seismic gap, Costa Rica, in Gamboa, E., Alvarado, G.E., Denyer, P., Lücke, D., Mora, R., Bolaños, K., and Arredondo, S., eds., IX Congreso Geológico de América Central, 2–4 Julio 2008, San José, Costa Rica, p. 122–123. Marshall, J.S., LaFromboise, E.J., Utick, J.D., Khaw, F., Morrish, S.C., Piestrzeniewicz, P., Protti, M., Gardner, T.W., Sak, P.B., Fisher, D.M., and Spotila, J.A., 2008c, Coastal tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula seismic gap, Costa Rica: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 6, p. 191. McLaughlin, J., 2005, Classrooms without walls: A banana plantation, a turtle nest, and the random fallen tree: International Educator, v. 14, no. 1, p. 52–54. McLaughlin, J., and Johnson, K., 2006, Assessing the field course experiential learning model: Transforming collegiate short-term study abroad experiences into rich learning environments: Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, v. 13, p. 65–85. Montrose, L., 2002, International study and experiential learning: The academic context: Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, v. 8, p. 1–15. Morell, K.D., Fisher, D.M., and Gardner, T.W., 2008, Inner forearc response to subduction of the Panama fracture zone, southern Central America: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 265, p. 82–95, doi: 10.1016/j .epsl.2007.09.039. Morrish, S., and Marshall, J., 2008, Neotectonics and geomorphology of uplifted Quaternary marine and fluvial terraces at Puerto Carrillo and Río Ora, Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica, in Leong, J.M., Yamada, S., and Ewers, F.W., eds., Growing Student Success across Disciplines: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Southern California Conference on Undergraduate Research: Pomona, California, Cal Poly Pomona University, p. 148. Norabuena, E., Dixon, T.H., Schwartz, S., DeShon, H., Newman, A., Protti, A., González, V., Dorman, L., Flueh, E.R., Lundgren, P., Pollitz, F., and Sampson, D., 2004, Geodetic and seismic constraints on some seismogenic zone processes in Costa Rica: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 109, p. B11403, doi: 10.1029/2003JB002931. Over, D.J., Sheldon, A.L., Farthing, D., Giorgis, S., Hatheway, R., Young, R.A., and Brennan, W., 2005, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, and Trinidad and Tobago: Capstone experiences for geology majors: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 7, p. 192. Parrott, W., 2005, Classroom in the clouds: Connecting people and biology: International Educator, v. 14, no. 2, p. 56–57. Protti, M., Güendel, F., and McNally, K., 1995, Correlation between the age of the subducting Cocos plate and the geometry of the Wadati-Benioff zone under Nicaragua and Costa Rica, in Mann, P., ed., Geologic and Tectonic Development of the Caribbean Plate Boundary in Southern Central America: Geological Society of America Special Paper 295, p. 309–326. Protti, M., Güendel, F., and Malavassi, E., 2001, Evaluación del Potencial Sísmico de la Península de Nicoya: Heredia, Costa Rica, Editorial Fundación UNA, 144 p. Ranero, C., and von Huene, R., 2000, Subduction erosion along the Middle America convergent margin: Nature, v. 404, p. 748–752, doi: 10.1038/35008046. Reeves, A., 1999, A study of paleomagnetism of the Nicoya terrane, Costa Rica, in Mendelson, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research
Symposium in Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consortium, p. 200–203. Sak, P.B., Fisher, D.M., and Gardner, T.W., 2004, Effect of subducting sea-floor roughness on upper plate vertical tectonism, Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica: Tectonics, v. 23, p. TC1017, doi: 10.1029/2002TC001474. Seymour, E., Hunter, A., Laursen, S.L., and Deantoni, T., 2004, Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study: Science Education, v. 88, p. 493–534, doi: 10.1002/sce.10131. Shearer, T., 1999, Geodetic measurements of Holocene deformation in response to subducting seamounts, southern Península de Nicoya, Costa Rica, in Mendelson, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium in Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consortium p. 208–211. Silver, E., and Dixon, T., 2001, Central America seismogenic zone and subduction factory workshop report: National Science Foundation MARGINS Program Newsletter, no. 7, Fall, p. 7–10. Silver, E., Plank, T., and van Keken, P., 2007, Workshop to integrate subduction factory and seismogenic zone studies in Central America: National Science Foundation MARGINS Program Newsletter, no. 19, Fall, p. 1–4. Sitchler, J.C., Fisher, D.M., Gardner, T.W., and Protti, M., 2007, Constraints on inner forearc deformation from balanced cross sections, Fila Costeña thrust belt, Costa Rica: Tectonics, v. 26, p. TC6012, doi: 10.1029/ 2006TC001949. Stamski, R., 1999, Tectonic and geochemical investigation of basalts and associated deep sea sediments in the southern Península de Nicoya, Costa Rica, in Mendelson, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium in Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consortium, p. 204–207. Stamski, R., Harms, T.A., and Gardner, T.W., 1999, Tectonic investigations of basalts and associated sediments in the southern Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Program, v. 31, no. 2, p. A-69. Stone, D.E., 1988, The Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS): A success story in graduate training and research, in Almeda, F., and Pringle, C.M., eds., Tropical Rainforests: Diversity and Conservation: San Francisco, California, California Academy of Sciences and Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, p. 143–187. Utick, J.D., Marshall, J.S., and LaFromboise, E.J., 2006, Geomorphology and petrology of Holocene beach deposits and adjacent basaltic bedrock, northern Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 5, p. 8, abs. 6-2. Vadino, N., 2005, Looking outside the box for global citizenship: International Educator, v. 14, no. 3, p. 68–70. von Huene, R., Ranero, C.R., Weinrebe, W., and Hinz, K., 2000, Quaternary convergent margin tectonics of Costa Rica, segmentation of the Cocos plate, and Central American volcanism: Tectonics, v. 19, p. 314–334, doi: 10.1029/1999TC001143. Weaver, D.B., 1999, Magnitude of ecotourism in Costa Rica and Kenya: Annals of Tourism Research, v. 26, no. 4, p. 792–816, doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383 (99)00044-4. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
International field trips in undergraduate geology curriculum: Philosophy and perspectives Nelson R. Ham* Timothy P. Flood Department of Geology, St. Norbert College, 100 Grant Street, De Pere, Wisconsin 54115-2099, USA
ABSTRACT Field experiences form the core of the undergraduate geology program at St. Norbert College and provide learning opportunities that cannot be duplicated in the classroom. The field is vital for developing in students a life-long “diligent curiosity” for geology—which we define as a persistent inquisitiveness toward our science. We regularly offer an international trip of about 2 wk in length. The trip serves as a capstone experience for our students in several ways: it provides focused time to develop and synthesize their geological knowledge and field skills; it is a setting for “mini” research projects; it challenges students to commit to geology as a career; it offers a multicultural experience; and it develops their emotional maturity. The international trip need not be logistically daunting or expensive. Most geoscience educators are willing to share their specific experiences and logistical information from leading trips to other countries, but several general recommendations follow. Behavior contracts signed by students emphasize the importance of good conduct and should clearly outline the consequences of poor behavior, especially if a student needs to be removed from a trip. A briefing by a health-care professional well versed in international travel should be required well in advance of a trip, and a medical “inventory” of each participant, focusing on medications, preexisting health conditions, and potential emergency procedures, should be done by the trip leaders. Trip leaders need to work closely with the home institution’s risk management office in drafting a comprehensive liability waiver. Finally, we recommend working with an incountry expeditor, especially for travel. In many countries, utilizing a local driver can be cost effective and may save legal problems in the event of automobile accidents.
INTRODUCTION
year; ~70% of those go on to graduate school (Anderson et al., 2006). Compared to many long-standing geology departments at other liberal arts institutions, the geology program at St. Norbert College is limited in terms of basic resources such as space, budget, and technology. However, student success indicates that the core program, which is based strongly on field experiences, appears to “make up” for many shortcomings in on-campus resources. Field-based learning is integrated at all levels in the
St. Norbert College is a small (~2100 students), liberal arts college located in the Green Bay, Wisconsin, metropolitan area. The geology program at St. Norbert College has three full-time faculty, and graduates two to four geology majors per *[email protected]
curriculum, including introductory (general education) courses, and majors’ courses at the intermediate and advanced levels. In addition, different levels of field experience (Flood et al., 2003) are provided in order to develop the academic maturity and professional competency of the students. This goal is achieved through trips that progress from local, to regional, to national, and finally to international locales. Especially in a program with somewhat limited “brick-and-mortar” resources, even a modest field program integrated across the curriculum provides invaluable training to geology students. More specifically, international trips are not a common component of undergraduate geology programs, but they do not have to be viewed as logistically daunting or expensive. In this paper, we discuss some of the important philosophical and practical aspects of an integrated field program, and we focus on the capstone international field trip (e.g., Flood and Ham, 2005). Special attention is paid to the ideal model (i.e., what we always hope to accomplish), but we recognize that reality is imperfect. We have found that some international trips can be relatively easy to offer and well worth the unique rewards afforded by them. Most potential problems can be averted with proper planning. PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS The core geology curriculum and educational philosophy at St. Norbert College is traditional and skewed to field experience at all levels (Flood et al., 2003). We try to engage students at any level possible, so that they become interested enough to develop a “diligent curiosity” and passion for geology, and in at least a few cases, commit to geology as a major (Fig. 1). We define diligent curiosity as the trait of persistent inquisitiveness specific to a topic, similar to the concept of “life-long learning” but more focused. Developing diligent curiosity is especially important in our introductory geology courses because many St. Norbert College students take these classes only to fulfill general education requirements, and, thus, these courses may be the last formal science to which they are ever exposed. For students who continue in the geology program, diligent curiosity is fostered to develop enough scientific skill and passion to pursue geology as a profession. Typically, this goal is ultimately accomplished through student/faculty collaborative research or supervised student research. However, all students who participate in an extended international trip participate in the design and execution of a mini research project—an important component of the international trip experience. The philosophy outlined here is relevant to the classroom, laboratory, and field, but it is best exemplified by the field experience. St. Norbert College provides field experiences for most of the courses in the core curriculum, including Introductory Geology, Hydrogeology, Mineralogy, Petrology, Structural Geology, and Sedimentology and Stratigraphy. A similar across-thecurriculum approach is presented by Knapp et al. (2006), and other specific examples are provided in Manduca and Carpenter
Figure 1. The field is the best place to instill passion and diligent curiosity for our science. A former St. Norbert College student contemplates the volcanic landscape of the “international” locale of Maui, Hawaii.
(2006). The learning objectives and outcomes vary from course to course at St. Norbert College, but the methods of instruction are similar. Introductory Geology (physical geology) is the cornerstone course of the geology program, but it also serves as an elective course in the St. Norbert College general education program, the first course in the geology major, and our main recruitment course. The goal for all students in this class, especially the general education student, is to instill in them the “romance” (Whitehead, 1967) of the science as well as fundamental knowledge of geology. In this course, all students are encouraged to attend a 1 d field trip. This trip is designed to be as enjoyable as possible while maintaining a solid learning experience; the trip is largely show-and-tell, incorporates scenic stops of geologic significance, and concludes with a classic field-style dinner around the campfire with either a campout or stay at a cabin. Such trips seem most successful when the size of the group is small—an ideal size is 5–10 students (Flood et al., 2007). Local weekend field trips that may or may not be tied to a particular course are offered every semester for students in
International field trips in undergraduate geology curriculum: Philosophy and perspectives the majors’ courses, as well as for all students who have completed an introductory geology course (Flood et al., 2003). By so doing, the participants range from first-semester freshman to graduating seniors and, consequently, the learning objectives may differ for individual students on any single field trip. In general, we believe this diversity is an advantage rather than a disadvantage. The new students are encouraged to learn from the advanced students, who serve as mentors. Observing the younger students, the older students gain a perspective on what they have already learned and develop confidence in their own abilities. In these ways, not only do students learn from each other, but camaraderie develops. Being together for several days in the field changes the dynamics among the students, and between the students and faculty. We find, back on campus, that students are more open and are thus more willing to ask questions and challenge ideas after we have had these shared field experiences. EXTENDED TRIPS—THE INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE The most significant field experiences available to geology students at St. Norbert College are our annual extended field trips that are offered for credit or an independent research experience based on intensive fieldwork. We offer a two-credit (half course) within-country trip that is typical of those offered by many geology departments; it is usually offered for 10 d over spring break and is focused on classic geologic locales such as Death Valley, Big Bend, and the Florida Keys. On most alternating years, we offer a four-credit (full course) international trip. These trips are typically 2 to 3 wk in length and occur during winter break. They are preceded by weekly seminar meetings within the fall semester, during which lectures, student presentations, trip organization, and research-project planning take place. The research component typically lasts well into the following spring semester after the trip is over. In recent decades, the international trip has been hosted in Belize or Costa Rica (Flood and Ham, 2005). The 2005–2006 “international” trip visited the exotic locale of Hawaii; although not technically an international destination, logistically and culturally, Hawaii met the spirit of an international trip. Our international trip during January of 2009 was to the Galapagos Islands, and it was co-run with faculty and students from Macalester College of Minnesota.
101
Extended and Focused Time for Refining Field Skills For some students, the international trip is the first opportunity they have had to synthesize observations, measurements, and interpretations of outcrops in a regional context in the field. The extended time of a trip also allows for a comprehensive and first-hand evaluation of regional geology, particularly as it relates to time, scale, and tectonic setting(s). This experience provides excellent preparation for the traditional summer field camp (Fig. 2). Additionally, all students are expected to keep a detailed field book that instructors regularly review. Students also must assist other research teams in collecting data (i.e., rock samples, water samples, structural measurements). Execution of Group “Mini” Research Projects Based on Original Fieldwork Mini research projects include pretrip design, collection of field data during the trip, and post-trip follow-up laboratory work and/or synthesis of data. Especially for students who decide not to participate in a traditional senior thesis project as part of the regular curriculum, a mini project exposes them to the basic research process (Fig. 3). Additionally, a consequence of the research is that students have the opportunity to add “international research experience” to their undergraduate vitae. This accomplishment is very often viewed as a distinctive feature of their applications when applying to graduate school. Each project, ideally, culminates with a poster or oral presentation either at St. Norbert College, or at a regional or national conference such as the Geological Society of America meetings. In many cases, the sophistication of the project may not warrant presentation in a professional venue. However, other forums are typically available. At our institution, a day of celebration of student creative works and research is held where presentation of research projects from the trip is ideal.
Benefits of the International Field Trip The international field-trip experience has been an exciting addition to our undergraduate curriculum, not necessarily because any one of the trip outcomes is different than those of a local or national trip, but because the collective sum of the experience is a unique teaching-learning opportunity and almost always has a significant impact on new geoscience students. The following is a list of the most obvious benefits that we have realized from these trips.
Figure 2. A student takes a few moments to write field notes after a day of outcrop stops and a concluding lecture in Costa Rica.
102
Ham and Flood remarkably, some have never been on an airplane before attending this trip. We try our best to immerse the group in the local culture, meaning we eat the local food, stay at local hotels or campgrounds, and use local services whenever possible. We believe that this cultural immersion matures students, instills a global perspective, and provides enriched experiences from which our future educators can draw. The international trip can be profound and life-changing in many ways, but perhaps its most important impact is in making a student more confident in their ability to leave the safe confines of their “home” and pursue graduate school and research in faraway places. Finally, at a critical time in modern history, when solutions to environmental and energy problems require international cooperation, we find it invaluable to instill in students a new-found comfort when traveling and working abroad.
Figure 3. Students collect sand and bedrock samples along the Pacific coast of Costa Rica as part of a provenance study.
Experience in Reading Primary Scientific Literature We have found that students respond especially well to the task of reading scientific literature in the context of preparing for a trip, and especially in the case of preparing for their research projects. Familiarity with the literature is not only important in developing research methodology and critical-thinking skills, but it also develops a feeling of intellectual ownership for a project and the trip. Such a working bibliography typically includes regional geology articles, as well as technical articles (e.g., specific field and laboratory methods). Eight to ten primary articles are typically the minimum for any given project. Students Have the Opportunity to Gauge Their Commitment to Geology as a Profession In many programs, students will experience an extended field trip before they attend field camp (if one is required). We have always believed that the earlier we can get a prospective student on an extended trip, and especially an international trip, the more likely they will commit to geology as a major. This observation is born out by years of operating a field-based program. Generally, trips of this nature increase the passion and commitment for geology; however, in some instances, a new major may quickly realize that majoring in the geosciences is simply wrong for them. A number of years ago we had one student decide to switch his major away from geology to mathematics. Although he was intellectually very capable, he simply could not appreciate the use of multiple hypotheses for the origin of outcrops nor the outdoor demands of field geology. Gaining a Multicultural Perspective St. Norbert College draws most of its student population from Wisconsin. Few of our students have ever traveled outside of the United States prior to our international trips, and,
Growth in Emotional Maturity This maturity develops as a result of students becoming more confident in their knowledge and practice of geology, particularly field skills. However, a student who contributes positively to the group in seemingly simple ways such as camp chores also often shows considerable changes in maturity. As with any trip, the more students team together and accept responsibility for a successful trip, the more they take ownership of the trip. Logistics Our trips have used Costa Rica as a destination several times for a number of practical logistical reasons, but any other international locale could serve similar duty; for some recent examples, see the abstracts from the recent Geological Society of America meeting theme session “International Undergraduate Field Trips: Logistics, Challenges and Successes” at http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/ session_16160.htm. Costa Rica offers relatively inexpensive travel and lodging, densely located field trip stops with significant diversity of geology and ecology, and very safe travel conditions. Other schools have also used Costa Rica as a destination for field trips with similar satisfaction (Marshall, 2005; Over et al. 2005). Although it is not the purpose of this paper to provide exhaustive details on travel and geology in-country, we would be more than willing to provide detailed logistical information to anyone who is interested in leading a trip to Costa Rica. We emphasize that many geologists are willing to share their experiences and logistical information with others interested in leading or co-leading international trips. Many years ago, our first trip to Costa Rica started with logistical advice from another geoscience educator, and, similarly, our most recent trip to the Galapagos Islands came about as a team teaching effort with faculty from another institution who had led trips to the islands several times before. Here, we offer a few key pieces of advice that can be applied to all trips to any international destination.
International field trips in undergraduate geology curriculum: Philosophy and perspectives Funding Perhaps the most obvious hindrance to an extended international field trip is cost, both for the leaders and the participants. Some geology departments have the luxury of drawing supplemental funds from endowments or dedicated travel budgets to offset expensive costs. Most schools, however, must rely on students to pay for most of the cost of a trip, including faculty expenses. Our institution, although a private liberal arts college, draws students mostly from typical “middle class” families. Consequently, the cost of the international trip is not trivial. We are always frugal and try to find creative funding opportunities. Our department budget provides virtually no internal funds to offset field-trip costs. One creative and effective solution is a tuition-return agreement with the college administration. In our case, course tuition is used to supplement the cost of the trip, including trip leaders’ expenses. For example, the tuition for our last four-credit trip to Hawaii was approximately $1000 (this amount excluded expenses for travel, lodging, and other basic trip costs). St. Norbert College returned over 90% of that tuition fee to the trip budget to help offset the total cost of the trip and to pay for faculty expenses. In return for this agreement, faculty did not and have never accepted salary for the trip(s), nor have they been given teaching credit. Thus, they have effectively donated their time to teach the extended trips. We estimate that this funding mechanism has resulted in a cost savings of up to ~30% to each student participant, while at the same time providing funds for faculty expenses and some additional funds for subsequent laboratory analyses (for research projects) or purchase of research equipment. Additionally, we routinely solicit funds from alumni to offset student expenses. However, in the end, the bulk of the expenses of these trips are born by the student participants. Student Behavior Establishing a “behavior contract” with students is an effective step toward avoiding serious conduct issues on field trips. School-sponsored, course-credit trips demand that students adhere to the institutional behavioral code(s). For example, at St. Norbert College, these same codes govern members of athletic teams at away games. To be clear and to set the correct tone, we require a signed “behavior contract.” This contract conveys that the faculty are serious about the behavior of students on field trips, defines student responsibilities, and indicates consequences of violation of the rules. The contract states that certain unacceptable behavior may result in a participant being sent home prior to the conclusion of the trip and at the student’s expense. Few behavior issues have arisen on our field trips due in part to the pretrip tone of the faculty and the behavior contract. Liability, Emergencies, Health, and Safety Risk management offices are part of every institution. Communication with a representative of this office well in
103
advance of a trip will make planning easier and ultimately safer. Each institution operates a bit differently in terms of managing safety and legal issues regarding off-campus trips. Our advice is that it is best to follow the guidance of your respective office prior to a trip rather than pleading ignorance after a serious problem develops on a trip (contrary to the oft-quoted rule). Ultimately, the trip leaders are responsible for the health and safety of all participants on the trip. Scenario planning is valuable. For example, what actions will trip leaders take if a student ruptures an appendix, breaks a leg, develops acute anxiety or depression, or even disappears? Negative health, safety, and legal issues may be averted with advanced planning. We require all participants to sign a waiver of responsibility drawn up by the risk management office. The waiver essentially requires the signer to acknowledge that unique risks are involved with the trip, although it is unclear how any such waiver would ultimately influence litigation involving a trip problem. Finally, for personal protection, we recommend faculty add a personal liability waiver to their regular insurance policy. As part of the regular weekly meetings that take place before departure, a representative from our health clinic briefs the class. The participants are clearly informed regarding health risks they might face while participating in the trip. Topics include recommended or required inoculations, travel health insurance, traveling with prescription medications, and other issues. Additionally, basic Red Cross first-aid and CPR training should be required of all trip leaders. Making first-aid training available to all participants is also a good idea. An audit of health conditions for each student participating on a trip should always be done. The trip leaders should know if students are taking medication, if they have any drug allergies, and if they have any conditions that might require emergency care (e.g., what to do in case of a severe allergic reaction to bee stings). Those new to the field-trip business will be surprised at the number of student participants with important and special health issues that could develop into serious medical emergencies in a field situation. By the very nature of our work, geologists often spend time far removed from health-care professionals and emergency facilities. We have found students to be almost universally cooperative in explaining any health issues that might require emergency care on our part (e.g., a severe diabetic and asthmatic come to mind). The mental health of students should be noted in addition to their physical health. Serious mental health issues must be considered when deciding whether or not a student can participate on a trip. We use as an example a case in which a student on one trip intentionally caused harm to him/herself for attention—and thus caused travel delays for the entire group. In the following year, the same student wanted to participate in another similar international trip. We consulted with our institution’s legal counsel, who made it clear that we had the right to decide who could and could not attend an optional course if a student presented a clear safety concern for the rest of the group. In the instance of a required course, a more complex issue would have
104
Ham and Flood
developed, and we would have needed to develop an alternative method for the student to satisfy the major requirement. Use of an In-Country Expeditor An in-country contact, especially a trusted person who can help with travel arrangements, will very often reduce the cost of the trip and help avoid some potentially bad situations. For example, our Costa Rican expeditor books lodging and buses for our trips and provides health and safety tips. In addition, when we have had issues with lodging or other reservations, our expeditor has intervened on our behalf. On many of our early international trips, we used rental vehicles and drove ourselves. However, in more recent trips, we have booked buses with dedicated drivers and recommend this practice strongly. The initial cost of transportation may seem high, but the advantages are many. For example, a bus driver allows the trip leaders to focus on the geology and logistics of the trip rather than the task of driving. A bus driver will often know the better-value restaurants in an area, know local customs and sites, and can save on entrance fees and tolls. Finally, consider that dealing with foreign authorities in the event of an automobile accident can be very costly and also very serious from a legal standpoint if you are the driver. Do Not Reinvent the Wheel This advice bears repeating. Many geoscience educators have either done research in or led trips to other countries. Most are more than willing to share their educational resources, experiences, advice, contacts, and travel agents. Finding other geologists who have traveled abroad to countries that interest you is easier than ever—either by Internet search or word-ofmouth. We have never asked another educator for information about the field trips in other countries who was not willing to share their experiences. SUMMARY Given limited resources, the relatively new geology program at St. Norbert College emphasizes traditional field-based learning. Field experiences have been the core of the program since its inception. We are of the mind that all geologic questions ultimately have their basis in the field, even though the specific answer to a question might require complex laboratory analysis. We do not believe that our resource deficiencies significantly hinder our educational objectives. Field experiences
that are well designed provide unique and essential learning opportunities to all levels of undergraduates. The international field trip provides a capstone experience that synthesizes critical skills taught throughout the curriculum. Flexibility is a key factor in a successful trip. Additionally, logistical issues and funding need not be major obstacles to offering an international experience—such trips can be run safely, with a modest budget, and with major benefits. The understanding and perspective gained by field experience provide essential skills, stimulate creativity, and instill a diligent curiosity and passion for lifelong development in geology. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We sincerely appreciate the helpful comments and suggestions of Fred Webb, Steve Whitmeyer, and an anonymous reviewer on the manuscript for this chapter. We also thank our colleagues at St. Norbert College for supporting our geology program and field trips. Finally, we thank the many undergraduate students who have traveled with us throughout the United States and abroad to study geology. The pleasure has been ours. REFERENCES CITED Anderson, S.W., Flood, T.P., and Munk, L., 2006, Bucking the trend: Three new geoscience programs: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 41–49. Flood, T.P., and Ham, N.R., 2005, Costa Rica—Logistics, challenges, and successes: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 7, p. 193. Flood, T.P., Ham, N.R., and Gordon, E.A., 2003, Multilevel instruction using the geology of northeast Wisconsin: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35, no. 6, p. 276. Flood, T.P., Ham, N.R., and Gordon, E.A., 2007, The targeted geology field trip—A tool for recruiting non-majors from introductory courses: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 6, p. 551. Knapp, E.P., Greer, L., Connors, C.D., and Harbor, D.J., 2006, Field-based instruction as part of a balanced geoscience curriculum at Washington and Lee University: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 93–102. Manduca, C.A., and Carpenter, J.R., eds., 2006, Teaching in the Field: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, no. 2, 178 p. Marshall, J.S., 2005, Costa Rica, Central America: A prime destination for international earth science field experience: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 7, p. 191. Over, D.J., Sheldon, A.L., Farthing, D., Giorgis, S., Hatheway, R., Young, R.A., and Brennan, W., 2005, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, and Trinidad and Tobago: Capstone experiences for geology majors: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 7, p. 192. Whitehead, A.N., 1967, The Aims of Education and Other Essays: New York, Free Press, 165 p. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Visualization techniques in field geology education: A case study from western Ireland Steven Whitmeyer Department of Geology and Environmental Science, 800 S. Main Street, MSC 6903, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, USA Martin Feely Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, National University of Ireland, Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland Declan De Paor Department of Physics, Old Dominion University, OCNPS Bldg., Room 306, 4600 Elkhorn Avenue, Norfolk, Virginia 23529, USA Ronan Hennessy Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, National University of Ireland, Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland Shelley Whitmeyer Jeremy Nicoletti Department of Geology and Environmental Science, 800 S. Main Street, MSC 6903, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, USA Bethany Santangelo Jillian Daniels Department of Physics, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 100 Institute Road, Worcester, Massachusetts 01609, USA Michael Rivera Department of Geology and Environmental Science, 800 S. Main Street, MSC 6903, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, USA
Whitmeyer et al. increases the accuracy and utility of draft field maps. New techniques and software allow digital field data to be displayed and interpreted within virtual 3-D platforms, such as Google Earth. The James Madison University Field Course provides a field geology curriculum that incorporates digital field mapping and computer-based visualizations to enhance 3-D interpretative skills. Students use mobile, handheld computers to collect field data, such as lithologic and structural information, and analyze and interpret their digital data to prepare professional-quality geologic maps of their field areas. Student data and maps are incorporated into virtual 3-D terrain models, from which partly inferred map features, such as contacts and faults, can be evaluated relative to topography to better constrain map interpretations. This approach familiarizes students with modern tools that can improve their interpretation of field geology and provides an example of the way in which digital technologies are revolutionizing traditional field methods. Initial student feedback suggests strong support for this curriculum integrating digital field data collection, map preparation, and 3-D visualization and interpretation to enhance student learning in the field.
INTRODUCTION Fieldwork has been the backbone of geologic investigation and presentation since William Smith produced the first recognized geologic map of England and Wales (Smith, 1815). Traditional geologic maps show three-dimensional (3-D) features on a two dimensional (2-D) surface, which requires observers to mentally visualize the vertical dimension of geologic structures and landforms depicted on maps. Smith displayed interpretations of geology in the vertical dimension by including cross sections on his map, a style of presentation that became standard on all geologic maps. More recent illustrative methods that expand on the basic map and cross-section depiction of geology include sequential cross sections (e.g., Dewey and Bird, 1970), block diagrams (e.g., Argand, 1922; Love et al., 1972), and balanced cross sections (e.g., Dahlstrom, 1969; Elliott, 1983; Suppe, 1985; De Paor, 1988), among others. To a large extent, the basic methods of field data collection and map-based presentation of geologic interpretations have remained largely unchanged from Smith’s day through the twentieth century. However, recent advances in computer hardware and software have revolutionized the collection, interpretation, and presentation of geologic field data, with direct applicability to field education and pedagogy. An ongoing challenge for geoscience educators is to ensure that students are able to recognize and interpret real-world geologic structures from a range of perspectives. Many students have difficulty visualizing the 3-D geometries of geologic structures and landforms when presented with traditional paper maps and cross sections. In addition, classroom instruction often lacks the hands-on experience of working with real materials in their natural setting. As a result, field-based education is still viewed by many geoscience educators as a core component in the development of 3-D visual acuity (Butler, 2007). Our experience of teaching geology in field environments, both in Europe and the United States, suggests that the majority of undergraduate students have three main conceptual difficulties when visualizing landscape and its geologic influences:
(1) understanding and visualizing the 3-D nature of geologic structures and how they intersect topography, which is particularly apparent when students are confronted with geologic features on 2-D surfaces, such as outcrops or geologic maps, and are asked to extrapolate the features into the third dimension; (2) extrapolating small-scale observations to larger scales (e.g., relating information from a field outcrop to a regional geologic map); and (3) visualizing the evolution and modification of geologic structures and landforms through time, both forward into the future and backward into geologic history. Modern, effective teaching and learning practices in the geosciences typically make use of appropriate visual displays and animations to demonstrate geologic structures, processes, and their interaction with the landscape. New technology has facilitated a dramatic change in the way geology is mapped, displayed, and evaluated because of the availability of ruggedized, handheld computers that easily log geological, geochemical, geophysical, and/or hydrological data in the field (e.g., Swanson and Bampton, this volume). These systems record and display data in real time, which increases the accuracy and utility of working field maps. Since most geologic maps are now produced digitally using integrated graphics programs, such as ArcGIS® and Adobe Illustrator®, the compatibility of handheld field computers with office and laboratory systems enables the seamless transfer of field data and interpretations. Removal of the time-consuming step of handdrawing a field map while retaining accuracy between digital data and outcrop evidence means that digital field mapping will be the present and future method for geologic map preparation. Perhaps the most revolutionary technological advancement in geologic fieldwork is the potential for integrated, virtual (computer-aided) 3-D visualization of field data. Digital elevation models (DEMs) are available for most regions of the developed world, and the universal access to global terrain models, through programs such as Google Earth and NASA World Wind, means that field researchers can use this data to evaluate and constrain working maps. Most geologic maps have a significant component of interpretation due to incomplete exposure of lithologies
Visualization techniques in field geology education: A case study from western Ireland
107
in the field coupled with a lack of direct geologic evidence for all three spatial dimensions. Computer-facilitated visualization of 2-D geologic maps draped over virtual 3-D topography can improve interpretations, and these methodologies and cognitive implications are easily grasped by novice students as well as geoscience professionals. In this paper, we advocate a new iterative approach to geologic fieldwork that uses handheld computers to record data and interpretations in the field. Working field maps and interpretations are draped over virtual 3-D terrains and continually evaluated throughout the mapping process. Data collection, digital mapping, and 3-D evaluation occur simultaneously as an iterative process during which working field interpretations are continuously updated at the outcrop. This process ultimately yields a well-constrained and field-tested geologic map. Exercises based on this iterative mapping approach are an important component of the James Madison University field course in Ireland, where upper-level undergraduate geoscience students receive capstone field-based education. Specific learning goals for the field course digital mapping exercises focus on the improvement of students’ abilities to understand, visualize, and interpret 3-D geologic features from outcrop evidence. Broader goals include providing students with technical skills recognized as important by industry and academic geoscience professionals. BACKGROUND Digital Mapping in the Field Geographic information systems (GIS) software has been widely used by the U.S. Geological Survey and other geoscience, environmental, and engineering industries (Longley et al., 2001) for many years as the storage and presentation medium of choice for geologic data. Early limitations of GIS software (Mies, 1996) and the lack of efficient mobile hardware slowed the adoption of GIS as a mapping tool by many field geologists. This all changed when civilian scrambling of the global positioning system (GPS) ceased in 2000, and inexpensive, accurate handheld GPS devices such as those made by Magellan™ and Garmin™ became readily available. Modern GIS software has geology-oriented toolkits for the preparation of geologic maps and, in many cases, functions effectively on mobile GPS-inclusive hardware (Kramer, 2000; Jackson and Asch, 2002). As a result, familiarity with GIS software and associated hardware has become an important skill for employment within geoscience-related industries, including fieldwork-intensive occupations such as state geological surveys, departments of environmental quality, and civil engineering (see www.agiweb.org/workforce). Handheld field computers running GIS software allow the user to record a variety of geologic data digitally in the field. A geologist may view his or her location in relation to other data, such as topographic maps and/or aerial photos (Fig. 1A), and new geologic data can be stored in a spatial database designed for a specific field problem (Fig. 1B). The integration of hand-
Figure 1. (A) In the field, students have access to topographic maps, historical fence maps, and aerial photos as background data on their handheld computers. (B) Using ArcPad software, the students’ location was automatically recorded, and students entered relevant attribute data such as strike, dip, and lithologic unit. These data were available to them in real time for immediate assessment of the field geology.
held field computers with workstations running GIS software has facilitated a new era of geologic field mapping where data observed and recorded in the field are directly incorporated into a digital geologic map. Development of new field mapping methods that take advantage of these advances in hardware and software has come from geoscientists who have research programs rooted in fieldwork, and who have a practical appreciation for advances in equipment (e.g., Walsh et al., 1999; Edmundo, 2002; Knoop and van der Pluijm, 2006; McCaffrey et al., 2008; De Paor and Whitmeyer,
108
Whitmeyer et al.
this volume). Not surprisingly, many of the advances in digital mapping methods have resulted from geologic field courses (e.g., Brimhall, 1999; Knoop and van der Pluijm, 2006). The choice of equipment depends on the user’s field environment and data collection goals. Given a mostly rain-free climate, field researchers can use tablet personal computers (PCs) with built-in GPS receivers running GIS software, such as ArcPAD and ArcGIS, to record data and build their maps in real time in the field. For inclement weather environments, ruggedized, handheld pocket PCs (e.g., Trimble GeoExplorer series) can run field-appropriate GIS software (ArcPAD) that performs many of the important data-entry tasks related to geologic map creation. Final map assembly requires a laboratory PC running ArcGIS, to which the field data can be uploaded. 3-D Visualization and Interpretation One of the major challenges for geoscientists is the 3-D interpretation of geologic data, and the most effective means of displaying that data. The petroleum industry has long been a leader in 3-D display of subsurface seismic and ground-penetrating radar images, colloquially called fence diagrams. Attempts have been made to combine seismic and other subsurface data or cross-section interpretations with surface geologic maps in 3-D block diagrams (Karlstrom et al., 2005). Virtual 3-D software, such as ArcScene, that displays digital elevation models (DEMs) has provided a new medium for presentation and interpretation of geologic maps and field data (Knoop and van der Pluijm, 2003; Johnston et al., 2005). However, the full potential for evaluation of geologic maps using virtual 3-D software has been impeded somewhat by the cost and steep learning curve of popular GIS programs, such as GRASS and ArcGIS. The advent of free web-based geobrowsers, for example, NASA World Wind and Google Earth, has put virtual 3-D terrains at the fingertips of professionals and novice users alike. Many educators have intrigued students by using Google Earth to display spectacular landforms in virtual 3-D, such as the incised meanders of Escalante Canyon or active volcanoes like Mt. Rainier. Ease of use, minimal cost, and universal availability have encouraged geoscientists to use Google Earth for 3-D display of geologic maps (Hennessy and Feely, 2008; USGS maps: http:// geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/sfgeo/geologic/downloads.html) and other data sets (e.g., hurricane tracks and data: http://bbs.keyhole.com/ ubb/download.php?Number = 110283). A more advanced use of Google Earth—to prepare and display professional-quality, interactive geologic maps—is now feasible due to recent software enhancements. The most recent versions of ArcGIS (9.3) and Google Earth Pro (4.3) can exchange data between their native formats: shapefiles and Keyhole Markup Language (KML), respectively. However, specialized display features within Google Earth, such as 3-D strike and dip symbols and cross sections, still require some external programming (see following). As the popularity of Google Earth and KML programming continues to grow, data-sharing capabilities among Google Earth, ArcGIS, and other spatial display programs
will certainly become easier. This will make the preparation of interactive digital geologic maps a standard skill that could be easily taught to geoscience students. CASE STUDY: THE JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY FIELD COURSE The James Madison University field course is a senior-level, 6 wk, summer capstone experience that incorporates a variety of multiday group and independent field geology and mapping exercises. The course is based near the Connemara region of western Ireland, a strategic location that provides easy access to wellexposed outcrops of highly deformed Dalradian metasedimentary rocks, Paleozoic clastic and carbonate basin stratigraphy, and the fossiliferous Carboniferous carbonate stratigraphy of interior Ireland. Student enrollment is typically 25–35 individuals from universities across the United States. Faculty is similarly diverse and has included instructors from James Madison University, Boston University, National University of Ireland, Galway, and other universities. The course has incorporated a digital mapping and visualization component since 2001 (De Paor et al., 2004; Johnston et al., 2005). We started with an introductory exercise that used handheld GPS units to log waypoints on a hiking traverse (De Paor et al., 2004) and later added a laboratory component that used software, such as Bryce and Carrara, for 3-D terrain modeling and data draping. Basic 3-D interpretation concepts were addressed using a block diagram applet written in Flash Actionscript, which enabled students to project their own scanned sketch maps and cross sections on the sides of a block that can be rotated using the computer mouse, and that can be viewed against a backdrop of a relevant field area (Fig. 2A). More recently, we have provided students with examples of 3-D computer-based visualizations based on current field areas. These include virtual outcrop models of folded marbles at Streamstown and Cur, Connemara (Fig. 2B), that were generated using terrestrial laser-scanning techniques and are accessible as short AVI movies (McCaffrey et al., 2008, and associated supplemental material, found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/ GES00147.S1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/GES00147.S2). VRML (Virtual Reality Modeling Language) models have also been used to illustrate the Twelve Bens area (Fig. 2C), a mountainous region of Neoproterozoic Dalradian metasedimentary rocks in central Connemara (Hennessy and Feely, 2005). The current James Madison University field course curriculum incorporates field mapping using ArcPAD on handheld computers, professional geologic map construction using ArcGIS, and virtual 3-D map evaluation and presentation using ArcScene and Google Earth. Field Location Digital mapping exercises are located on the southeastern slope of the mountain of Knock Kilbride, along the southern margin of the South Mayo region in County Mayo, western Ireland (Fig. 3). The geology consists of well-exposed, hillside outcrops
Visualization techniques in field geology education: A case study from western Ireland
109
Figure 2. (A) Interactive three-dimensional (3-D) block diagram applet written by co-author De Paor using Flash Actionscript. The top surface and sides of the block are draped with semitransparent scans of students’ sketches, and the block is viewed against a backdrop of Connemara and South Mayo. (B) Movie still of virtual outcrop model showing iconic marble folding in the Neoproterozoic Lakes Marble Formation, Cur, Connemara. 3-D outcrop model is generated from terrestrial LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data (from McCaffrey et al., 2008). (C) VRML (Virtual Reality Modeling Language) model showing the Twelve Bens, Connemara, western Ireland; 1:100,000 Geological Survey of Ireland bedrock map is draped over digital elevation model (DEM) (from Hennessy and Feely, 2005).
Figure 3. Generalized geologic map of the South Mayo and Connemara regions of western Ireland (modified from Chew et al., 2007); the Knock Kilbride field area is indicated by the white arrow. Inset shows map location on an outline of Ireland.
of mostly planar, moderately southeast-dipping Silurian sedimentary strata (Graham et al., 1989) that unconformably overlie Early Ordovician arc-related volcanic rocks (Chew et al., 2007). Tilting of the strata was likely the product of Caledonian oblique collisions (Dewey and Ryan, 1990; Williams, 1990) that sutured the Dalradian Connemara terrane to the southern margin of the South Mayo Trough (Williams and Harper, 1991). This suture zone can be seen just a few kilometers south of the field area along the north face of the mountain of Ben Levy (Williams and Rice, 1989; Whitmeyer and De Paor, 2008). Later deformation consists of decimeter- to decameter-scale offsets along crosscutting, oblique normal faults, which may have occurred during late Caledonian (Late Silurian–Early Devonian) transpressional terrane adjustment (Williams and Harper, 1991; Smethurst et al., 1994). An interesting aspect of the field area is that homoclinal Silurian strata dip to the south-southeast at ~60°, more steeply than the topographic slope. Students are faced with a situation where a northward uphill walk from the lakeshore takes them down-section stratigraphically. Many students find this inversion of stratigraphy with respect to elevation challenging to visualize and interpret correctly.
110
Whitmeyer et al.
Equipment and Methodology Students work in groups of two to three, and each group has one handheld computer. Over the past few years, we have tried a variety of handheld units, including PDAs (Personal Data Assistants) (NAVMAN®, HP iPAQ®) and Trimble® GeoXMs (2003 and 2005 versions; Fig. 1A). The PDAs were less expensive (approximately $800 with GPS plug-in card and waterproof Otterbox®, versus $2000 for the Trimbles), but we found the GeoXM to be much faster at acquiring a steady GPS signal, and better in handling persistent, and often horizontal, Irish rain. The handheld field computers are equipped with ArcPAD, a portable version of ArcGIS, loaded with topographic maps, historical fence maps, and aerial photos of the field area. On the first day of the exercise, students create a shapefile to record data such as strike, dip, and lithologic unit (Fig. 1B). In the field, this expanding data set is available to students for immediate evaluation of the area geology while they collect data at each outcrop. The geographic coordinates (in whatever format the user desires: latitude and longitude, UTM, Irish grid, etc.) are automatically recorded by ArcPAD at each sample location when students enter their attribute data. Following a full day in the field, students upload data from their handheld computer to a laboratory computer running ArcGIS. Invariably, there are some mistakes and omissions in the field data the students collected, and this is their chance to fix that prior to resuming fieldwork the next day. Students quickly learn the critical importance of recording their data by hand in a field book as a backup for the handheld computer. Even if they have not lost any data themselves, the word-of-mouth from a team that will have to spend much of the next day retracing their steps to replace lost data is convincing. The “digital inking-in” evening session is also a time to assess the quality of the group’s data and their coverage of the field area. While reviewing and troubleshooting their field data, students locate areas where they may have misidentified lithologies or missed important contacts or potential faults. At the end of the evening session students devise a work plan to enhance the efficiency of their data collection for the next day in the field, and the fixed field data is downloaded back to the students’ handheld computer. Thus, the laboratory computer functions as a backup for students’ field data. In this respect, it is similar to the hand drawn “fair copy” map that field geologists would keep in the office as a backup to their field slip. After 3 to 4 d of field mapping, depending on the size of the field area and the weather, students have two full days on a GIS workstation in a state-of-the-art computer laboratory at the National University of Ireland, Galway. During this time, the students use ArcGIS to interpret their field data and prepare a professional-quality geologic map of the field area. The experience of using ArcPAD and watching the ArcGIS upload process increases students’ exposure to GIS prior to using ArcGIS on their own. Building on their preliminary interpretations at earlier evening sessions, students identify and highlight lithologic contacts and stratigraphic offsets of the contacts to accurately
determine the location of normal faults in the region. Each team produces, prints, and turns in a professional-quality GIS map of their field area (Fig. 4), along with a description of the geology they mapped, and a plausible history of how it was formed. 3-D Interpretation and Presentation Valuable tools that have recently become available and practical for display and evaluation of geologic maps and field data include virtual 3-D terrain models, such as DEMs generated within ArcScene (Fig. 5), and virtual globes, such as Google Earth (Figs. 6A and 6B), NASA World Wind, and ArcGlobe. Georeferenced geologic maps can be draped over 3-D surfaces, and software controls allow the user to rotate, pan, and zoom the 3-D maps. This allows the user to appraise geologic map elements and data from any angle and at any point in the fieldwork and map preparation process. Students can reevaluate their field interpretations to better constrain contacts and faults across the terrain, and they can do this every evening before heading back out to their field area the next day. This iterative approach to evaluating geologic maps, while fieldwork is ongoing, permits a level of self-evaluation that only field researchers who were very experienced at 3-D visualization could have achieved in the past. In summer 2008, we incorporated an extra day of laboratory-based computer exercises in order to acquaint students with the capabilities of Google Earth as a medium for displaying and evaluating geologic data. Following a general introduction to Google Earth, students exported jpeg images of their geologic maps from ArcGIS. Within Google Earth, students used the “Add – Image Overlay…” function to upload their jpeg maps and then positioned them at the correct latitude and longitude using the “Location” tab. This simple step allowed students to view their geologic maps draped over the Google Earth virtual terrain, with full access to Google Earth’s zoom, rotate, and pan capabilities. Students also incorporated specific point data information, such as orientation measurements, lithologic features, and outcrop photos, within their Google Earth maps by using the “Add – Placemark…” function. After only a couple of hours, most groups had truly interactive Google Earth–based geologic maps of their fieldwork that incorporated field data and photos georeferenced to their proper field coordinates. We finished this exercise by demonstrating the capabilities of Google Earth for presenting cutting-edge geologic research. Examples included four-dimensional visualizations of the emplacement stages of the Devonian Galway Granite, western Ireland (Fig. 6A; Hennessy and Feely, 2008), and our ongoing work on an interactive 3-D geologic map of the Knock Kilbride field area with student data collected over the past four years (Fig. 6B). Each year, field course students have digitally mapped a different section of the southeastern slope of Knock Kilbride. By the end of the 2008 field season, digital data covered the full southeastern slope of the mountain. This visualization demonstration showed our students that their collective data were a vital part of an active research project that utilized modern digital methods and equipment.
Visualization techniques in field geology education: A case study from western Ireland
Figure 4. Student map of field area produced within ArcGIS with data collected from handheld computers.
Figure 5. Student’s geologic map of the Knock Kilbride field area, draped over a digital elevation model (DEM) of the mountain of Knock Kilbride (view to the northeast). By using a virtual 3-D model that incorporates highresolution aerial photos, students can reevaluate their initial field interpretations to better constrain contacts and faults across the terrain.
111
112
Whitmeyer et al.
Figure 6. (A) Google Earth image of the Galway Granite batholith. The emplacement stages of the granite units are controlled through the time-slider function visible at the top of the image (from Hennessy and Feely, 2008). (B) Google Earth image of the composite Knock Kilbride geologic map, compiled from 4 yr of student data from the Ireland field course. View is to the northeast, similar to Figure 5. Data points, line work (faults and contacts), and each unit (as polygons) can be turned on or off for viewing. Resolution of terrain underlying the geologic map has been enhanced by overlaying aerial photos on the standard (poor-resolution) Google Earth terrain.
Visualization techniques in field geology education: A case study from western Ireland The collective Google Earth geologic map incorporated more advanced features than the students had included in their individual Google Earth maps, such as selectable layers of lithologic units, contacts, faults, or point data that the user could turn on or off. Our map used high-resolution aerial photos of the field area as overlays on the native Google Earth terrain images to overcome Google Earth’s poor image resolution of this region. By editing the Image Overlay tag to make the colors of the unit layers slightly transparent, we demonstrated how field researchers could evaluate mapped geology against a high-resolution 3-D topographic base map. This is correlative with the map evaluation exercise that the students had recently completed using their GIS maps of the field area and ArcScene, which allowed students to compare digital, interactive geologic maps assembled in two different software platforms. We concluded our “Google Earth Day” by demonstrating future components of Google Earth–based interactive geologic maps that were not yet fully developed. These included 3-D strike and dip symbols as Collada models (www.collada.org) positioned in the proper spatial orientation above the outcrop location where the data were collected. The current complexities involved in properly displaying orientation symbols in Google Earth were apparent to students after we explained that, in order to transfer the relevant location and orientation data from ArcGIS point shapefiles into Google Earth Collada models, it was necessary to write a Linux-based bash script (see Appendix 1). We also demonstrated vertical cross sections that users can “pull up” from the Google Earth ground surface (Whitmeyer and De Paor, 2008), and superoverlays of the geologic maps that allow users to zoom to outcrop-scale details without using large, high-resolution files that cause Google Earth to dramatically slow down (Whitmeyer et al., 2008). Preliminary Feedback of the Digital Mapping Exercise Student feedback of the continually developing digital mapping and visualization exercise indicates a strongly positive
113
response to both digital field mapping and map preparation using ArcGIS (Table 1). Interesting trends over the past four years include a general increase in students’ incoming familiarity with GPS and ArcGIS. Four years ago, the use of handheld GPS units in the field was a novelty for many students, whereas now many students have GPS units in their cars. When we began the digital mapping project, few students had much exposure to ArcGIS, whereas in recent years ~40% of the students had already taken a full semester GIS class. This increased experience with GIS prior to the field course has allowed us to include more advanced material within allotted laboratory days. However, we found that the experienced GIS students tended to usurp control of the computer during the laboratory sessions, and we had to enforce an “equalopportunity” policy at the computer keyboard so that all group members had a hand in preparation of the final map product. As students have entered the Ireland field course with a stronger GIS background, their opinion of the value of the laboratory GIS component has decreased (Table 1). Student opinion of the field GIS component has not decreased as much as the laboratory exercise, perhaps due to less prior familiarity with the equipment and techniques. In 2008, all field camp students had used Google Earth to “fly” around to familiar locations, like their homes and college campuses, but none of them had viewed or evaluated geologic maps using Google Earth. Our demonstration of the potential capabilities of interactive geologic maps built within Google Earth prompted enthusiastic responses from the 2008 field course students, especially when they realized that their field data were incorporated into an ongoing, cutting-edge research project. Interactive digital geologic maps with user-viewable metadata are not a new concept (e.g., Condit, 1999), but the ease of use of the Google Earth interface puts the capability to create virtual 3-D geologic maps that incorporate pertinent field data and images into the hands of every geologist, whether computer-savvy or not. We envision that familiarity and acceptance of these modern methods of displaying geologic maps will enable us to present more complex and challenging exercises in the future.
TABLE 1. STUDENT EVALUATION DATA FOR THE DIGITAL MAPPING EXERCISE FROM THE PAST FOUR YEARS OF THE IRELAND FIELD COURSE 2005 (n = 35) 2006 (n = 25) 2007 (n = 32) 2008 (n = 29) Students with previous full-semester GIS* class 3% 21% 44% 41% How much did you learn from this exercise? n/a 4.4 3.4 3.1 (1 = nothing, 5 = a lot) How valuable was the field component? n/a 4.7 4.0 4.0 (1 = not at all, 5 = very) n/a 4.8 3.7 3.4 How valuable was the laboratory component? (1 = not at all, 5 = very) % agree % agree n/a n/a Background knowledge and skills were 85% 96% appropriate to the level of the course Content of the course would be of value to my 91% 88% n/a n/a own research / career path n/a n/a Would recommend this GIS experience to other 100% 100% geology students Note: Note that the evaluation format changed in 2006 (with a year of overlap). *GIS—geographic information systems.
114
Whitmeyer et al.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Over the last few years, digital mapping has progressed from being an exciting cutting-edge technology with much potential to being the standard method of recording field data and constructing geologic maps. Whereas, in previous years, students with GIS and digital mapping experience were ahead of the curve, now students must have this experience to keep up with their peers in the competitive job or graduate student market. Word-of-mouth communication to the authors from geoscience professionals in positions within state surveys, environmental consulting firms, and petroleum and mineral exploration companies has stressed the importance of familiarity with GIS and digital mapping techniques. Similarly, feedback from James Madison University field course students that have gone on to graduate programs indicates the value of exposure to digital mapping and visualization techniques. These advantages often extend beyond improved 3-D cognition of geologic features to have application to many disciplines (Butler, 2007). Our task as geoscience educators is to give the students the skills they need to effectively “do geology” and be competitive in their future academic and workplace environments. Though equipment prices and lack of technological knowledge can still be initial hurdles, we must overcome these issues. We need to expose students to modern equipment and methods, not just to keep up with the competition, but also because these modern methods can facilitate visualization of 3-D structures and time-dependent processes in an unprecedented way. Visualization forms an essential constituent in our cognitive processes, and it is essential that we utilize this for student instruction. As educators, we have long stressed the importance of our students learning to think and see in three dimensions. It is our experience that the integration of 3-D visualizations into field courses and class curricula helps to improve students’ visual-spatial skills, and new digital methods are the latest tool to help us achieve that goal. Our challenge is to devise protocols and lesson plans that make use of these new tools in the most effective learning environments. One of these effective learning environments must be the field, where students assimilate geologic knowledge first-hand. As digital field methods continue to evolve, our ultimate goal is to bring all of the available visualization “firepower” to the student in the natural environment. Finally, we acknowledge that our “preliminary student feedback” falls far short of a complete assessment of student learning in the field. Effective assessment instruments specifically focused on field education (Hughes and Boyle, 2005; Pyle, this volume) are essential in order to verify that digital visualization tools, such as those advocated in this paper, are accomplishing the transformative leap in students’ comprehension that we desire. Specific learning objects based on digital 3-D visualizations need to be evaluated against the educational methods of traditional field courses. In addition, post–field course surveys that go beyond the anecdotal are needed to more completely assess the value and application of students’ field education in their subsequent careers. We cannot correct the lack of past assessment data for
field education, but as present-day geoscience field educators, we can ensure that our future innovations in field-oriented curricula will be supported by rigorous assessment of student learning. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank all of the Boston University and James Madison University Ireland field course students (and faculty) who have directly and indirectly contributed to this work. We thank Trish Walsh for providing infrastructural support and superb accommodations at Petersburg Outdoor Education Centre. Partial support for the Google Earth component was provided by National Science Foundation (NSF) grant EAR-0711077 to De Paor and Whitmeyer. Aerial photos of Knock Kilbride are reproduced by permission of the Ordinance Survey of Ireland (OSI). APPENDIX 1. LINUX SCRIPT The following is a snippet of a Linux bash script, written by coauthor Daniels, for converting ArcGIS point shapefiles with orientation data (longitude, latitude, strike, dip, dip direction) to KML format for import into Google Earth. The script creates a kml file that then links to a 3-D model of a standard strike and dip symbol (created with Google Sketchup) and orients the model using heading and roll tags. The dollar signs denote variables that are filled at run time with the data retrieved from the ArcGIS attribute table. Model details and attribute table format are specific to our project; however, an experienced programmer might find it useful as a template for creating KML files from ArcGIS data. echo -e “FID $tess0 <Model id=\042model_$tess\042> clampedToGround${arLONG[$tess]}${arLAT[$tess]}$ALT${arSTRIKE[$tess]}0–${arDIP[$tess]} <Scale> <x>$SCALE $SCALE$SCALE./files/$MODEL ...”
REFERENCES CITED Argand, E., 1922, La tectonique de l’Asie, in Congrès Géologique International, Belgique: Liège, Belgium, Comptes Rendus, p. 171–372. Brimhall, G., 1999, Evaluation of digital mapping in introductory and advanced field classes at UC Berkeley: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 31, no. 7, p. A-191.
Visualization techniques in field geology education: A case study from western Ireland Butler, R., 2007, Teaching Geoscience through Field Work: Plymouth, UK, Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences Learning and Teaching Guide, 56 p. Chew, D.M., Graham, J.R., and Whithouse, M.J., 2007, U-Pb zircon geochronology of plagiogranites from the Lough Nafooey (= Midland Valley) arc in western Ireland: Constraints on the onset of the Grampian orogeny: Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 164, p. 747–750, doi: 10.1144/0016-76492007-025. Condit, C.D., 1999, Components of dynamic digital maps: Computers & Geosciences, v. 25, p. 511–522, doi: 10.1016/S0098-3004(98)00156-3. Dahlstrom, C.D., 1969, Balanced cross sections: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 6, p. 743–757. De Paor, D.G., 1988, Balanced sections in thrust belts: Part I. Construction: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 72, p. 73–91. De Paor, D.G., and Whitmeyer, S.J., 2009, this volume, Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(05). De Paor, D.G., Feely, M., Kelly, S., and Williams-Stroud, S.C., 2004, Digital maps of students’ data as an integral component of geology field camp: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 5, p. 157. Dewey, J.F., and Bird, J.M., 1970, Mountain belts and the new global tectonics: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 75, p. 2625–2647, doi: 10.1029/ JB075i014p02625. Dewey, J.F., and Ryan, P.D., 1990, The Ordovician evolution of the South Mayo trough, western Ireland: Tectonics, v. 9, p. 887–903, doi: 10.1029/ TC009i004p00887. Edmundo, G.P., 2002, Digital geologic field mapping using ArcPad, in Soller, D.R., ed., Digital Mapping Techniques ’02—Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-370, p. 129–134. Elliott, D., 1983, The construction of balanced cross-sections: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 5, p. 101, doi: 10.1016/0191-8141(83)90035-4. Graham, J.R., Leake, B.E., and Ryan, P.D., 1989, The Geology of South Mayo, Western Ireland: Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press, 75 p. Hennessy, R., and Feely, M., 2005, Galway County in stone: The geological heritage of Connemara. Series 1: Twelve Bens: Galway, Galway County Council and the Heritage Council (Ireland), CD-ROM. Hennessy, R., and Feely, M., 2008, Visualization of magmatic emplacement sequences and radioelement distribution patterns in a granite batholith: An innovative approach using Google Earth, in De Paor, D., ed., Google Earth Science, Journal of the Virtual Explorer, Electronic Edition, vol. 29, paper 100. Hughes, P., and Boyle, A., 2005, Assessment in the Earth Sciences, Environmental Sciences and Environmental Studies: Plymouth, UK, Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences Learning and Teaching Guide, 41 p. Jackson, I., and Asch, K., 2002, The status of digital geological mapping in Europe: The results of a census of the digital mapping coverage, approaches and standards of 29 European geological survey organizations in the year 2000: Computers & Geosciences, v. 28, p. 783–788, doi: 10.1016/S0098-3004(01)00103-0. Johnston, S., Whitmeyer, S.J., and De Paor, D., 2005, New developments in digital mapping and visualization as part of a capstone field geology course: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 7, p. 145. Karlstrom, K.E., Whitmeyer, S.J., Dueker, K., Williams, M.L., Levander, A., Humphreys, E.D., Keller, G.R., and the CD-ROM Working Group, 2005, Synthesis of results from the CD-ROM experiment: 4-D image of the lithosphere beneath the Rocky Mountains and implications for understanding the evolution of continental lithosphere, in Karlstrom, K.E., and Keller, G.R., eds., The Rocky Mountain Region—An Evolving Lithosphere: Tectonics, Geochemistry, and Geophysics: American Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph 154, p. 421–442.
115
Knoop, P.A., and van der Pluijm, B., 2003, GeoPad: Innovative applications of information technology in field science education: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 84, no. 46, p. ED32B–1199. Knoop, P.A., and van der Pluijm, B., 2006, GeoPad: Tablet PC-enabled field science education, in Berque, D., Prey, J., and Reed, R., eds., The Impact of Pen-Based Technology on Education: Vignettes, Evaluations, and Future Directions: West Lafayette, Indiana, Purdue University Press, p. 103–113. Kramer, J.H., 2000, Digital mapping systems for field data collection, in Soller, D.R., ed., Digital Mapping Techniques ’00–Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-325, p. 13–19. Longley, P.A., Goodchild, M., Maguire, D.J., Rhind, D.W., and Lobley, J., 2001, Geographic Information Systems and Science: Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, 454 p. Love, J.D., Reed, J.C., Jr., Christiansen, R.L., and Stacy, J.R., 1972, Geologic Block Diagram and Tectonic History of the Teton Region, WyomingIdaho: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-730, scale. McCaffrey, K.J.W., Feely, M., Hennessy, R., and Thompson, J., 2008, Visualization of folding in marble outcrops, Connemara, western Ireland: An application of virtual outcrop technology: Geosphere, v. 4, p. 588–599, doi: 10.1130/GES00147.1. Mies, J.W., 1996, Automated digital compilation of structural symbols: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 44, p. 539–548. Pyle, E.J., 2009, this volume, A framework for the evaluation of field camp experiences, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(26). Smethurst, M.A., MacNiocaill, C., and Ryan, P.D., 1994, Oroclinal bending in the Caledonides of western Ireland: Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 151, p. 315–328, doi: 10.1144/gsjgs.151.2.0315. Smith, W., 1815, A Geological Map of England and Wales and Part of Scotland: London, British Geological Survey, 16 sheets. Suppe, J., 1985, Principles of Structural Geology: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 537 p. Swanson, M.T., and Bampton, M., 2009, this volume, Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research: An adventure-based approach to teaching new geospatial technologies in an REU Site program, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(11). Walsh, G.J., Reddy, J.E., Armstrong, T.R., and Burton, W.C., 1999, Geologic mapping with a GPS receiver and a personal digital assistant computer streamlines production of geologic maps: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 31, no. 7, p. A-192. Whitmeyer, S.J., and De Paor, D.G., 2008, Large-scale emergent cross sections of crustal structures in Google Earth: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 6, p. 189. Whitmeyer, S.J., De Paor, D.G., Daniels, J., Nicoletti, J., Rivera, M., and Santangelo, B., 2008, A pyramid scheme for constructing geologic maps on geobrowsers: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 89, no. 53, p. IN41B–1140. Williams, D.M., 1990, Evolution of Ordovician terranes in western Ireland and their possible Scottish equivalents: Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh–Earth Sciences, v. 81, p. 23–29. Williams, D.M., and Harper, D.A.T., 1991, End-Silurian modifications of Ordovician terranes in western Ireland: Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 148, p. 165–171, doi: 10.1144/gsjgs.148.1.0165. Williams, D.M., and Rice, A.H.N., 1989, Low-angle extensional faulting and the emplacement of the Connemara Dalradian, Ireland: Tectonics, v. 8, p. 417–428, doi: 10.1029/TC008i002p00417. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research: An adventure-based approach to teaching new geospatial technologies in an REU Site Program Mark T. Swanson Department of Geosciences, University of Southern Maine, Gorham, Maine 04038, USA Matthew Bampton Geography-Anthropology Department, University of Southern Maine, Gorham, Maine 04038, USA
ABSTRACT Adapting geologic field education and research training to new geospatial technologies requires considerable investment of time and money in acquiring new instruments, mastering new techniques, and developing new curriculum in return for dramatically increased mapping capabilities. The University of Southern Maine’s Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program has developed an integrated system of digital mapping specifically designed for geologic work that involves satellite and optical digital survey instruments, digital imagery, and a variety of mapping techniques. These new digital tools, techniques, and resources are used to explore the nature of crustal deformation in an adventure-based undergraduate field research program that employs sea kayaks for coastal access to island bedrock exposures. This new generation of digital mapping tools enabled the development of new techniques for outcrop surface mapping where we are able to delineate 1–100-m-range mesoscale geologic features that are often overlooked in traditional quadrangle-scale geologic mapping. Maps of extensive exposures in coastal Maine created using these digital techniques continue to reveal new and never-before-seen geologic structures and relationships. Because of this, undergraduate students are able to make meaningful contributions to our base of geologic knowledge and acquire essential geospatial skills, while learning these digital mapping techniques in a research setting. The emphasis we place on teamwork, risk taking, exploration, and discovery as part of the adventure programming aspect of the field component builds a confidence and enthusiasm that extends into the research component of the project, where students are able to develop new analytical methods, applications, and approaches to our field and laboratory work. INTRODUCTION Since 1993, we have run an annual summer field school in geography and geology traveling through the islands of coastal Maine by sea kayak and making detailed topographic and geo-
logic maps of shoreline exposures. Our work draws on the unique and challenging research questions concerning regional strain effects of the late Paleozoic–age Norumbega fault and shear zone system, employs emerging digital mapping and surveying techniques including satellite and optical instruments to address these
fundamental questions, and serves to increase the technological skills, mapping abilities, and overall spatial comprehension of undergraduate students from across several disciplines. For the past seven years, our project has been supported by the National Science Foundation as a Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Site Program (2002–2010). This program has enabled us to recruit participants nationwide and has provided access to a pool of extraordinarily talented scientists-in-training. Our students are aggressively engaged in an end-to-end research process, completing an entire original research project each year, from walking on to the outcrop examining new geologic structure, to delivering a poster with the results of their research work at a professional meeting. In this research team setting, students develop an understanding of, and appreciation for, the collaborative and interdisciplinary nature of contemporary field research. All reports indicate that this program is a highly valuable educational experience and contributes significantly to the students’ future careers in science. The need for special training in geospatial technologies, the uniqueness of the Maine coast environment for adventure-based programs, and the geologic history of the area as a natural laboratory for crustal deformation have all come together in this unique undergraduate research experience. Need for Special Training Programs in Geospatial Technologies Basic field techniques involved in geologic mapping allow the geologist to produce a quadrangle-based geologic map at a typical scale of 1:24,000, supported by a written report with outcrop photographs of important exposures or photomicrographs from selected samples. The traditional tools for quadrangle-scale geologic mapping (Fig. 1A) are familiar: a topographic base map, field book, Brunton compass, hammer, hand lens, acid bottle, and field camera. All observations are keyed to base-map locations using the map reading and topographic interpretation skills of the field geologist supported by the use of the pace and compass traversing technique and, more recently, the use of conventional aerial orthophotos to pinpoint outcrop locations and delineate bedrock features. Familiarity with these traditional techniques remains essential. However, digital mapping techniques, remote sensing, and spatial analysis have transformed the earth sciences (e.g., McCaffrey et al., 2005) and demand that working scientists add a novel suite of skills to their resumes (National Research Council, 2006a, 2006b). Within the span of a single career, data collection, management, processing, storage, and analysis at all levels, and in both laboratory and field environments, have been revolutionized. This, in turn, has required changes in existing course design and the introduction of new courses in order to incorporate the latest technology and techniques into undergraduate education (Guertin, 2006; Neumann and Kutis, 2006; Menking and Stewart, 2007). Sophisticated digital instruments (Fig. 1B), from handheld digital measuring devices to portable and ruggedized computers, are now readily available to most geoscientists in the
Figure 1. Mapping tool kits: (A) traditional geologic mapping tools, including the map clipboard, field book, Brunton compass, protractor, and scale; and (B) digital mapping tools, including handheld global positioning system (GPS), rod-mounted RTK (Real Time Kinematic) GPS with field base station, tripod-mounted total stations, field laptop computers, as well as the traditional Brunton compass.
developed world. Even simple map-reading skills, traditionally used to determine the location of outcrops and the position of contacts have given way to handheld global positioning system (GPS) technology; hand-written field books have given way to digital data-logging devices; and hand-drafting techniques have been replaced by digital map production and display. Existing hand-drafted geologic maps are also being updated by georeferencing to new high-resolution digital aerial imagery and digitized to the new digital format and coordinate system. The speed with which these new instruments can gather and process a wide array of data has exponentially increased the volume of information we have available for analysis and interpretation in any given project. Because of the value and importance of these new geospatial tools, particularly with respect to field research in general, this innovative REU training program is part of a multidisciplinary geographic information system (GIS) initiative at the University of Southern Maine (USM) that promotes the use of geospatial technologies in research, training, and undergraduate education in geology and geography.
Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research Coastal Maine as a Unique Learning Environment The rocky coast of Maine is often an endless vista of islands, peninsulas, lighthouses, and pocket beaches. A history of glacial scouring and seasonal storm wave action along the coast, particularly with powerful winter nor’easters, has created these seemingly endless geologic panoramas of bedrock exposure, which can serve, effectively, as our windows into crustal deformation processes. The outer islands and promontories, particularly on their open ocean sides, reveal magnificent, glacially smoothed, bare rock exposures stripped of soil and vegetation that are kept clean by repeated storm waves. Local outcrops in this natural geologic laboratory serve as field-trip sites for our introductory and upper-level geology laboratory courses at USM. Structures in these local outcrops have been the basis for detailed studies reported in at least a dozen articles on kinematic indicators, fault structure, and dike intrusion (see, e.g., Swanson, 1999a, 2006). We have also used these island exposures each summer for the past 15 years as a unique outdoor learning environment when partnered with the use of sea kayaks for shoreline access. The scenic sea and shoreline landscapes and stunning geology of the remote reaches of the coast are best seen and experienced by sea kayak, and Maine’s coast offers some of the best sea kayaking found anywhere in the world. Teaching in this environment (Fig. 2) naturally leads to an adventure-based component to any program, where the thrill and excitement of sea kayaking is accompanied by the sense of exploration and discovery in walking new shoreline exposures and unraveling new geologic relations. The aspect that makes this Maine coast area even more unique is the geology itself: the bulk of the regional deformation has been influenced in some way by broadly distributed right-lateral shearing associated with the late Paleozoic Norum-
119
bega fault and shear zone system (Fig. 3). Late-stage syntectonic granites have been involved in this regional shearing and developed unique deformed geometries that could only be seen in these large coastal exposures. Documentation of these deformed geometries is greatly facilitated by the use of new digital mapping techniques. These mapped deformed geometries act as kinematic indicators and record the strain history of oblique convergence during Devonian Acadian collision, an important tectonic process during mountain building in the northern Appalachians. Geologic Questions Being Addressed Geologic interpretations for faults in coastal Maine have evolved significantly in the past 20 yr from a series of discontinuous postmetamorphic and post-tectonic minor brittle faults (Hussey, 1988) to a narrow through-going Norumbega fault zone of right-lateral postmetamorphic displacement coupled to a much broader, 100-km-wide zone of earlier regional ductile shear (Swanson, 1999b, 2007). Strain associated with the Norumbega fault and shear zone system dominates the rocks of the area, and the focus of the current research project concerns unraveling the details of this regional pattern. This research grew out of the development of new interpretational skills in shear zone geology during the 1980s involving kinematic indicators (Swanson, 1992, 1994, 1999a) that allowed the recognition of basic strain types (pure shear versus simple shear) and shear senses (left-lateral versus right-lateral) in these rocks. Training students, not only in geospatial technologies, but in the kinematic interpretational skills of the modern-day structural geologist as well, allows us to assess, document, and quantify deformation strain patterns found anywhere in the region. The team research approach allows us to apply these kinematic tools over wider geographic areas at greater structural detail than previously possible, since a larger team of researchers using more advanced digital tools is engaged in yearly mapping, analysis, and writing. By carefully delineating the outcrop strain patterns for syntectonic granite dike intrusions throughout the area, we are able to see for the first time the broader strain pattern associated with the development of this major crustal shear zone and the way in which oblique convergence in mountain building can work. The use of digital mapping techniques allows us to focus on detail outcrop surface mapping as the preferred way to delineate complex structure, and, in that way, we are changing the nature of geologic mapping itself. RESEARCH EXPERIENCES FOR UNDERGRADUATES
Figure 2. Sea kayaks are used to transport gear and personnel to the island field sites and to provide an adventure-based experience of cold-water paddling and remote-island camping in coastal Maine that helps to foster the sense of exploration and discovery inherent to scientific research.
The National Science Foundation’s Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program provides funds for hands-on research training of undergraduate students in appropriate STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) majors as a way to develop the next generation of researchers. The REU Site Program is designed for multiple student training programs that allow students to be mentored by, and collaborate with, working scientists from across the country on relevant research projects.
120
Swanson and Bampton
Figure 3. The University of Southern Maine (USM) Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Site project field area consists of coastal Maine exposures from Casco Bay to Muscongus Bay on the SE side of the Norumbega fault and shear zone (SZ) system. White arrowed lines show the stretching directions along oblique-to-fault folds related to regional right-lateral shear, the block arrows highlight areas of layer-normal shortening with no lateral shear, and the largest block arrow shows the lateral extrusion of the midcoast section where squeezed between left-lateral and rightlateral shear zones. Background geology base map is from Osberg et al. (1985).
The NSF REU Site Program at USM The NSF REU Site Program at USM trains nine undergraduate students each year in the use of traditional and digital field mapping tools and techniques in a long-term adventurebased field research project (2002–2010). Sea kayaks are used for access to extensive coastal outcrop exposures (Fig. 2), and participants camp on remote islands during the survey period. This continuing program of detailed mapping is focused on the delineation of crustal deformation features related to regional transpression associated with the Norumbega fault and shear zone system as preserved in these coastal Maine outcrops. New digital instruments and resources are combined in a system of integrated digital mapping and used to construct a digital geospatial database in ArcGIS to coordinate these new digital maps, photos, data, and interpretations. These new detailed maps of never-before-seen deformed intrusion patterns allow new analyses and new interpretations of geologic structure. These, in turn, lead to more accurate structural and tectonic modeling of basic crustal-scale mountain-building processes.
Each project year is built around an 8 wk summer research session, and each student returns to their sponsoring institution with DVDs of all project data, field photos, maps, posters, and PowerPoint presentations as well as a 1 yr student copy of ESRI’s (Environmental Research Institute) ArcMap GIS software. The student researchers prepare several abstracts and accompanying posters for the Northeast Geological Society of America (NE GSA) meeting each year; and they prepare and deliver an oral presentation about their work to their sponsoring departments under the supervision of their faculty mentors and receive a grade for a six-credit field course (GEY 360/ GEO 360 Field Mapping in the Island Environment: Data Collection to GIS). One factor that is important to any REU program is the ability to offer an effective and challenging multistudent research experience. Our REU Site Program combines a unique and spectacular field environment with the adventure of using sea kayaks for island access while students investigate fundamental scientific research questions concerning complex crustal deformation using state-of-the-art digital technology.
Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research Student Recruitment and Selection The NSF REU Site Program is designed to benefit undergraduate students from colleges and universities where opportunities for research experiences are limited. To meet these program goals, we target the smaller undergraduate institutions with a nationwide e-mail announcement to all chairs and structural geology faculty. The e-mail list is created from over ~400 e-mail addresses taken from the AGI Directory each year. In addition, the program is listed under the NSF REU program Web site with a link to the program description and application materials on our USM REU Web page at http://www.usm.maine.edu/gis/reu.html. The student-selection process is by necessity a balance between fostering new research experiences for the students involved and the successful completion of the specific research goals for the projects each year. The primary student skills that influence the selection process are wilderness outdoor experience (hiking, camping, boating, wilderness first aid) and prior coursework in structural geology and/or GIS. While we offer training in all aspects of the program, we need the student participants to have a base of appropriate experience on which to build new geospatial, interpretational and digital skills. We also strive for a mix of individual skills and experience in order to enhance the peer-to-peer learning potential for the research team. This REU Site Program is in its seventh year and has involved, to date, 63 undergraduates (nine students per year) representing 45 different colleges and universities from across the country. Ten schools have sent multiple student participants. Over the first seven years, our program has attracted an average of 32 applicants each year, with a nearly equal number of qualified men (53%) and women (47%). Our nine-student research teams have been composed of, on average, 54% men and 46% women. This translates to a typical research team of 5 men and 4 women, but this has varied from 2 to 8 women per team through the years. Of the 63 students accepted into the program over the past 7 years, the majority (65%) of students have been from strictly undergraduate baccalaureate degree institutions (our primary recruitment target), and 35% have been from institutions with M.S. and/or Ph.D. graduate degree programs in relevant majors. Students majoring in geology have been the primary target (72%), but students in geography (22%), environmental science (4%), and physics (2%) have also been involved. This range of student backgrounds reflects the need for prior experience in GIS or GPS in addition to course work in structural geology and field methods in each year’s research team. In recent years, we have tried to have at least one student with a strong GIS or information technology background (often as a geography major) to handle the database development aspect of the current program. Adventure-Based Programming The REU Site Program at USM provides field research training in an environment of exploration and discovery on the Maine coast. Adventure-based education strategies (e.g., McKenzie, 2000; Priest and Gass, 2005) for our program center on the field component to the research work, where all supplies,
121
gear and personnel are transported to the field sites by sea kayak (Fig. 2). Students get to experience (and be challenged by) the rugged and strenuous conditions of cold-water kayaking and remote-island camping throughout coastal Maine while conducting field research. While we initially used sea kayaks as a logistical and economic necessity, we quickly discovered unanticipated benefits to this method of transport to the field sites. Group bonding and a sense of personal responsibility through the physical and intellectual challenges of sea kayaking lead to enhanced self image and personal growth. Extensive practice on assisted rescues with frequent “all-in” capsize drills stresses the potential life and death consequences of the everyday logistics of travel associated with fieldwork in this coastal ocean environment. Rotation of student leaders for group kayak travel ensures that all students become involved in navigation decisions, route planning and the work of flank and sweep boats to keep the group tight during ocean crossings. This constantly reinforces the importance of team work, cooperation, and group dynamics in everything we do. By assigning students the responsibility for all aspects of daily field life, including tasks as diverse as work management, group meal preparation, menu planning, camp chores, and waste disposal, we emphasize the need for leadership, cooperation, and group cohesion. This experience carries over from the tasks of daily field life to the daily research planning and logistics that are involved in mapping and survey work. The intent of the adventure-programming component of the REU is for personal successes to overcome the physical and environmental challenges, and for the team spirit fostered by the day-to-day cooperation in all aspects of the field experience to carry over to the personal and intellectual challenges the students face as the program develops toward computer laboratory work, analysis, abstract writing, and poster design. The greatest challenge in this program is, ultimately, to assemble the acquired field data into a coherent and meaningful project that contributes to a better understanding of the research questions involved. The REU Site Research Project REU Site Programs need to have a solid scientific focus to give the participating undergraduate students firsthand experience working in a relevant research project. Our program of field research centers on the rocky coast of Maine as a unique geologic resource with a rich and complex geologic history where storm waves have created extensive coastal exposures. Syntectonic granite intrusions, quartz veins, brittle strike-slip faults, and the structural analysis and tectonic interpretation of those mapped features as they appear throughout Casco Bay and midcoast Maine are interpreted in terms of regional strain accommodation associated with transpressional deformation on the SE flank of the Norumbega fault and shear zone system (Fig. 3). The Norumbega fault and shear zone system of the northern Appalachians is an orogen-parallel intracontinental fault boundary that displays a lengthy and complex structural history and possibly several hundred kilometers of right-lateral, or dextral, strikeslip displacement. Geological Society of America (GSA) Special
122
Swanson and Bampton
Paper 331, Norumbega Fault System of the Northern Appalachians (Ludman and West, 1999), established the Norumbega as a major strike-slip fault boundary active from the Mid-Devonian into the early Mesozoic having a complex history of dominantly dextral strike-slip deformation for over 100 m.y. Much of the early deformation associated with the Norumbega was in the form of regional shearing (Swanson, 1999a, 1999b) about the main fault trace as part of an even wider zone of orogen-parallel shearing that has affected much of the northern Appalachians (Hubbard, 1999). Regional ductile shearing is thought to have localized into higher strain zones and eventually into a few narrow brittle fault zones (Hussey, 1988; Bothner and Hussey, 1999) as the system evolved through exhumation and cooling during the later stages of orogenic activity. Earlier field studies developed an initial orthogonal-to-layer (and normal to regional fold hinge-parallel lineation) emplacement model for deformed quartz and granite intrusions (Swanson, 1992, 1994). An array of kinematic indicators for ductile dextral shear parallel to foliation and lineation was observed (Swanson, 1999a) and used to constrain a tectonic model that used transpression at a restraining section of the fault to account for the observed structural patterns (Swanson, 1999b). For the SE side of the main fault zone, this regional shearing model (Swanson, 1999b) includes an early history of regional oblique-to-fault folding and reorientation of the steeply dipping fold limbs into a 1–2 km inner zone of high dextral shear strain along the main trace of the NE-striking Norumbega fault. Our REU Site Program (2002–2007) expanded coverage across northern Casco Bay (Fig. 3) (Jansyn et al., 2003; O’Kane et al., 2003) and east to Muscongus Bay (Castle et al., 2004; Doyle et al., 2004; Olson et al., 2005; Betka et al., 2006) within the SE side of, and at progressively greater distances from, the main Norumbega fault zone (for regional geology, see Osberg et al., 1985; Hussey and Berry, 2002). Elongation and shear along steep limb layers in oblique-to-fault upright folds throughout the area can be interpreted from kinematic indicators such as symmetric to asymmetric boudinage, asymmetric folds, shear band fabrics, and the geometry of initially orthogonal quartz veins and granite intrusions (Swanson, 1992, 1999a). The work of the REU research teams has documented zones of both right- and left-lateral shear that have been used in a lateral extrusion model of a midcoast structural block that is dominated by pure shear layer-normal flattening (Fig. 3).
maps using simple hand tools and map and landscape reading skills, a sophisticated analytical interpretation can be produced. Various techniques are employed to address structures over a variety of scale ranges (Fig. 4), and regional, local, outcrop, and feature observations are compiled. Outcrop Surface Mapping Outcrop surface mapping techniques are designed to delineate an intermediate or mesoscale range of geologic structure somewhere between the ~10 km scale of the topographic map and the ~1 m scale of an individual small outcrop (Fig. 4). Outcrop surface mapping is a detailed depiction of specific structural features such as folds, faults, or intrusions found within single large outcrop exposures. These laterally extensive exposures are found in glaciated environments, river channels, above tree line, road cuts, and in wave-washed coastal settings. The latter types are common along Maine’s rocky shoreline. This bird’s-eye perspective allows the representation of features that are typically overlooked in traditional quadrangle geologic mapping because they are too small to be recognized in traditional aerial photographs yet are too large to be seen while standing on the outcrop. Outcrop surface mapping techniques, therefore, are capable of delineating new, never-before-seen geologic features and relationships. The importance of outcrop surface mapping has long been recognized in geology. While early workers sketched map views of outcrop features freehand (see Jackson [1838] for the first dike intrusion maps of Maine exposures), more recent outcrop surface maps have been prepared using detailed grid mapping techniques (e.g., Swanson, 1983, 2006; DiToro and Pennacchioni, 2005)
DIGITAL TECHNIQUES FOR OUTCROP SURFACE MAPPING Geological mapping is one of the fundamental skills of field research in the earth sciences since its development with William Smith’s initial mapping work during the early 1800s (Winchester, 2001). In particular, quadrangle-scale geologic mapping has been the backbone of most twentieth-century field research. By compiling and correlating some combination of lithologic, paleontologic, structural, and stratigraphic observations made at scattered outcrops, and spatially referencing them to topographic base
Figure 4. Scale range for typical geologic mapping leaves a gap in coverage between typical quadrangle-scale mapping and handheld onthe-outcrop photography. Detailed outcrop surface mapping completes this scale range and can reveal new, never-before-seen geologic structures and relationships.
Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research involving outcrop grid lines, field clip boards, similar squares, and hand-drawing techniques. More detailed and accurate representations of larger outcrop structures and their relationships can be attained using the time-honored plane table and alidade, a survey instrument used with a stadia rod to determine direction and distance where position data are plotted directly on a tripodmounted map board in the field (Swanson, 2006). Integrated Digital Mapping At the beginning of the twenty-first century, digital survey instrumentation (global positioning system [GPS] and total station [optical survey transit]) and high-resolution digital aerial and camera-pole imagery coupled with the data management capacity of GIS software have transformed the mapping process, allowing for an “all-digital” style of geologic mapping (Swanson et al., 2002). The “tools” required for this style of digital mapping create a much more cumbersome field kit (Figs. 1B and 2) for today’s field investigators, but they allow far greater capability and precision. We refer to this cluster of techniques as “integrated digital mapping” (Swanson and Bampton, 2004). Integrated digital mapping (Box 1) utilizes several different high-precision geospatial mapping tools to create a data-rich GIS representing complex geologic features. This GIS has a data structure that is readily navigable, allowing for both visualization and analysis of complex features with great accuracy and at high resolutions (Swanson et al., 2002; Berry et al., 2003; McBride et al., 2004; Swanson and Bampton, 2004). At present, we use a variety of handheld mapping-grade and survey-grade instruments, imagery, GIS, and data management software, along with some specialized techniques. Our integrated mapping system forms the core of our undergraduate research program at USM under the National Science Foundation’s Research Experiences for Undergraduates Site Program.
123
BOX 1. TOOLS AND RESOURCES Digital Instrumentation Six handheld global positioning system (GPS) receivers—mapping-grade Trimble GeoXT GPS with built-in antenna, broad area real-time corrections, feature/attribute data-logging functions, ~1 m precision. One GPS field base station—a tripod-mounted Trimble 5700 dual-frequency receiver using a geodetic antennae with ground plane and a 2–25 W radio and whip antennae for broadcasting real-time corrections. Three RTK GPS rovers—rod-mounted survey-grade Trimble 5700 receivers using real-time kinematic corrections and three Trimble TSC-1 survey controllers, ~2 cm precision. Three Total Stations—tripod-mounted SpectraPrecision 608 series Geodimeters, servo-driven, Windows GeoDatWin controllers, and autolock tracking of target prisms, ~1 cm precision. Supporting Digital Imagery High-resolution digital aerial imagery—orthorectified (to remove lens distortion), georeferenced (positioned, scaled, and oriented within a coordinate system) with ground pixel sizes of 15–30 cm depending on field area, from Maine Office of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Low-elevation digital aerial imagery—using a 14 m camera-pole system with images and mosaics georeferenced to RTK (real time kinematic) GPS or total station control points; pixel sizes vary with camera type and camera pole height. High-resolution macrophotographic imagery—using a digital SLR (single lens reflex) camera, macrolens, and extension collar for photomacrography of brittle fault thin sections. Supporting Hardware Three laptop computers—Panasonic CF-29 Toughbooks with USB and PCMCIA flash card slots, field hardened for downloading RTK GPS and total station data, with access to data, maps, GIS software, and high-resolution aerial imagery in the field. Twelve GIS laboratory computers—Dell Precision 340 Pentium 4 in a GIS Laboratory network. Scanner—HP 12" × 20" scanner. Printer—HP Color Laserjet with ledger-sized 11" × 17" paper.
Instrument Precision Instrument precisions used in this report refer to the diameter of multiple same-point position clusters when plotted in GIS (Fig. 5), which reflect the error in determining coordinate positions for each instrument. Handheld mapping-grade instruments provide adequate meter-scale precision for plotting positions on topographic maps, whereas rod and tripod-mounted survey-grade instruments provide centimeter-scale precision for delineation of finer-scale features. Tools and Resources The equipment, supporting imagery, and software required for USM’s REU Site Program in integrated digital mapping (Box 1) are designed to take the researcher from data collection in the field to final map presentation in the computer laboratory. The mapping- and survey-grade instruments include handheld GPS receivers, a GPS field base station, RTK (Real Time Kinematic) GPS rovers, and optical total stations. Supporting digital imagery includes high-resolution digital aerial imagery currently available
Plotter—HP DesignJet 36-in.-wide color plotter for map and poster production. Supporting Software ESRI’s (Environmental Systems Research Institute) ArcGIS 9.2 software—for display, analysis, and spatial data structure. Microsoft Excel—for data file formatting in the survey download/ export process. Adobe Photoshop—for creating photomosaics from camera-pole imagery. Adobe Illustrator—for final map and poster production. Microsoft Access—for building a searchable database for field data and metadata. Microsoft PowerPoint—for presentation of project results. Microsoft ActiveSync—for connecting to Windows CE devices (Trimble GeoXT GPS). Trimble GPS Pathfinder Office—for data transfer and export from handheld GPS. Stereoplot—stereonet program for PC, Allmendinger (Cornell University Web site). Microsoft Word—word-processing program.
124
Swanson and Bampton
Figure 5. Precision for mapping and survey instrumentation is reported as the diameter of a cluster of multiple, same-point, position coordinates when plotted in geographic information systems (GIS). Mapping-grade handheld global positioning system (GPS) is capable of meter-scale precisions, while (A) survey-grade RTK (Real Time Kinematic) GPS and (B) optical total stations are capable of centimeter-scale precisions.
from the State Office of GIS and low-elevation camera-pole imagery taken at the field site. The needed hardware consists of field laptop computers and a supporting GIS Lab, desktop computers, scanner, printer, and plotter. Supporting software needed includes ArcGIS 9.2, Excel, Photoshop, Illustrator, Access, PowerPoint, ActiveSync, Trimble GPS Pathfinder Office, Stereoplot, and Word. Handheld GPS receivers with 1 m precision are used for collecting basic structural orientation data (Figs. 6A and 6B) and for fast mapping of larger features where higher precisions are not required, such as general outcrop shapes, soil lines, tide lines, and contacts of larger intrusive bodies. Real-time kinematic or RTK GPS receivers with centimeter precisions (Figs. 6C and 6D) are used to map the shape, orientation, and position of a broad range of geologic features, such as host rock fabric, folds, faults, and dike intrusions. For more intricate structures or for conditions where satellite signals are poor or unavailable, such as in the woods or near obstructions, the electronic total stations are used (Figs. 7A and 7B). Optical total stations utilize infrared light and an autolock system, where the instrument can lock onto and follow a signal-emitting prism, making quick work of any survey task. All of these instruments allow comparatively rapid collection of large amounts of data (nearly 1000 survey points per day), including descriptive attributes for the features being mapped. Data Export Positional data and attributes collected by these instruments must be exported in a format compatible with GIS, since that is where most of the mapmaking and analysis will take place. Handheld GPS instruments are cabled to computers, and point, line, and area features are exported directly as ArcGIS shape
files and attribute tables populated with field observations. RTK GPS and total station point data are exported as .csv files that are formatted in Excel. Each data point is numbered and associated with an easting, northing, elevation, object type (point, line, or polygon), object number (which identifies all the points involved in a single line or polygon shape), and point code (to describe the features being mapped). For RTK GPS and total stations, all attributes are coded into a single multicharacter field that is broken up into separate columns during file formatting using a textto-columns function in Excel. The reformatted .csv files from both the RTK GPS and total stations are brought into ArcGIS as x-y data and converted into shape files. GIS software loaded on field laptop computers provides access to field data and imagery, allowing continual adjustments to the active field plan as data points are accumulated (Fig. 7C), as well as on-site field editing of the developing maps (Fig. 7D). Digital Imagery It is possible in many cases to map and interpret some structures based on high-resolution georeferenced digital aerial imagery available for the area, assuming the structures are of the appropriate scale and have a sufficient color contrast to be visible in the images. For smaller-scale features, low-elevation photography with an adjustable telescoping camera-pole (Fig. 8) can be used. Photomosaics of the outcrop surfaces are georeferenced in ArcGIS to RTK GPS–surveyed or total station–surveyed control points within each image (Swanson and Bampton, 2008). Structures within these images can be delineated by on-screen digitizing, creating new shape files in ArcGIS. These mapped image features can be combined or integrated with other GPS or total station data, since these images are tied to the same datum and coordinate system used for mapping and surveying. Establishing a Field Datum All surveys using RTK GPS and total stations must be tied to a field datum point in a coordinate system with known xyz coordinates (easting, northing, and elevation). Handheld mapping-grade GPS works independently of the field datum but has less precision as a result. All of the RTK GPS surveys are linked to this initial field datum through the broadcasting GPS field base station (Fig. 6C). Because the field base station receiver continuously monitors its calculated position using the available satellite clusters at the time, it compares these calculated positions with its known coordinates to create and broadcast a correction factor to the RTK GPS rovers for on-the-fly processing in real time. The RTK GPS rovers are then used to determine the coordinate positions for the total station tripods and for the reflector reference objects needed to “establish” the total stations by position and orientation. Since both RTK GPS and total stations are using the same coordinate system and are tied to the same field datum, the resulting surveyed points can be combined in an integrated survey. The coordinate system used here in coastal Maine, for example, is NAD 83, UTM, and Zone 19 North. Coordinate
Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research
125
Figure 6. (A) Handheld mapping-grade global positioning system (GPS) (Trimble GeoXT) with its touch screen and built-in antenna is used for (B) logging position and descriptive attribute information (orientation, lithology, etc.) pertaining to mapped features (points, lines, and areas). (C) Broadcasting field base station for RTK GPS setup consists of a tripod-mounted geodetic antenna with ground plane (to eliminate multipath errors from satellite signals reflected off of the ground), a Trimble 5700 base receiver, and a 2–25 W broadcasting radio and whip antenna for communication with (D) survey-grade RTK GPS (Trimble 5700) and rover receivers with rod-mounted antenna and radio link to broadcasting base station for real-time corrections to position data.
positions are measured in meters to three decimal places, representing distances to the nearest millimeter. Datum coordinates. The initial datum coordinates for the field base station can be acquired by several different methods depending on the accuracy needed for the survey. Here, the term “accuracy” refers to how well the precision survey will fit into the coordinate system. For a postprocessed datum, 2 hour static data runs using the GPS base receiver and geodetic antenna with ground plane can be postprocessed automatically using National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Web-based Online Position User Service (OPUS), which compares the base receiver satellite data to several nearby Continuously Operating Receiver Stations (CORS) to apply position corrections. GPS receiver files in RINEX format are uploaded, and postprocessed results are emailed to the users usually within several minutes. These postprocessed positions can be calculated using three different levels of satellite orbital model precisions. Postprocessed
GPS base station positions are precise to within ~2 cm relative to three nearby CORS base stations. Alternately, this postprocessing procedure can be sidestepped, and, instead, an unprocessed position can be accepted as datum, where the base station receiver makes a position calculation based on a single epoch of satellite data. Whereas global accuracy may be diminished using this procedure, the internal precision of the survey remains the same. In practical terms, this “quick grab” datum may be sufficient for the mapping project at hand and allows the survey to proceed without the delay of postprocessing. Most surveys need to be tied to available georeferenced aerial imagery, and a best match can often be achieved by selecting a datum point visible within the image that can be recognized on the ground. Northing and easting coordinates for this visual datum can be retrieved in ArcMap using field laptop computers by pinpointing image features with the cursor. Static data collected by the base receivers
126
Swanson and Bampton
Figure 7. (A) Optical tripod-mounted total stations (SpectraPrecision 608 Series Geodimeter) require a rod-mounted prism and line-of-sight to map features. (B) Autolock function allows the station to automatically track the target prism mounted on a short rod for increased precision. (C) Laptop computers in the field are used for downloading and processing survey data into a geographic information system (GIS). (D) Use of a computer harness allows on-site editing of GIS shape files.
Figure 8. Camera-pole imagery offers a low-elevation aerial view of the outcrop surface utilizing (A) a bracket and plumb tube for holding, triggering, and aligning the camera on top of a telescoping aluminum pole, adjustable to 14 m in height. RTK (Real Time Kinematic) global positioning system (GPS) is used to measure the position of georeferencing control points within each image. (B) Visible geologic features are digitized on-screen to produce shape files in a geographic information system (GIS). (C) Seamless photomosaics are georeferenced into the correct position, size, and orientation.
Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research can also be postprocessed at a later time for more accurate elevations to the survey data. Digital Atlas Structure Outcrop surface mapping allows us to construct a complete range-of-scale perspective for the geology of a particular area (Fig. 4). This perspective extends from the regional scale of the state bedrock geologic map (1:500,000), through quadrangle-scale geologic maps (1:24,000), high-resolution digital aerial imagery (pixel sizes at 15 cm ground distance), outcrop surface maps and camera-pole imagery, to typical outcrop photos showing features at your feet. The incorporation of all of these maps and images within a single georeferenced coordinate space in ArcGIS provides a multiscale digital atlas structure linking global, regional, local, outcrop, and feature observations (Fig. 9). The coordinated multiscale maps, images, spatial relationships, and orientation data create a useful analytical tool to explore, investigate, and analyze, at a variety of scales, the thematic geologic features portrayed. High-resolution micro- and macrophotography can be used to extend the range-of-scale perspective to include detailed maps of microscopic features based on digital photomosaics of full thin sections. Using the thin section photomosaic as a digital “microscopy” system, brittle fault zone samples, with their multiple fault lines, veins, and an assortment of fault materials, can be easily mapped at the microscopic scale by on-screen digitizing techniques in ArcMap, zooming in to higher magnifications for accurate interpretation of the observed features. Digital Analysis Techniques Digital mapping and survey instruments, digital aerial imagery, and GIS are transforming the mapping process as well as the analysis of the collected field data. Orientation analysis. As mapping proceeds, computer stereonet plotting programs can be used to display and interpret structural orientation data. Orientation data that have been positioned and logged using handheld GPS can be easily copied from the resulting GIS shape file attribute tables and used to create stereonet plots of selected data. GIS symbol palettes allow rapid plotting of selected strike and dip or trend and plunge symbols, along with rotation of symbols to appropriate strike or trend azimuth values. Dip or plunge values can be labeled and edited for size and position relative to the chosen symbol. Strain analysis. For strain analysis of mapped features, GIS can be used to measure lengths, widths, and relative angles as well as to calculate surface areas of selected mapped polygons. These acquired values can be used to make a number of different strain calculations based on the mapped geometric relationships. These include: (1) gamma shear strain from reorientation of mapped features subjected to simple shear, (2) shortening of folded intrusions by line length comparisons, and (3) elongation associated with boudinage of more competent layers by surface area reconstruction. Spatial analysis. Analytical techniques based on geostatistics, or spatial analysis, can also be used with a variety of point
127
data such as topographic elevations or structural orientations. These spatial analysis techniques, until recently, have been considered arcane and highly specialized, but they have now become widely available on the toolbars of many commonly used desktop GIS packages, such as ArcGIS and Idrisi. Interpolation using TIN (triangular irregular network) or IDW (inter distance weighted) functions creates raster images that can be used to highlight specific spatial relationships such as slope or aspect for topography. For structural analysis, this allows the user to make spatial variation diagrams that are essentially contour maps of selected feature variations sometimes referred to as “alternate Z-value” maps. At present USM’s REU team is exploring the potential of these types of techniques in developing structural geology interpolations, and predictive surfaces for complex folding on the local and regional scales (Land et al., 2004; Kroll et al., 2008). Database Development An increasingly important component of modern field research using digital mapping techniques is the handling of enormous quantities of digital data, including supporting digital maps and imagery as well as field data created during mapping, processing, and analysis. File system. A simple folder file system in Windows XP is used to organize the project work space in the GIS Laboratory network, where students develop folders for processing, analysis, and archiving of final data files. File naming conventions are important for keeping track of data files as they are created in the field, during processing of that data into shape files for GIS, and for updating feature files as more data are added to the final shapes. File names include a two-letter island reference, which allows files to be organized alphabetically by island location, date the data was generated, instrument type, instrument ID number, and a feature reference to indicate what exactly was being surveyed. Work space folder sizes and total number of files created for each year (Fig. 10) for our nine-student research teams have increased from just a few hundred megabytes in 2002 to nearly 50 gigabytes and over 15,000 files in 2008 as techniques and resources have evolved. We expect this trend to continue with the acquisition of more extensive camera-pole imagery for more complex outcrop structure as well as the use of new LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) elevation data to aid in our regional studies. Database structure. To keep track of all field-collected and processed data files, all files are accompanied by direct metadata entry into a Microsoft Access Database using the field laptop computers. This procedure records the file name, instrument type, instrument number, features mapped, object type mapped (point, line, or polygon), datum and coordinate system used, and person(s) responsible for collecting or processing the data. This allows the research team to keep track of all of the field-generated files and to search the developing database when needed for specific files by date, instrument, feature type, or student worker. The final GIS shape files (points, lines, and polygons) for each feature type (granite intrusion polygons, foliation lines,
128
Swanson and Bampton
Figure 9. Thematic digital atlas structure for syntectonic granite intrusions linking (A) regional geology; (B) area structure; (C) local features; (D) outcrop maps; (E) camera-pole imagery; and (F) handheld feature photos through a spatial database structure in a geographic information system (GIS). BBF—Bloody Bluff Fault; CCF—Cobequid-Chedabucto Fault; CNF—Clinton-Newberry Fault; FZ—Fundy Zone; NF—Norumbega Fault; N.H.—New Hampshire.
Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research
129
abstract/poster presentations and five faculty-led abstract/poster presentations at NE section GSA meetings. The 2009 NE GSA meeting featured a symposium and theme poster session on GIS and digital techniques in the geosciences and an REU studentassisted premeeting workshop on integrated digital mapping for the general geologic community.
Figure 10. (A) Increasing number of files generated and (B) increasing size of the digital work space for successive years of the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program are typical for digital mapping, where an ever-increasing work space volume requires special data management strategies.
structural data points, etc.) created from field-generated survey data and supporting imagery are archived within the flat folder project work space. A more versatile spatial database structure, the geodatabase in ArcGIS, is also used, where final shape files are organized by location, and a map index can be browsed and zoomed in to highlight selected features and recall attributes. RESULTS OF THE REU SITE PROGRAM EFFORTS Seven years of REU team research thus far has resulted in significant progress in meeting the research and educational goals of the project. The geologic work has documented new structures and contributed to an evolving tectonic model for Norumbega deformation. Research Results REU student research teams have, to date, mapped on 16 different island and coastal field sites from Casco Bay to Muscongus Bay and explored the use and application of new digital tools and techniques while examining the crustal deformation effects of regional transpression. This work has generated 34 student-led
Student Research Research topics explored by student participants and presented as abstracts and posters have focused on three aspects of our work: (1) the use and application of digital mapping tools and development of new digital mapping techniques; (2) new geologic features and relationships revealed in the targeted field exposures; and (3) the use of GIS in new ways for the compilation and analysis of the collected field data. Use of digital mapping tools and development of new digital mapping techniques. A main thrust of our research efforts is focused on developing novel applications for the new digital mapping tools and new digital mapping techniques that can be applied to geologic and environmental field projects. These studies have included: (1) integrated digital techniques for outcrop surface mapping in structural geology (Berry et al., 2003; McBride et al., 2004; Swanson and Bampton, 2004) to describe applications to geologic field problems; (2) aerial camera-pole techniques for generating outcrop surface imagery (Verhave et al., 2005; Duwe et al., 2006; Mayhew et al., 2007; Swanson and Bampton, 2008) as a new way to create low-elevation images for detailed mapping; and (3) a database structure for digital outcrop surface mapping (Millard et al., 2005; Spaulding et al., 2006; Sigrist et al., 2008) to keep track of an increasing number of project data files generated each year. New geologic features and relationships. The geologic questions addressed by the detailed outcrop surface mapping evolved as our exploratory work progressed. Specific focus has been maintained on delineating the nature of the syntectonic granite intrusions found throughout the coastal field areas. Research has focused specifically on: (1) the nature of syntectonic granite intrusion (Jansyn et al., 2003; Doyle et al., 2004; Olson et al., 2005; Betka et al., 2006; Waters et al., 2008; Saunders et al., 2008) in relation to initially orthogonal emplacement as dikes and the subsequent strain partitioning into the shear and flattening components of the deformation; and (2) the structure of pseudotachylyte fault veins (Bates et al., 2006; Swanson, 2005) in left-lateral strike-slip faults that were discovered in several Muscongus Bay area locations. Use of GIS for compilation and analysis. This aspect of the research focused on the application of GIS and its compilation and spatial analysis capabilities to the geologic and environmental issues at hand. The majority of this work has revolved around using digital measurement techniques (angles, line lengths, and surface areas) in GIS for accurate strain analysis (elongation and
130
Swanson and Bampton
gamma shear strain) of the documented syntectonic features. These efforts have dealt specifically with: (1) strain analysis of deformed syntectonic granites (O’Kane et al., 2003; Castle et al., 2004; Benford et al., 2005; Orton et al., 2007; Swanson, 2007) to quantify the various strain components of the deformation; (2) spatial analysis of complex folding (Land et al., 2004; Plitzuweit et al., 2007; Kroll et al., 2008) using the spatial analyst tools in GIS to look at the distribution of variation in layer orientations in complexly folded terrains; and (3) environmental mapping and geomorphology (Arnold et al., 2007; Gilbert et al., 2007; Saunders et al., 2008; McBride et al., 2004; Mueller et al., 2008; Vanderberg et al., 2008; Joyner et al., 2008) as a way to tie the evolving landscape into our developing geologic work. This student-driven field research has created an extensive base of field data and observations that will support and foster the publication of significant contributions in digital mapping techniques (this paper), spatial analysis of complex structures as well as the geometry of syntectonic granite intrusions, details of strain analysis, and the nature of strain partitioning during transpressional deformation. In terms of the regional tectonics, the REU research teams have found that right-lateral (or dextral) layer-parallel shear dominates close to the main fault zone within inner Casco Bay and in a narrow kilometer-wide zone farther east away from the main fault trace in the Phippsburg shear zone (Fig. 3). Left-lateral (or sinistral) layer-parallel shear was found to dominate at Pemaquid Point and in the Muscongus Bay area even further to the east and includes rare exposures of faultrelated friction melts (pseudotachylyte) (Swanson, 2005; Bates et al., 2006) in left-lateral strike-slip faults. A tectonic model of southward extrusion of a midcoast block between zones of opposing shear sense at Phippsburg and Pemaquid (Olson et al., 2005) during regional Norumbega shearing was developed and best explains the observed kinematic patterns. Much of this midcoast block as seen in large offshore island exposures at Seguin and Salter Islands at the mouth of the Kennebec River (Plitzuweit et al., 2007; Kroll et al., 2008) and Damariscove Island off of Boothbay (Saunders et al., 2008; Waters et al., 2008) has been studied, revealing significant layer-normal shortening but little evidence for layer-parallel strike-slip shearing. Educational Results The educational goals of the project involved the research training and experiences of the participating students as well as outreach to the public in sharing the results of the students’ research. REU Skills Assessment In an effort to document the learning process in more than purely anecdotal terms, we developed an assessment instrument as a way to evaluate the program outcomes. We made a list of 46 special skills and techniques (Box 2) essential to integrated
digital mapping and the REU experience that the participating students are exposed to during the course of the program. Most of these skills are related to the use of digital instruments and GIS for field mapping and analysis, but they also include various outdoor skills, use of Brunton and stereonet, use of supporting software, and abstract/poster development. Students fill out the skills assessment sheet at the end of the summer field season, providing a self evaluation of their prior knowledge or skill level and of their knowledge and skill level after the completion of the REU summer program. This skills assessment provides a simple measure of the effectiveness of the learning process as students are exposed to the new digital field mapping techniques. The list itself highlights the versatility of these new techniques and the need for specialized training in geospatial technologies as part of the future of geologic mapping. The results of the REU 2007 skills assessment survey, for example (Fig. 11), indicate that significant learning takes place over the eight weeks of the program. The average prior skill level was 1.56 (on a scale of 0–5), and an average post-REU skill level is 3.75. This means an average skill-level increase of 2.19 for the 46 skills and techniques involved. Student responses can be grouped by category to include outdoor skills, structural geology, digital mapping, GIS, supporting software, and abstract/poster development. The lowest initial skill level (0.21) was estimated for the digital mapping component, while the highest initial skill level (2.16–2.19) was estimated for the GIS, software, and abstract/poster components of the program. Consequently, the highest average skill level increase of 3.59 came from the digital mapping skill set, with the other categories ranging from 1.38 to 2.13. The lowest post-REU skill level was estimated for the structural geology component (2.90), reflecting the overall complexity of the field area history. The highest post-REU skill level was estimated for the outdoor skills (4.10) and abstract/poster (4.06) component of the program, reflecting overall student confidence in their field and writing abilities. Public Dissemination and Education Most of the REU work is by necessity focused on publicly accessible state parks and nature preserves where significant exposures can be found as well as on private islands where permission for access has been granted. The more significant publicly accessible sites examined during the program have included Pemaquid Point Lighthouse Park (featured on the new Maine State quarter), the historic Seguin Island and Lighthouse, and the Damariscove Island Nature Preserve. These targeted field areas and their museums, informational kiosks, and summer visitors create a unique opportunity for the public dissemination of our scientific research results. Educational materials have been produced for the Seguin Island site that include maps, brochures, and summary data compilations exported from ArcMap as layered clickable .pdf files. A computer has been installed at the Seguin Island Museum as a digital kiosk to display the layered .pdf map file so that visitors can explore the many different views (aerial image, topographic, geologic, land-use features, etc.) of Seguin
Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research
131
BOX 2. SKILLS LIST FOR DIGITAL FIELD MAPPING
OUTDOOR Low-impact camping Cooking for large groups Kayak paddling strokes Rescue techniques Navigation and charts Leadership, group work STRUCTURE Brunton compass; quadrants Planar data, right-hand rule, azimuth compass Linear data as trend and plunge Stereonet program for digital orientation data Strain analysis using line length or surface area reconstruction DIGITAL MAPPING Geo XT Custom Data Dictionary 5700 RTK Measure Points Continuous Topo Mode RTK base station setup Total Station Station establishment Design survey strategy Trimble data transfer utility Trimble export as shape files utility Download procedure for imagery from MeOGIS Upload procedure to OPUS for static GPS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM Arc GIS 9 Download, format, display, and convert to shape routine for digital survey data Georeference preexisting maps Merge shape files Use ET Wizard to connect data points Plot, rotate, and label map symbols Areas of polygons Lengths of line segments Measure angles Produce TIN contours from elevation data Run Arc Scene Export as video clip Create new shape file and digitize new features in Edit Export MXD layouts as tiffs, jpegs & pdfs Personal geodatabase SOFTWARE Excel Manage and edit coordinates Adobe Photoshop for camera-pole mosaics Adobe Illustrator for poster layouts POSTER Hypothesis generation and testing Write scientific abstract Design and create scientific poster
Prior skill level
Post-REU skill level
0–5
0–5
132
Swanson and Bampton riculum, and Laboratory Improvement) grant program for the initial equipment purchases, and to University of Southern Maine (USM) for research and development funds for the purchase of the field laptop computers. Much appreciation goes to the many Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) student researchers who have contributed their efforts and enthusiasm to various aspects of this work and to the conservatory organizations and landowners who have graciously provided access to these extraordinary field sites. REFERENCES CITED
Figure 11. Skills assessment results for the 2007 Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program showing the pre- and post-REU estimated skill levels (on a scale of 0–5) as an evaluation of learning. Student responses are grouped by category to include outdoor skills, structural geology, digital mapping, geographic information systems (GIS), supporting software, and abstract/poster development.
Island in a navigable and zoomable digital format. Layered .pdf files with compiled data can easily be added to Web sites maintained by nonprofit organizations charged with the conservation of these natural areas (Friends of Seguin [Seguin Island]; Boothbay Region Land Trust [Damariscove Island], for example). CONCLUSIONS Field mapping in the twenty-first century requires an intimate knowledge of the operation, application, and limitations of a range of new digital resources, computer software, and geospatial technologies. The National Science Foundation’s Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Site Program at USM offers an adventure-based platform of hands-on exposure to a wide variety of new mapping tools and resources. Such a fully integrated multi-instrument approach provides a well-rounded introduction to these important new tools and resources. Knowledge and experience with a broad range of these new tools and techniques allow the modern-day field scientist to adjust and adapt to the specifics of new field research environments. The use of these new tools and techniques gives scientists access to previously untapped sources of new precision field data, such as highresolution imagery and outcrop surface maps, that can reveal new, never-before-seen geologic features and relationships. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks are due to the National Science Foundation for support of this Research Experiences for Undergraduates Site Program (grant 0139021 for 2002–2004; 0353601 for 2004– 2007; 0647779 for 2007–2010); to NSF’s CCLI (Course, Cur-
Arnold, T., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M.T., 2007, A 3D approach: Application of detailed topography for enhanced visualization: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 1, p. 44. Bates, A., Byars, H., McCurdy, K., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2006, Digital mapping of pseudotachylyte in the Harbor Island fault zone, East Muscongus Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 2, p. 24–25. Benford, B., Burd, A., Mason-Barton, K., Millard, M., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2005, Digital strain analysis of syntectonic veins and intrusions, eastern contact of the Waldoboro pluton, Muscongus Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 1, p. 59. Berry, L., Cooper, J., Weiss, H., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M., 2003, Integrated precision digital mapping techniques for structural geology in Casco Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35, no. 3, p. 94. Betka, P., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2006, Digital mapping techniques used to correlate left-lateral shear with the emplacement of the Waldoboro pluton, Muscongus Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 2, p. 92–93. Bothner, W., and Hussey, A.M., II, 1999, Norumbega connections: Casco Bay, Maine to Massachusetts?, in Ludman, A., and West, D.P., Jr., eds., Norumbega Fault System of the Northern Appalachians: Geological Society of America Special Paper 331, p. 59–72. Castle, N., Heffron, E., McCoog, M., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2004, Strain analysis of syntectonic granite intrusions east of the Norumbega fault zone at Pemaquid Point, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 2, p. 101. Di Toro, G., and Pennacchioni, G., 2005, Fault plane processes and mesoscopic structure of a strong-type earthquake fault in tonalites (Adamello batholith, Southern Alps): Tectonophysics, v. 402, p. 55–80, doi: 10.1016/j .tecto.2004.12.036. Doyle, J., Kiser, B., Newton, M., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2004, Syntectonic granites and transpressional deformation Muscongus Bay, coastal Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 2, p. 101. Duwe, J., Rich, J., Robinson, T., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M., 2006, 3D virtual outcrop: Conception, construction and application: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 2, p. 25. Gilbert, A., Tragert, C., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M., 2007, Seguin Island: The use of digital mapping techniques in environmental analysis: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 1, p. 100. Guertin, L.A., 2006, Integrating handheld technology with field investigations in introductory-level geoscience courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 143–146. Hubbard, M., 1999, Norumbega fault zone: Part of an orogen-parallel strikeslip system, northern Appalachians, in Ludman, A., and West, D.P., Jr., eds., Norumbega Fault System of the Northern Appalachians: Geological Society of America Special Paper 331, p. 155–166. Hussey, A.M., II, 1988, Lithotectonic stratigraphy, deformation, plutonism and metamorphism, greater Casco Bay region, southwestern Maine, in Tucker, R.D., and Marvinney, R.G., eds., Studies in Maine Geology: Volume 1. Structure and Stratigraphy: Augusta, Maine Geological Survey, p. 17–34. Hussey, A.M., II, and Berry, H., 2002, Bedrock Geology of the Bath 1:100,000 Quadrangle, Maine: Maine Geological Survey Geologic Map 02-152 and Bulletin 42, scale 1:100,000.
Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research Jackson, C.T., 1838, Second Report on the Geology of the State of Maine: Augusta, Luther Severance, 168 p. Jansyn, S., Szafranski, J., Stone, S., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2003, Syntectonic granite intrusions and the Norumbega fault system, Casco Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35, no. 3, p. 93. Joyner, A., Pasay, L., Vanderberg, J., Sigrist, B., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M., 2008, High-resolution mapping of environmental geology on Damariscove Island, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 2, p. 7. Kroll, K., Swanson, M.T., and Bampton, M., 2008, Spatial analysis of complex fold structures on Seguin Island, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 2, p. 23. Land, A., Swanson, M., Bampton, M., and Davis, S., 2004, Alternate z-value surface analysis of fabric orientation in regional transpression related to dextral Norumbega shearing, mid-coast Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 2, p. 101. Ludman, A., and West, D.P., Jr., eds., 1999, Norumbega Fault System of the Northern Appalachians: Geological Society of America Special Paper 331, 202 p. Mayhew, J., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2007, Strain analysis of highly sheared granites, inner Casco Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 1, p. 77. McBride, M., Taylor, C., Witcoski, J., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2004, Techniques for integrated precision digital mapping at Pemaquid Point, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 2, p. 100. McCaffrey, K.J.W., Jones, R.R., Holdsworth, R.E., Wilson, R.W., Clegg, P., Imber, J., Hollman, N., and Trinks, I., 2005, Unlocking the spatial dimension: Digital technologies and the future of geoscience field work: Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 162, p. 927–938, doi: 10.1144/0016-764905-017. McKenzie, M.D., 2000, How are adventure education program outcomes achieved?: A review of the literature: Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, v. 5, no. 1, p. 19–28. Menking, K., and Stewart, M.E., 2007, Using mobile mapping to determine rates of meander migration in an undergraduate geomorphology course: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, no. 2, p. 147. Millard, M., Archer, K., Mason-Barton, K., Gerhold, M., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2005, GIS data structure for geologic mapping using integrated precision digital techniques: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 1, p. 58. Mueller, P., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M.T., 2008, Using GIS to develop effective dissemination strategies: Designing a digital kiosk for the natural and cultural history of Seguin Island, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 2, p. 72. National Research Council, 2006a, Learning to Think Spatially: The Incorporation of Geographic Information Science across the K–12 Curriculum: Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 332 p. National Research Council, 2006b, Beyond Mapping: Meeting National Needs through Enhanced Geographic Information Science: Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 116 p. Neumann, K., and Kutis, M., 2006, Mobile GIS in geologic mapping exercises: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 147–152. O’Kane, A., Melendez, C., Beal, H., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2003, Strain analysis of syntectonic granite intrusions deformed by Norumbega shearing, Casco Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35, no. 3, p. 93. Olson, N., Archer, K., Gerhold, M., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2005, Digital mapping techniques to delineate left-lateral shear at the eastern contact of the Waldoboro pluton, Muscongus Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 1, p. 58–59. Orton, S., Maddox, L., Martin, C., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2007, Digital strain analysis of deformed syntectonic granites at Salter Island, ME: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 1, p. 77. Osberg, P., Hussey, A.M., and Boone, G.M., 1985, Bedrock Geologic Map: Augusta, Maine Geological Survey, scale 1:500,000.
133
Plitzuweit, S., Rajter, D., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2007, Using digital techniques to study complex folding on Seguin and Salter Islands, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 1, p. 77. Priest, S., and Gass, M.A., 2005, Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming: Champaign, Illinois, Human Kinetics Publishers, 344 p. Saunders, R., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2008, The post-emplacement deformational history of granite intrusions: The quarries of Damariscove Island, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 2, p. 23–24. Sigrist, B., Mueller, P., Joyner, A., Mosher, R., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M.T., 2008, Design and implementation of a NADM compliant data model for regional to outcrop scale geologic mapping projects: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 2, p. 71. Spaulding, A., Ofsevit, A., Byars, H.E., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M.T., 2006, Geodatabase: The next step in data management?: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 2, p. 25. Swanson, M.T., 1983, Continuous outcrop mapping within the Mesozoic eastern New England dike swarm of southern coastal Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 15, no. 6, p. 703. Swanson, M.T., 1992, Late Acadian–Alleghenian transpressional deformation: Evidence from asymmetric boudinage in the Casco Bay area: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 14, p. 323–341, doi: 10.1016/0191-8141(92)90090-J. Swanson, M.T., 1994, Minimum dextral shear strain estimates in the Casco Bay area of coastal Maine from vein reorientation and elongation: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 26, no. 3, p. 75. Swanson, M.T., 1999a, Kinematic indicators for dextral shearing along the Casco Bay section of the Norumbega fault zone, coastal Maine, in Ludman, A., and West, D.P., Jr., eds., Norumbega Fault System of the Northern Appalachians: Geological Society of America Special Paper 331, p. 1–24. Swanson, M.T., 1999b, Dextral transpression at the Casco Bay restraining bend, Norumbega fault zone, coastal Maine, in Ludman, A., and West, D.P., Jr., eds., Norumbega Fault System of the Northern Appalachians: Geological Society of America Special Paper 331, p. 85–104. Swanson, M.T., 2005, Digital mapping in a new pseudotachylyte locality from the Harbor Island fault zone, Muscongus Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 1, p. 59. Swanson, M.T., 2006, Late Paleozoic strike-slip faults and related vein arrays of Cape Elizabeth, Maine: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 28, p. 456–473, doi: 10.1016/j.jsg.2005.12.009. Swanson, M.T., 2007, Strain partitioning during transpressional deformation: Evidence from boudin partings, quartz veins, and granite intrusions: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 1, p. 97. Swanson, M.T., and Bampton, M., 2004, Precision digital mapping techniques used to study multi-scale crustal processes: An integrated GIS-based approach: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 2, p. 49. Swanson, M.T., and Bampton, M., 2008, Digital camera-pole photography: A useful research tool for outcrop surface mapping of mesoscale structures: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 2, p. 71. Swanson, M.T., Francis, B., Cooper, J., and Bampton, M., 2002, All-digital outcrop mapping at Hiram Falls, Saco River, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, no. 1, p. A-68. Vanderberg, J., Joyner, A., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M., 2008, High-resolution GIS analysis of palimpsest glacial features in a marginal glacial environment: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 2, p. 68. Verhave, A., Wanless, S., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2005, Applications of georeferenced precision photography to digital outcrop surface mapping: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, p. 1, p. 58. Waters, L., Young, K., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2008, Digital mapping of the syntectonic Damariscove granitic dike intrusion complex of midcoast Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 2, p. 23. Winchester, S., 2001, The Map That Changed the World: William Smith and the Birth of Modern Geology: New York, Harper Collins, 329 p. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options Robert L. Bauer Department of Geological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA Donald I. Siegel Department of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244-1070, USA Eric A. Sandvol Department of Geological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA Laura K. Lautz Department of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244-1070, USA
Bauer et al. reinforce lessons learned during traditional field projects. We present the results of student surveys that have been used to evaluate the success of these efforts, and we discuss the personnel and equipment expenses required.
INTRODUCTION Geology summer field camps give upper-division undergraduate geoscience students intensive instruction and field experience and integrate standard coursework into a field setting. Historically, this integration has involved geologic mapping and three-dimensional subsurface interpretations in a wide range of geologic terrains. However, today’s geoscience curricula are more multidisciplinary, and many programs commonly incorporate hydrology, aqueous geochemistry, and geophysics. Although the majority of geology field camps continue to place strong emphasis on traditional field mapping, increasing numbers of field programs now offer projects in hydrology, geophysics, and environmental geology (e.g., McKay and Kammer, 1999; Baker, 2006), and some programs integrate various new technologies into these projects or the field mapping process (e.g., Knoop et al., 2007; Swanson and Bampton, this volume; Whitmeyer et al., this volume). Two of the principal challenges when adding such components are: (1) to achieve a balanced curriculum that provides sufficiently broad field instruction while integrating new topics and techniques, and (2) to accommodate differences in the coursework that students have completed prior to beginning the field camp. Some field camps accommodate the second challenge by specializing in hydrology, geophysics, or environmental geology—avoiding any pretense of a broad field curriculum— and requiring that students have the prerequisite courses in the specialty subject. However, we asked: how and to what degree can both of these challenges be met? Over the past 10 yr, the University of Missouri has introduced a series of hydrology, aqueous geochemistry, and geophysics exercises into our six-week course in an effort to broaden our curriculum and overcome both of these challenges. Our course continues to emphasize traditional aspects of field geology and regional geology during the first four weeks. However, we have also developed instructional modules for the last two weeks that serve the interests and abilities of students that have little or no previous course work in hydrology and geophysics, as well as students who have previous background courses in these subjects and/or who have advanced interests in hydrology or geophysics. The fifth week of the course includes instruction and projects in surface and groundwater hydrology, seismic refraction, stream terrace mapping, and hard-rock structural analysis. Although structural geology is a course prerequisite, courses in hydrogeology, geophysics, and geomorphology are not required. As a result, the instruction during the fifth week provides considerable fundamental background for the projects. During the sixth week of the course, we offer a series of advanced options: students have the choice of completing advanced projects in hard-rock structural analysis, seismic reflection, refraction, and
tomography studies, or groundwater and surface water hydrology. This paper describes our fifth- and sixth-week projects with emphasis on the hydrology and geophysics projects. To provide a course context for the addition of this new material, we describe our instructional philosophy, our basic course curriculum, and the ways in which we have integrated geophysics and hydrology into a traditional geology field course. As a basis for general comparison with other field courses, our course operates from a permanent residential base camp that includes a laboratory where students complete their project reports, and computer facilities that include satellite broadband access. We accept a maximum of 40 students for our six-week course, which has prerequisites of structural geology, historical geology, sedimentology, and mineralogy. Typically, less than one third of the students are from our department, and the remainder of participants come from other departments across the country and the state of Missouri. All students pay the same fees. The students work 6 d per week. Faculty members generally rotate into the course for two-week periods to teach projects in their research specialties. Most field projects are completed at sites within a 45 min drive from the camp, but the curriculum also includes a 4 d instructional trip through Teton and Yellowstone National Parks, and adjacent areas of the Snake River Plain and Beartooth Mountains. FIELD SETTING FOR OUR PROJECTS The Branson Field Station is located in Sinks Canyon in the foothills of the Wind River Mountains near Lander, Wyoming, ~200 km southeast of Yellowstone National Park (Fig. 1). The immediate field areas provide a wide variety of rock units and deformation features that form the basis for our field instruction and projects. The rock section includes exposures ranging from Precambrian granite-greenstone belts through most of the Paleozoic (not including Silurian), Mesozoic, and Tertiary stratigraphic sections (Fig. 2). The Wind River Mountains were deformed by basementinvolved uplift during the Laramide orogeny (ca. 75–51 Ma in Wyoming), which exposed the Precambrian core of the range and tilted the overlying Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata to the northeast, dipping into the adjacent Wind River basin (e.g., Keefer, 1970). Our field station is located near the Precambrian-Paleozoic contact within the steep-walled Pleistocene glacial valley containing the Middle Fork of the Popo Agie River. Several doubly plunging, en echelon anticlines, which formed during the Laramide uplift of the range, occur along the southwestern margin of the Wind River basin within ~25 km of our camp. These anticlines fold Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata and trend subparallel to the northwest-southeast trend of the Wind River Mountains
Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options
A
o
o
110 W
104 W
137
B
o
45 N
o
41 N
Age in millions of years
Map Explanation
N
CENOZOIC IGNEOUS ROCKS Quaternary, Pliocene and Miocene rhyolite and basalt; some intrusives Upper Tertiary to Cretaceous (?) intrusive rocks; some extrusives Eocene Absaroka Volcanic Supergroup
100 km
SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS Cenozoic Quaternary unconsolidated sediments
C
N
Absaroka Mountains
Lower Quaternary, Pliocene, and Miocene Oligocene Middle Eocene; some Upper Eocene Lower Eocene Paleocene Mesozoic
ind
Upper Cretaceous
ve
Pinedale
rM
Jurassic, some Lower Cretaceous
s
~ 543 IGNEOUS AND METAMORPHIC ROCKS Precambrian
1,400 2,500
Major unconformity Middle Proterozoic intrusive rocks
Early Proterozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks
ain
Wind River thrust
Lander Camp Dallas dome Branson Derby dome
nt
Paleozoic Permian and Pennsylvanian; some Mississippian and Triassic Cambrian, Ordovician, Devonian, and Mississippian
ou
Triassic
245
Riverton
Ri
Upper and Lower Cretaceous Lower Cretaceous; some Jurassic
Wind River basin
W
66.4
100 km
Sheep mountain
Red Canyon South Pass greenstone belt
Archean igneous and metamorphic rocks MAJOR FAULTS Fault (dotted where concealed) Thrust fault (teeth on upper plate)
Figure 1. (A) Geologic index map of the state of Wyoming showing the outline of the area containing the Wind River Mountains (after Roberts, 1989). (B) Geologic map of the Wind River Mountains and adjacent areas of the Wind River basin. (C) Map overlay of B showing the location of the major features discussed in the text.
P
P P P
M M M M
S
M
P
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Figure 2. Stratigraphic section exposed in the Wind River Mountains and adjacent parts of the Wind River basin. M—units that are included in major mapping projects; P—units that are studied during major sedimentation and stratigraphy projects; S—units that are examined in the field for their stratigraphic and regional historical significance. Pleistocene units not shown in the section were also included in a mapping exercise.
S
S
S
S
M
M
M
M
138
Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options (e.g., Willis and Groshong, 1993). The folds range from 8 to 15 km long and contain numerous normal and reverse faults produced during the Laramide folding. Two of these folds, Dallas dome and Derby dome (Fig. 1C), have well-exposed faulted and folded Mesozoic sections, and serve as field sites for several of our stratigraphy, sedimentation, geologic mapping, and advanced geophysics projects. Exposures of deformed and metamorphosed rocks of the South Pass greenstone belt (cf. Figs. 1B and 1C) occur in the uplifted Precambrian core of the range, and these exposures provide field sites for our hard-rock projects in structural analysis and mapping of igneous and metamorphic rocks. By the end of the Tertiary, the Wind River basin was filled with Tertiary sediment eroded from the adjacent uplifted mountain ranges and with interlayers of volcanic ash from the Eocene Absaroka volcanic field to the north-northwest of the basin (Fig. 1). The result was a landscape of relatively low relief (e.g., Mears, 1993). Subsequently, late Cenozoic regional uplift or regional climate change (cf. Epis and Chapin, 1975; Gregory and Chase, 1994; Riihimaki et al., 2007) resulted in exhumation of much of the Wind River basin by the Wind River and its tributary streams. This process produced the current relief between the basins and adjacent ranges and also exposed numerous angular unconformities between the relatively flat-lying Tertiary strata and the underlying Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata dipping off of the uplifted core of the Wind River Mountains. Our instruction and projects in sedimentology, stream terrace mapping, hydrology, and geophysics take advantage of these exposed relationships and/or the associated stream systems. Although our project settings are primarily geologic, we also take advantage of our location near the towns of Lander and Riverton, Wyoming, and nearby mining operations in Fremont County to help our students appreciate the societal implications of field geology. For instance, our groundwater and geophysics projects have examined the relationship of municipal water quality and waste disposal to the local geology. Students also learn how field geologists working for the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality in Lander oversee mine reclamation in abandoned iron and gold mines in the area. INSTRUCTIONAL PHILOSOPHY Geoscience students have a fairly broad spectrum of geology field courses from which to choose. These range from courses that concentrate primarily on traditional field mapping, to specialty courses in hydrology, geophysics, or environmental geology, and courses that broadly integrate field computers and geographic information system (GIS) technologies into the mapping process. Our basic course philosophy has been to give students a broad diversity of field problem-solving experiences while still providing thorough training in field geologic mapping. We have continued this philosophy with the addition of our advanced course options by working to integrate mapping and subsurface interpretation techniques into the more instrumented data gathering and analysis that are associated with the advanced projects.
139
Beyond this general philosophy, we have developed our own philosophies about field and laboratory instruction, field mapping, and technology integration. Field and Laboratory Instruction Our primary instructional goal is to teach field-oriented problem solving that reinforces critical work skills. We emphasize five-dimensional problem solving—understanding the three physical dimensions of geological features, the way these features have developed with time, and the processes responsible for the observed features over time. We emphasize this approach in all of our projects, and students are asked to address each dimension in their project reports. The general work skills that we promote include cooperative group work, effective time management, report writing skills, and dealing with uncertainty by considering interpretations with incomplete data. All of our projects are conducted in groups that usually include three students. Groups change with each project to allow students to work with other students of varying interests, expertise, and abilities. This approach promotes cooperative learning among the students, provides for field safety, and allows us to group students with different academic and physical strengths. As in any work situation, group dynamics and abilities will vary, but we do find that collaborative learning increases students’ involvement in the learning process. When students share and discuss their ideas, their thinking about the projects is enhanced and their understanding deepens. Group projects make up 50% of the students grade, and three individual exams make up the remaining 50%. The diversity of students within a group may lead to uneven work efforts (reflecting a real-world work environment), but the grading system rewards those who are the active learners. Most of our projects include full field days (6 d/wk) combined with evening data analysis or report writing in a laboratory setting using group laptop computers for project completion. Longer projects may include an entire day in the laboratory preparing reports. Strict time constraints for project completion require that the groups develop effective group time management. Geologists, probably more than other scientists and engineers, are commonly called upon to make interpretations based on incomplete data. This is particularly true in the development of structural cross sections and three-dimensional (3-D) interpretations of the subsurface from geologic maps (e.g., Groshong, 2006), but it is also common in hydrologic and geophysical interpretations. We discuss techniques for making subsurface interpretations and cross sections from geologic maps, and instructors work individually with student groups to help them understand the process of making reasoned interpretations when faced with limited data. Part of our instructional philosophy includes hiring instructors to teach projects in their areas of specialization. For the 40 students that we instruct during our course, we typically hire a cadre of eight to ten faculty members and three teaching assistants. Faculty members and teaching assistants come from a
140
Bauer et al.
variety of institutions; generally less than half of the instructors are from the University of Missouri faculty. Most of the faculty members teach over two-week periods. Generally, at least five instructors (faculty and teaching assistants) are in the field with student groups during the projects. The project areas are wellexposed exemplary areas for the problems addressed, and they are well-known to the instructors. We promote instructor-student interactions in the field and prompt feedback to students upon completion of the projects. Lectures to set up and provide background for the projects are presented in our laboratory just prior to the projects. Lecture materials are made available to students as handouts that can be stored in their course binders, and they are also available for review on the desktop computers in our field camp laboratory.
the effective use of these technologies and associated software. Although most students are already familiar with laptop computers and the commonly available software noted here, at this point, few students come to field camp already familiar with GIS or map preparation software, or with the hardware and software used for real-time computer-assisted field mapping. Relative to our general objective of exposing students to as many different types of relevant field experiences as possible, we have decided that taking time to instruct students in the use of such rapidly evolving technologies is not a priority at this point. Students who consider exposure to these technologies as an educational priority have several field camp options that provide this experience (e.g., Knoop et al., 2007; Swanson and Bampton, this volume; Whitmeyer et al., this volume).
Field Mapping
TRADITIONAL COURSE CURRICULUM— WEEKS ONE THROUGH FOUR
Traditional field geologic mapping continues to be a prominent component of our field course. Our students use paper topographic maps and registered paper orthophotos as base maps. The mapped areas are well exposed and allow students to draw map-unit contacts on the topographic maps as contacts are viewed either from a distance or along traverses. Each project group also has a handheld global positioning system (GPS) receiver to record UTM coordinates of specific station locations or to reinforce location decisions, but we strongly emphasize the reading of topographic maps, the use of the Brunton compass, and the integration of orthophotos as the primary mapping tools. We believe that this is the best approach to help students develop the three-dimensional perspective that is so critical to geologists, geophysicists, and hydrogeologists. We emphasize that the geologic map is an interpretation of field data and observations, and it serves as the basis for subsurface interpretations and “fivedimensional” hypothesis testing. Integrating Technology We have embraced the use of various technologies to enhance our data collection, analysis, and report writing for various projects. Each project group has a notebook computer available for compilation and analysis of field data in the laboratory. Programs available on these computers and several desktop computers in our laboratory include commonly available software such as spreadsheet, word-processing, and photo editor programs. We have satellite broadband access and a local wireless network that allows students to download remote data sets and print to networked printers. We also use project-specific equipment and several specialty programs in our advanced geophysics, hydrology, and structural analysis projects. Nevertheless, we have not attempted to integrate technologies for recording general project notes or data in the field (e.g., using tablet or handheld computers), or for the field mapping or the map preparation process. The principal factor that influenced this decision is the time required to instruct students in
The first four weeks of our course (Table 1) include as series of instructional sessions and field projects that: (1) review basic field methods and introduce students to the Mesozoic and Paleozoic sections, (2) provide projects that help students understand the sedimentation histories and processes that produced the sedimentary sections, (3) teach students how to map folded and faulted sedimentary rocks, and (4) include field mapping projects in the deformed Mesozoic section (Fig. 2). Following the mapping projects, the students receive a day of field review and feedback in the area of the last mapping project, and, finally, all students complete an individual 1 d field mapping exam. All of our projects are discussed in a regional geologic context. To set up this context, faculty members present a series of evening lectures on: the regional geology and geologic history of Wyoming, deformation styles during the Laramide and Sevier orogenies, the geologic history of northwestern Wyoming, tectonic history of the Snake River Plain and Yellowstone hotspot, and the Pleistocene glacial history of northwestern Wyoming. The culmination of the lecture series is a 4 d instructional tour of the geology of Teton and Yellowstone National Parks and adjacent areas of the Snake River Plain and Beartooth Mountains, which follows shortly after the field mapping exam. WEEK FIVE INSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS Philosophy and Logistics Our fifth week of instruction begins shortly after students return from their 4 d trip through northwestern Wyoming and adjacent areas. The general objective during this week is to instruct the students in a broad range of projects in areas that are not covered by our basic prerequisite courses. During this week, we place particular emphasis on hydrology and geophysics to help the students understand water-related environmental problems and their relationship to the surface and subsurface geology of the area (Table 2). We emphasize the five-dimensional
Week 1
Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF THE TRADITIONAL FIELD CAMP PROJECTS AND INSTRUCTION INCLUDED DURING THE FIRST FOUR WEEKS OF THE COURSE Projects Objectives Units/features/location Pace and compass methods Become familiar with field methods Section reconnaissance Learn stratigraphic sections All Paleozoic and Mesozoic units Sedimentary structures Recognize/interpret structures Mesa Verde Formation Sedimentary facies Interpret sedimentary facies Mesa Verde Formation Tertiary unconformity
Week 3
Week 2
Section measurement
Week 4
141
Paleocurrent analysis Mapping folded and faulted sedimentary rocks Map evaluation Mapping folded and faulted sedimentary rocks Review of the map area Field exam Mine reclamation tour Wyoming geotour (4 d)
Observe Tertiary sedimentary facies and their tectonic implications Learn to measure and describe sedimentary units, draw section Learn paleocurrent techniques Mapping instruction/techniques
Tertiary units and unconformity
Individual group evaluations
Camp laboratory
Learn from the mapping experience, produce maps and cross sections Participate in half-day field review of the area just mapped
Derby Dome–Mesozoic units
Individual test of mapping skills Learn how geologists oversee the mine reclamation process Show and discuss features of the geologic history of northwestern Wyoming and adjacent areas
Previously unseen area Atlantic City Mine
approach that we used during the previous course projects and that continues to provide students with a mental framework to relate hydrologic and geophysical interpretations to surface and subsurface geological environments (Siegel, 2002). We strive to underscore the association between subsurface geometries and 3-D hydrologic systems through field exercises that are organized around the core concept of 3-D visualization the students learn from field mapping. The projects during the fifth week each include a day in the field studying: surface water hydrology, groundwater hydrology, seismic refraction, stream terrace mapping, and structural analysis in igneous and metamorphic rocks. The first four projects are completed over a 4 d field period on property owned by The Nature Conservancy in the picturesque Red Canyon (RC) area (Fig. 3, located on Figs. 1C and 4). The setting lies along the Paleozoic-Mesozoic boundary between the upper Phosphoria Formation (Permian) and the lower Red Peak Formation of the Chugwater Group (Triassic). The location includes the confluence of two streams, Red Canyon Creek and Cherry Creek (Fig. 4), and includes a series of Pleistocene glaciofluvial terraces. Each of the Red Canyon area projects is run by a faculty member, and all of the projects are conducted on each of the four field days. The student groups (of three students each) are combined into four “supergroups” made up of three or four of the student groups. Each supergroup is assigned to one of the four Red Canyon projects on a given day, and each supergroup receives a morning lecture and instruction prior to traveling to the field site to collect data and make observations for the projects. The hydrology and geophysics project reports are due by 10:00 p.m. on the day of their assignment. All groups have a full day at the
Sundance & Gypsum Springs Derby and Dallas domes Nugget Sandstone Dallas Dome–Mesozoic units
Derby Dome–Mesozoic units
Teton, Yellowstone Parks, Snake River Plain, Beartooth Mtns, Absaroka Mtns
end of the 4 d project period in which to prepare their maps and reports for the terrace mapping project. The structural analysis project is completed by all of the student groups on the last day of the project week at a location in the Precambrian South Pass greenstone belt (Fig. 1C) and is due by 10:00 p.m. on the day of the assignment. The hydrology, geophysics, and surficial mapping projects that are now covered during the fifth week replaced an extensive mapping project in the Paleozoic section and a more extensive hard-rock mapping and structural analysis project than we now include during week five (Table 2). Since the new materials developed for this week are primarily associated with the hydrology and geophysics projects, the following sections concentrate on these subjects. Hydrology Projects The hydrology exercises emphasize fundamental field and instrumental skills, data collection, and data interpretation that are common to a wide range of hydrologic and geochemical studies in a 3-D setting (Siegel, 2008). Red Canyon creek flows through a spectacular valley along the contact between a thick sequence of Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks that dip off of the uplifted core of the Wind River Mountains (Figs. 3 and 4). The climate is semiarid, which is typical of western Wyoming. Most precipitation occurs during the winter, and snowmelt provides most of the water to rivers in the region. The field site is located on The Nature Conservancy property where Red Canyon Creek meanders through a series of stepped dams that are separated by narrow downcut channels. The water from the
Week 6 (new)
Week 6 (old)
Week 5 (new)
Week 5 (old)
142
Bauer et al. TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF THE NEW FIFTH- AND SIXTH-WEEK PROJECTS AND THE PROJECTS THAT THEY REPLACED Projects (old vs. new) Objectives Units/features/location Mapping folded and faulted sedimentary Provide more mapping experience Paleozoic section that includes different rocks Exposure to mapping different rock units and faulting and folding mechanisms than the different fault and fold geometries previous map areas—Sheep Mountain Analysis of deformation fabrics in igneous and metamorphic rocks
Learn to map igneous and metamorphic rocks, record and analyze deformation fabrics
Folded Precambrian gneiss and schist with variable deformation fabrics—Sheep Mountain
Surface-water hydrology Groundwater hydrology
Expose students to a broad range of surfacewater and groundwater monitoring techniques to illustrate surface-groundwater interactions
Floodplain of Red Canyon Creek reworking the lower part of the Triassic Chugwater Group
Shallow seismic refraction
Introduce shallow seismic techniques and their relationship to local stratigraphy and groundwater
(Same location as above)
Stream terrace mapping
Introduce surficial mapping techniques
Red Canyon glaciofluvial terraces
Analysis of deformation fabrics in igneous and metamorphic rocks
Learn to record and analyze deformation fabrics produced during folding and boudinage
Folded schist and boudinaged granitic layers in the roof area of a granite pluton—South Pass greenstone belt
Mapping and structural analysis of folded and faulted schist intruded by granite and mafic dikes
Learn to map igneous and metamorphic rocks and large-scale folding without stratigraphy. Record and analyze deformation fabrics as an aid to regional deformation geometries and deformation–metamorphism history
South Pass greenstone belt Precambrian amphibolite-facies schist intruded by two igneous units and mafic dikes
Option 1. Same as the old sixth-week project
Same as the old sixth-week project
Same as the old sixth-week project
Option 2. Advanced hydrology
Expose students to a variety of “real-world” hydrology problems (examples described in the text)
Varies depending on opportunities in a given year (example locations described in the text)
Option 3. Advanced geophysics
Expose students to a variety of “real-world” seismic problems (examples described in the text)
Varies depending on opportunities in a given year (example locations described in the text)
sively expand our project area (Fig. 4). The projects that we have developed are designed to give students a broad understanding of surface water–groundwater interactions in arid mountain environments, and they are often linked to large-scale research projects (Lautz et al., 2006; Lautz and Siegel, 2006; Lautz and Siegel, 2007; Fanelli and Lautz, 2008; Lautz and Fanelli, 2008). The three days of surface water, groundwater, and geophysics projects include: water-table mapping, water-quality sampling, shallow seismic-refraction imaging, single-aquifer testing techniques and data analysis, stream gauging, and tracer tests. We are able to logistically compress these experiences within a short time frame because the diversity of stream-groundwater interaction at our site occurs over a relatively restricted area. Students measure water level elevations in the 35 monitoring wells and mini-piezometers installed in an ~2-acre meadow adjacent to a meander of Red Canyon Creek. From these water levels, students construct a water-table map, focusing on the way that contours change as they cross the creek under different groundwater–surface-water settings, which change from year to year. Students use water-height differences between the stream and
Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options
Red Canyon project proj o ect ar area ea Nugget Sandstone Nugg Nu gg gett San S nds dsto tone one ne
Phosphoria Formation
C Ch hugwa ug gwa w te er Gr G rou up Chugwater Group Red Canyon Creek R Re d Ca C any yon o C Cre rre eek ek
143
Figure 3. Red Canyon viewed to the northwest from Wyoming Highway 28 overlook showing the location of the Red Canyon project areas in the distance and Red Canyon Creek in the foreground. The rock units shown are dipping to northeast (to the right) into the Wind River basin off of the uplifted Precambrian core of the range. The flat-lying mesa above the project area is capped by Tertiary sediment, illustrating the angular unconformity described in the text. The distance from the location of the photographer to the study area is ~9 km.
Geologic Map Explanation alluvium and colluvium
N
White River Formation
B
Nugget Sandstone Chugwater Group and Dinwoody Formation Phosphoria Formation Tensleep Sandstone and Amsden Formation
Figure 4. (A) Bedrock geologic map of the Red Canyon area showing the location of the Red Canyon project site near the intersection of Red Canyon Creek and Cherry Creek. The “X” on the southeast side of the bedrock map is the location from which Figure 3 was photographed, facing northwest. This point is located at 42°36′13″N, 108°35′52″W. (B) Map of the Red Canyon field site showing the distribution of wells and instrumentation on The Nature Conservancy (TNC) property. Fm—Formation; Ls—Limestone; Ss—Sandstone.
144
Bauer et al.
inside the mini-piezometers in the streambed (i.e., the hydraulic gradient) to identify segments of gain and loss along the creek. Students measure discharge along Red Canyon Creek using multiple methods, including stage-discharge relationships around flow-control structures, velocity-area methods of varying complexity, and dilution gauging. By using multiple methods, students learn several techniques commonly used in professional settings, get exposure to a variety of field equipment, and engage in discussion of precision and accuracy of various methods. In 2005, we installed a Parshall flume at the site to measure water height and stream discharge year-round (Fig. 5). Flumes and other similar structures, including weirs, have prescribed rating curves that describe the relationship between water height and discharge. Using these rating curves, student measurements of water height are easily converted to stream discharge in a manner similar to that used by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) at gauging sites across the country. Students then compare the stream flow rate derived from the flume to values derived from current meter measurements and dilution gauging. For the current meter measurements, we use a Marsh-McBirney Flo-Mate 2000, which is a top-of-the-line meter that relies on
electromagnetics for velocity measurements. For dilution gauging, we purchased an Opti-Sciences GFL-1 Flow-through Field Fluorometer to continuously measure the concentration of Rhodamine WT, a fluorescent surface-water tracer, in the stream during tracer tests. The students are exposed to cutting-edge technology and get experience programming, using, and extracting data from these instruments. Students measure hydraulic conductivity from slug tests in the wells, and they use their results, along with hydraulic gradients they measure from their water-table maps, to calculate groundwater discharge (Q) and velocity (v) using Darcy’s law, both horizontally across the stream and vertically up or down through the streambed (from the mini-piezometer data). We address the water-chemistry aspects in both groundwater and surface water by using chemical analysis ampoule kits (Chemetrics). The students measure dissolved oxygen and iron in the field and alkalinity and total and calcium hardness in the laboratory later. They also measure field pH and specific conductance in the field using WTW 340i multiparameter probes. All of these chemical parameters are then used to determine major water-rock interactions through bivariate plots (e.g., based on mass action equation stoichiometry), coupled with reasonable assumptions about the remaining solutes in the waters. The systems we investigate have low concentrations of Na and Cl, for example, and these can either be neglected as a first approximation for much of the analysis, or they can be calculated by charge balance difference from the concentrations of cations and anions we measure. We particularly focus on the way in which organic matter in streambeds and/or groundwater changes the oxidationreduction potential of water and how this changes water chemistry (Siegel, 2008). We use bivariate plots to distinguish gypsum dissolution from calcite dissolution. Geophysics Project
Figure 5. Students measuring stream discharge using the float method (one type of velocity-area measurement), just downstream of Parshall flume.
Students complete their shallow seismic-refraction exercise on the floodplain of Red Canyon Creek adjacent to the hydrology project areas. The broader instructional objective of this exercise is to give all of the students, especially to those who have not had a geophysics course, a basic background in seismic waves and how they can be used to image Earth’s interior (even the shallow subsurface). The local objective is to determine whether seismicrefraction techniques can be used to image the shallow floodplain strata or the groundwater table. The seismic data are collected using a 32-channel Geode Seismic Data Acquisitions system with a sledgehammer as the source. The students are required to design their own seismic profile that will be able to image relatively shallow seismic boundaries (1.5–2 m deep) beneath the floodplain. The students deploy 32 geophones and collect the data entirely themselves. After collecting the data, the students determine the number of layers that the data support using an interactive computer program on laptop computers to determine the traveltime of the first arriving P waves. The students then calculate the velocities
Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options and layer thicknesses for each of the layers in their model using simple ray theory calculations. This technique is presented during the project’s introductory lecture, and the students make this determination without the use of computer software, allowing them to develop a better understanding of principles of seismic wave propagation. After formulating a simple one-dimensional seismic velocity model that best fits the data, the students are required to interpret their velocity model. Because the students are conducting their seismic experiment at the same field site as the ongoing hydrology projects, they can use their measurements of groundwater depth to interpret their seismic velocity models. The water table generally causes the largest velocity change at this site, so the students are typically able to see how the shallow geophysical measurements can be integrated with the hydrology projects that they are also completing. Terrace Mapping The glaciofluvial terraces in Red Canyon, adjacent to the hydrology and geophysics project sites, provide the setting for a surficial mapping project that introduces students to basic aspects of stream geomorphology, to concepts of stream equilibrium and terrace formation, and to concepts of relative age determination in surficial deposits. The project is set up in a consultant-client context in which The Nature Conservancy (the property owner) needs information about the relationship of the local alluvial history to glacial episodes in the alpine headwaters to the west of their Red Canyon Ranch. In order to expand their irrigation system, The Nature Conservancy is particularly interested in identifying and correlating stream terrace deposits across the area. To address these needs, each student field group: (1) identifies and maps the Pleistocene and Holocene stream terraces and modern floodplains associated with the local streams (Cherry Creek, Red Canyon Creek, and Barrett Creek; Fig. 4), (2) describes the lithologies of the terraces, and (3) gathers data on the relative ages of the terraces. The final report, which is completed during a day in the laboratory, includes a map of the terraces, lithologic descriptions, a cross section across the mapped area, and a report discussing a series of questions about the terrace formation history and processes responsible for the terrace development. Structural Analysis Projects The Archean rocks of the South Pass greenstone belt were the site of a gold rush near South Pass City beginning in 1867, and gold was mined intermittently at the Carissa Mine into the late 1940s. The day-long structural analysis study involves two projects in lower-amphibolite-facies metamorphic country rocks and local plutonic igneous rocks that are located near the abandoned Carissa Mine. The students are asked to determine fold geometries and finite elongation orientations that may have locally concentrated gold-bearing veins in the area. The two projects are designed to instruct the students in field data gather-
145
ing and plotting techniques to evaluate: (1) fold geometries, and (2) principal strain orientations using small-scale deformation features and rock fabrics. The project area includes highly folded metagraywacke in the roof area of a peraluminous granite pluton. Data collected for the fold geometry project include the orientations of folded bedding, fold hinge lines, axial plane foliations, and lineations that are all plotted manually on stereographic projections to determine the 3-D fold geometries. Data collected for the principal strain project include the orientations of boudin necks in peraluminous granite veins and a strong foliation that both occur parallel to the pluton–country-rock contact in the roof area. Student groups plot the data manually on stereographic projections using techniques described during a general lecture for the project the evening prior to the field study. The completed projects are due the evening of the field day. The projects reinforce the 3-D perspectives that we emphasize throughout the course and also prepare the students who elect to complete the hard-rock mapping and structural analysis project during the sixth project week. WEEK SIX ADVANCED PROJECTS Philosophy and Logistics We began offering advanced project options during the sixth week of our course during the summer of 2005. This change in our curriculum was made possible through a National Science Foundation grant that allowed us to purchase the equipment required for our advanced projects in hydrology and geophysics. Prior to 2005, the entire sixth week was dedicated to studying deformed igneous and metamorphic rocks (Table 2) and included a simpler version of the hard-rock structural analysis and mapping project that has now become one of our sixth-week project options. With the completion of our fifth-week projects, students have received sufficient instruction and experience in hydrology, geophysics, and structural analysis in metamorphic and plutonic igneous rocks to select and complete advanced projects in any one of these three areas. The principal objective of the sixth-week projects is to allow students to pursue advanced topics in areas that they find most interesting and/or are most consistent with their employment objectives. Many of our students come to our course because of our advanced projects and are already prepared with previous courses in hydrogeology or geophysics or have advanced interests in structural geology. However, some students are not certain which advanced project area they will choose until after completion of the fifth week’s projects, at which point, all students are required to select an advanced project. Over the 4 yr period that we have offered our advanced projects option (2005 through 2008), 25% of the students have chosen the geophysics option, 30% have chosen the structural analysis option, and 45% have chosen the hydrology option. This relative division of the students among the three project options has worked well, but we are somewhat constrained logistically by our transportation capacity. We use 15-passenger vans with a maximum of
146
Bauer et al.
10 occupants per van, and each of the advanced project groups must have independent transportation to their various project sites. Field instrumentation and laboratory computing capacity for completion of the projects have not been an issue, and to date, we have been able to honor all students’ project preferences. Faculty members in charge provide both laboratory and initial field instruction for each of the advanced projects to make sure that all students have the basic background required to complete the project. In addition to advanced subject matter, these projects also have a greater integration of technology. This is particularly true for the geophysics and hydrology projects, which require instrumentation for data acquisition and computer programs for data reduction and analysis, but the students completing the structural analysis project also use laptop computers and fabric analysis software for their data reduction, plotting, and analyses. Upon completion of the sixth-week projects, all students complete an individual final field exam over the material covered during their final project week. These exams make up make up 16.6% (one-sixth) of the student’s grade (equal to the first field exam and a regional geology exam). Advanced Hydrology Projects The sixth-week hydrologic projects vary from year to year depending on circumstances and opportunities that avail themselves. The general objective of these projects is to give our students “real world” problems, often with insufficient data to clearly answer the questions asked. Many of the projects can only be solved by approximation, which is the case in many hydrologic settings in practice. In some cases, the geophysics and hydrology portions of the camp have addressed common problems, but again, we vary each year’s experience somewhat. Despite project and/or site changes from year to year, the same pedagogical and scientific approaches that we use during our more traditional stratigraphic, lithologic, and structural mapping exercises (e.g., our five-dimensional geology approach), are readily integrated into the critical thinking and learning experiences provided by our advanced projects. We have developed several hydrology projects for the sixth week that: (1) teach both data collection and problem-solving skills, and (2) create ongoing discovery by building upon data sets collected during previous camp sessions. Most of the projects involve dynamic geologic systems that allow students to learn from the changes in the systems from year to year in addition to their own data collection and analysis. During the past 4 yr, the students have completed the following projects, several of which are described briefly here: (1) characterizing source waters for Dry Lake, (2) determining the viability of the Lander landfill, (3) siting a landfill near Riverton, Wyoming—the Sand Draw case study, (4) tracing water in the karst system of the Popo Agie River, (5) evaluating the hydrogeology of the Branson Field Camp site, (6) evaluating the hydrology of Cherry Creek meadow, and (7) evaluating variations in the surface-water quality in the Popo Agie River watershed.
The pedagogical format for these projects involves faculty presenting the problem in ~30 min at the beginning of each day, and then the students work in the field in small teams until midafternoon, after which they complete their analysis and written reports by 10 p.m. of the same day. We have students prepare reports in different formats including: two-page letter reports to clients, abstracts in Geological Society of American (GSA) format, and small engineering-style reports. We insist that all reports be typed and prepared professionally and the students usually rise to the challenge. We have also had noncamp lay personnel review reports. For example, the Waste Management Supervisor for Fremont County recently reviewed student reports for clarity from a lay person’s standpoint. Having nonfaculty reviewing reports adds a real-world dimension to the work that captures the students’ attention. We have also had students submit their GSA abstracts for the annual meeting and attend the conference for presentation of that abstract (e.g., Baum et al., 2006). Dry Lake Project Dry Lake (Fig. 6) is located just south of the southern tip of Dallas dome (Fig. 1C) in a valley with sparse surface water other than irrigation drainage ditches. Areas immediately adjacent to the lake include wetlands that attract numerous waterfowl. The lake reportedly creates “quicksand” mud boils on its bottom, which may be discharge zones that sustain the lake, even during drought. A syncline along the southwestern margin of Dallas dome passes through Dry Lake and has a very steep SW limb and a shallowly dipping NE limb that parallels the dip slope coming off of the Wind River Mountains (Fig. 6). The hinge area of the fold is likely to be highly fractured, so it has been hypothesized that the lake receives groundwater flow through this fracture system that is recharged up the rock dip slope to the southwest, where the regional groundwater flow system is replenished. To test this hypothesis, the students prepare a water balance for the lake, based on map data on evaporation and precipitation coupled to measurements of water loss from agricultural ditches that border the lake and to measurements of specific conductance of water in the lake. What they find is that the lake is completely supported by irrigation water, and that ground water is a negligible part of the water budget. Lander Landfill The Lander landfill, located just east of Lander, is a source of local controversy. Landfills are ubiquitous sources of potential groundwater and surface-water contamination, but do they all leak? If so, how significant is the leakage with respect to public health, safety, and welfare? For this project, we have students divide into groups and prepare brief summary reports to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality on behalf of either: Fremont County, the landfill owner, or “Citizens for an Improved Environment,” an advocacy group that wishes to have the landfill closed. In this report, the students give their professional opinion whether leachate contaminates a small stream adjacent to the landfill in a meaningful way. The county would like to see the
Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options
147
Dip slopes in Mesozoic strata dipping off of the uplifted core of the range 42°44′N
42°44′N
108°40′W
N
25
0
0.5
Irrigation ditches
1.0 km
108°40′W
Figure 6. Map of the Dry Lake area along the southern margin of Dallas dome. Topography in the western part of the map is due to the Mesozoic dip slope dipping to the northeast into the Wind River basin. The syncline axial trace through Dry Lake marks the change from this dip slope to the steep southwest limb of Dallas dome. Irrigation ditches flow along the margin of the dip slope into the valley containing Dry Lake.
landfill used for another 30 yr. The citizens want it shut down. The point of this exercise is to understand how the same hydrogeologic and geochemical data can be used to argue toward different aims. Students must stick to plausible science, and be careful not to stretch their interpretations too far. The project can be easily related to projects that the students completed during the first part of the course (weeks 2 and 3) because the landfill was placed, unlined, in the exhumed axis of a dome (Fig. 7), similar to Dallas and Derby domes. The students map the Mesozoic rock units that are deformed by the dome, and they are given water-level elevations and water chemistry from monitoring wells installed at the landfill. They prepare a hydrogeologic cross section oriented normal to the axial trace of the dome and through the landfill cells; the section must include their mapped rock units, equipotential lines, and a few flow lines to document the direction of groundwater flow. These lines are prepared based on the water-table map that the students construct from monitoring well data and their interpretation of the vertical directions of groundwater flow with respect to their mapped rock units. These data and interpretations are the basis for their conclusions in the environmental risk report that they complete. Popo Agie River Dye Tracing Test The Branson Field Camp is located less than 2 km from Sinks Canyon State Park, next to the raging Middle Fork of the
0
100 m
Figure 7. Air photo of the Lander landfill area showing the axial trace of the breached anticline, the location of monitoring wells (white dots), and the landfill. The center of the landfill is located at 42°50′43″N, 108°41′4.5″W.
148
Bauer et al.
Popo Agie River. This steep, alpine river flows at a discharge rate of up to 500 cfs (cubic feet per second) during spring snowmelt over large boulders and glacial erratics that cover the valley floor. Within the state park, the river goes underground into a cave system at the “Sinks.” The cave system is a dissolution feature in the Madison Limestone, and ~400 m downstream from the Sinks, the river resurfaces through a series of springs at the “Rise” (Wilson and Rankl, 1996). There is a long-term U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauging station about a kilometer downstream from the Rise. In August 1983, the USGS completed a dye test through the Sinks Canyon cave system using a fluorescent dye, Rhodamine WT, to establish the hydrologic connection between the Sinks and the Rise (Wilson and Rankl, 1996). They found that the fluorescent dye did appear at the Rise, but it took 2 h for the leading edge of the dye pulse to appear at the Rise and over 6 h for the complete dye pulse to pass through the system. The long traveltimes indicate a complex system of tortuous flow paths through the cave and/or a series of large pools in the system that temporarily store water, increasing residence time (Wilson and Rankl, 1996). The USGS also observed an increase in water temperature and flow rate through the cave, suggesting additional sources of water. For this project, the students repeat the USGS dye tracing test, in conjunction with stream flow measurements up and downstream of the cave and a synoptic sampling of the longitudinal geochemical gradient through the Popo Agie River valley. Details on the first dye tracing experiment at the camp can be found in Lautz et al. (2007). Students inject ~100 g of Rhodamine WT dye (depending on streamflow conditions) into the Popo River just upstream from the Sinks. They monitor the dye concentrations in real-time using the GFL-1 Flow-through Field Fluorometer (OptiSciences) (Fig. 8) that they learned to use during the previous week of instruction (fifth-week project). The collected data are
Figure 8. Two students learning to program the field fluorometer during the Popo Agie dye tracing experiment.
downloaded to a spreadsheet program for analysis. During the dye test, students measure the flow rate upstream of the Sinks using a the Marsh-McBirney Flo-Mate 2000 current meter and measure the stream flow rate downstream of the Rise from the gauging station, which is available online via our internet link. Based on the streamflow rates and the residence time of the test, the students derive the storage volume of the cave. Differences in the discharge rates up and downstream of the cave are used to determine if there is additional water coming out at the Rise. Finally, the students generate a longitudinal profile of specific conductance and the temperature of the river water throughout the canyon to assess the impact of the cave system and the additional sources of water (if any) on the geochemistry of Popo Agie River. The final product of this project is an abstract prepared by each student group for the annual GSA meeting, with supporting materials. GSA abstracts include an introduction to the project, the methods used, the results, and a discussion of the conclusions of the study (similar to a full-length journal article). The students are asked to address unanswered questions about the system, which include: (1) the residence time and storage capacity of the cave under the current flow conditions (early July), (2) whether additional sources of water contribute to the outflow at the Rise, and (3) given the characteristics of the cave system, the way in which water flow through the cave impacts the geochemistry of the Popo Agie River. The abstract is limited to 300 words and must include one supporting figure. The students actually submitted a composite abstract to GSA for the 2006 annual meeting and presented a poster on their work. Advanced Geophysics Projects In order to give the students the broadest possible experience in active source seismology, we arrange the week-long advanced geophysics experiments into two separate projects, one project designed for refraction processing (i.e., time term analysis and refraction tomography) and the other designed for reflection data processing (muting, filtering, and normal move-out corrections). During both of our projects, students learn how to design an appropriate data acquisition schema for a particular target depth, and how to determine whether refraction or reflection data analysis is most appropriate for a given problem. For each project, the students work in two-person groups, and individuals from each group are assigned jobs as part of the seismic acquisition crew. Each project involves one day in the field collecting data and a corresponding day in the laboratory processing the data. From year to year, specific project locations and objectives vary depending on circumstances and opportunities that are available to us. To help the students understand the application of seismic techniques to real field problems, we focus on areas or settings that the students have studied during the earlier part of the course (weeks 2 and 3). We explain how various techniques can be applied to specific problems and how the interpretation of the data collected helps to address problems that are familiar to the students from their previous mapping projects. In the process,
Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options
Figure 9. Setting off the Betsy gun for a seismic-reflection experiment.
Figure 10. Time-term inversion for traveltime data collected along the northern shore of Dry Lake. The thickening of sediments is consistent with the existence of a synclinal feature underlying the lake.
affect how we understand folding and faulting in the basin-margin folds adjacent to the Wind River Mountains (Fig. 1). Since the students have already become very familiar with this geologic setting from their mapping projects on Dallas and Derby domes (weeks 2 and 3 in Table 1), they can use this background to form a sound interpretation of the resulting velocity model. Tomographic Analysis Used to Model Traveltime Data. Students run several different tomographic models with different
Figure 11. An example tomographic model using the traveltime data used in Figure 10. Students contrast and compare this approach to modeling their data versus the time-term approach. The different colored raypaths correspond to different shot points and give the students a good idea which part of their model is reliable.
Structural Analysis and Mapping of Metamorphic and Plutonic Rocks The advanced hard-rock mapping and structural analysis project is completed on well-exposed outcrops in the South Pass
Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options
Horizontal distance in meters East 0
100
200
R16
300
400
500
Lenses of sandstone/siltstone?
151
West 600
700
0
Possible water-bearing layer 200 400
800 1000
Depth in meters
600
1200
Figure 12. Common depth point (CDP) stacks using a single stacking velocity with static corrections. The profile was taken along the western edge of the Riverton landfill (Fig. 1). The landfill is located within the Eocene Wind River Formation, which consists primarily of fluvial and terrestrial sediments from the Laramide uplift of the Wind River Mountains. The spacing between each CPD trace shown here is 0.5 m, and the total spread length is 93 m. The R16 location along the profile indicates the location and depth of penetration of the only water well in the area.
greenstone belt, and it builds upon the one-day set of structural analysis projects that all students complete during week five. It is designed to appeal to students who want more extensive mapping experiences as well as students with advanced interests in structural geology or metamorphic and igneous petrology. Most students who select this option have already completed an introductory course in igneous and metamorphic petrology in addition to our prerequisite of structural geology. To make sure that students have sufficient background for the project, we provide further instruction on the origin and crystallization of peraluminous granites, the use of small-scale folds and fabric to map large-scale fold features, and the use of porphyroblast-fabric relations to evaluate thermal-deformation histories in such terranes. The project area includes a thick sequence of folded and faulted Archean metagraywacke intruded by a granodiorite batholith, peraluminous granite/pegmatite, and by a series of mafic dikes. The metasedimentary rocks and some of the intrusive units are deformed by a single large-scale folding event that has associated small-scale folds and well-developed deformation fabrics, including an axial plane foliation and lineations that are subparallel to the associated fold hinge lines. The metagraywacke
contains metamorphic porphyroblasts and mineral assemblages consistent with middle-amphibolite-facies metamorphism, but it still preserves easily recognized bedding planes. The students work in groups of two or three to map the distribution of rock units, bedding orientations, and deformation fabrics and features across a map area of approximately three square miles (eight square kilometers). The mapping is completed at a scale of 1:12,000 on paper topographic base maps with registered orthophoto coverage. Lacking a stratigraphic succession to define fold geometries or relative ages, students must rely on the orientation and geometries of small-scale features and detailed field observations to determine the deformation geometry and geologic history of the area. They collect orientations of bedding, minor fold hinges, axial plane foliation, and both intersection and mineral lineations. Representative field data and minor fold asymmetries are plotted on field maps to assist in defining axial traces of large-scale folds. All orientation data are plotted on stereographic projections to determine the dominant fold axial plane and hinge line orientations. Rather than plotting the data by hand (the method used during the “basic” week five structural exercise), students compile their data in a spreadsheet during the
152
Bauer et al.
evenings and import it into a fabric analysis program for plotting and orientation analysis. The final group project report, completed during a day in the laboratory, includes a completed geologic map, a cross section, a table of all data collected, stereonet plots of the data, and a written report describing the geologic history of the map area. In addition to showing the distribution of all of the rock units and faults, the map contains plotted representative orientation data that constrain the location of fold axial traces. Appropriate axial trace symbols plotted on the map are guided by the orientation data on the map, the symmetry of minor folds, bedding-foliation relationships, and by the concentrations of orientation data on the stereographic projections. The geologic history report includes a description of the 3-D fold geometries in the area, the relative timing of all of the rock units, metamorphism, and deformation affecting the area, and a brief paragraph on processes that may have produced the deduced history of the area. Students are encouraged to support their interpretations with as many as three field photos in their report, which may be submitted digitally or as printed hardcopy. Unlike the advanced hydrology and geophysics projects, which include multiple projects that may vary from year to year, this advanced project relies on a single area with appropriate exposures and level of complexity (e.g., does not involve multiple periods of deformation or metamorphism that confuse the analysis). Such ideal areas are not common, so this project is repeated in subsequent years. Although the project covers some relatively advanced aspects of structural analysis, it is fundamentally part of a traditional field camp program that emphasizes mapping, 3-D interpretations, and geologic history. DISCUSSION The changes to our curriculum during the fifth week of our course were instituted over a 10 yr period (1999–2008), while changes during our sixth week have only been in effect for the past 4 yr (2005–2008). During this implementation period, we have been particularly concerned with: (1) maintaining our philosophy of providing a broad field camp experience that continues to have a strong field mapping component, (2) preparing students for projects that require background beyond our prerequisite courses, (3) student opinions on the value of the advanced projects to their field camp learning experience, and (4) the ways in which our course changes affect how we spend our course resources. To help evaluate the first three issues, we ask the students to complete a very extensive course evaluation toward the end of the sixth week of the course. We have administered versions of this evaluation since 1993, but the responses noted here are only from the 4 yr period that includes our advanced projects. The survey is set up to allow the students to provide a quick evaluation of each of our projects in terms of duration, preparation they received, their interest in the project, the value of the project, and the format and logistics for the project. Students can also add detailed comments about any specific project. To help evaluate student
satisfaction with the breadth of our curriculum, we ask if there are areas of field instruction that they would like to see added/ expanded or deleted/reduced. To further evaluate student satisfaction with our fifth- and sixth-week projects (beyond the project evaluations noted here), we ask the students how important their advanced project was to their overall field camp learning experience (very important, important, somewhat important, not important), and how important the availability of environmental geology/hydrology projects was in selecting a field camp (with the same choices). In general, students are satisfied with our curriculum. The most common suggestion for changing the curriculum is to add another hard-rock project at the expense of one of the sedimentary rock projects. Recall that our sixth-week advance projects replaced a week of structural analysis in metamorphic and igneous rocks, which is now only one of our advanced project options. The evaluation of the preparation that we provide students for our fifth- and sixth-week projects rates high; most rate greater than 3.5 on an ABC grade point scale (A = 4, B = 3, C = 2) and none ranks lower than 3.0. In response to the question about the importance of the advanced projects, the percent of students responding in each category was: 61% very important, 28% important, 9% somewhat important, and 2% not important. The student responses were nearly the same from students participating in each of the three advanced projects. However, the student response to the question about the importance of environmental/hydrology to their field camp choice varied considerably depending on the advanced project they selected. Overall, the percentage of students responding in each category was: 26% very important, 24% important, 11% somewhat important, and 39% not important. As might be expected, a greater percentage of students choosing the hydrology advanced project felt that the availability of environmental/hydrology projects was very important or important to their field camp choice. Nevertheless, 22% of these students felt that such availability was not important to their field camp selection. The way in which this question is asked could be biased by our (University of Missouri) students, who are generally required to attend our field course. The student opinion results indicate that most students recognize the importance of some exposure to environmental/hydrology projects as part of their field camp experience. However, it is clear that the ability to choose advanced projects as part of their field camp experience is important or very important to nearly all of the students (89%). This importance is quite clear in the student’s enthusiastic participation in the advanced projects. Most students are anxiously anticipating the end of field camp by the sixth week of a six-week course, but the chance to participate in a week of projects that are more likely to be interesting for the students clearly helps to sustain their interest in learning and not just finishing the course. Although we feel that our fifth- and sixth-week projects are providing successful student learning experiences, they are expensive experiences to provide in terms of both personnel and equipment. During the last two weeks of our course, four faculty
Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options members and three teaching assistants are in the field and/or in the laboratory with the students every day (and most evenings), providing a student-instructor ratio of less than six to one. The average of the fifth- and sixth-week faculty salary expenses is nearly twice that of the average for the first four weeks. Most of the expensive equipment that we use for these projects (seismic equipment, total station, fluorometer, pH-conductivity meters, flow meters, pumps, and chemical kits) was purchased with grant funds from the National Science Foundation or with funds available from a field camp endowment made possible by alumni contributions. Our computer equipment is subsidized by the University of Missouri, which provides our laptop computers and standard site licensed software based on a computing fee paid by the students in addition to their tuition. Although our course’s room, board, and transportation costs are operated on a breakeven basis, the university and our endowment provide a significant subsidy for our instructional costs. Our expanded curriculum would not have been possible without these grants and subsidies.
CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES CITED The two-stage expansion of hydrology and geophysics projects for our field course has allowed us to progressively develop projects that are built on the foundation of our four weeks of bedrock geology, geologic mapping projects, and regional geology. Our careful site selection and emphasis on shallow groundwater–surface-water interactions has also allowed us to integrate our hydrology and geophysics projects and accommodate logistical aspects of our fifth- and sixth-week projects. We have taken advantage of our fifth-week projects to provide fundamental instruction and background that allows students to successfully complete hydrology and geophysics exercises during both the fifth- and sixth-week projects without requiring students to have prerequisite courses in these subjects. Although students who have previously completed introductory hydrogeology or geophysics course may already be prepared with fundamental background for our fifth-week projects, such students are still challenged and gain valuable practical experience during our advanced projects in hydrology and geophysics. Our advanced option in hard-rock structural analysis provides an advanced mapping and bedrock geology field experience for students who are more interested in honing their geology skills than expanding their background in hydrology or geophysics. Although we continue to make adjustments to our curriculum, we feel that we are successfully maintaining our program breadth and providing fundamental instruction and experience in geologic mapping even as we provide all students with basic exposure to field aspects of hydrology and geophysics. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding that allowed us to develop our hydrology and geophysics projects was provided by National Science Foundation grant 0410493, the College of Arts and Science of the University of
Baker, M.A., 2006, Status Report on Geoscience Summer Field Camps: Report by the American Geological Institute, Geoscience Workforce, GW-06-003: http://www.agiweb.org/workforce/fieldcamps_report_final.pdf (accessed September 2008). Bauer, R., Siegel, D., Lautz, L., Dahms, D., Sandvol, E., and Luepke, J., 2003, Investigating arid zone hydrologic systems at the local riparian to regional bedrock scale: Multidisciplinary instruction through data analysis at the University of Missouri’s Branson Field Laboratory: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35, no. 6, p. 119. Baum, C.S., Williams, B.P., Allaire, M., Parra, L.A., Ferree, N., Story, C., Lautz, L.K., and Siegel, D.I., 2006, A vanishing act: Understanding the path of the Popo Agie River through the Sinks Canyon Cave: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 7, p. 428. Burger, H.R., 1992, Exploration Geophysics of the Shallow Subsurface: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 489 p. Epis, R.C., and Chapin, C.E., 1975, Geomorphic and tectonic implications of the post-Laramide, late Eocene erosion surface in the southern Rocky Mountains, in Curtis, B.F., ed., Cenozoic History of the Southern Rocky Mountains: Geological Society of America Memoir 144, p. 45–74. Fanelli, R.M., and Lautz, L.K., 2008, Water, heat and solute fluxes through the hyporheic zone of small dams: Ground Water, v. 46, no. 5, p. 671–687, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2008.00461.x. Gregory, K.M., and Chase, C.G., 1994, Tectonic and climatic significance of a late Eocene low-relief, high-level geomorphic surface, Colorado: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 99, p. 20,141–20,160, doi: 10.1029/94JB00132. Groshong, R.H., 2006, 3-D Structural Geology: A Practical Guide to Quantitative Surface and Subsurface Map Interpretation (2nd edition): New York, Springer, 400 p. Jones, J.B., Mulholland, P.J., and Thorp, J.H., eds., 2000, Streams and Ground Waters: New York, Academic Press, 425 p. Keefer, W.R., 1970, Structural Geology of the Wind River Basin, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Special Paper 495-D, 35 p. Knoop, P., Mogk, D., Crosby, B., Helper, M., Manone, M., Niemi, N., Snyder, J., van der Pluijm, B., Wawrzyniec, T., and Walker, J., 2007, Using digital information technologies in geoscience field courses: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 7, p. 259. Lautz, L.K., and Fanelli, R.M., 2008, Seasonal biogeochemical hotspots in the streambed around restoration structures: Biogeochemistry, v. 91, p. 85–104, doi: 10.1007/s10533-008-9235-2. Lautz, L.K., and Siegel, D.I., 2006, Modeling surface and ground water mixing in the hyporheic zone using MODFLOW and MT3D: Advances in Water Resources, v. 29, p. 1618–1633, doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.12.003.
154
Bauer et al.
Lautz, L.K., and Siegel, D.I., 2007, The effect of transient storage on nitrate uptake lengths in streams: An inter-site comparison: Hydrological Processes, v. 21, no. 26, p. 3533–3548, doi: 10.1002/hyp.6569. Lautz, L.K., Siegel, D.I., and Bauer, R.L., 2006, Impact of debris dams on hyporheic interaction along a semi-arid stream: Hydrological Processes, v. 20, no. 1, p. 183–196, doi: 10.1002/hyp.5910. Lautz, L.K., Siegel, D.I., and Bauer, R.L., 2007, Dye tracing through Sinks Canyon: Incorporating advanced hydrogeology into the University of Missouri’s geology field camp: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, no. 3, p. 197–202. McKay, L.K., and Kammer, T.W., 1999, Incorporating hydrogeology in a mapping-based geology field camp: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 47, p. 124–130. Mears, B., Jr., 1993, Geomorphic history of Wyoming and high-level erosion surfaces, in Snoke, A.W., Steadmann, J.R., and Roberts, S.M., eds., Geology of Wyoming: The Geological Survey of Wyoming Memoir 5, p. 608–626. Riihimaki, C.A., Anderson, R.S., and Safran, E.B., 2007, Impact of rock uplift on rates of late Cenozoic Rocky Mountain river incision: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 112, no. F3, p. F03S02, doi: 10.1029/2006JF000557. Roberts, S.M., 1989, Wyoming Geomaps: Geological Survey of Wyoming, Educational Series 1, 41 p. Siegel, D.I., 2002, The rocks rediscovered: Confessions of a die-hard hydrogeologist: August Geotimes, p. 14–15. Siegel, D.I., 2008, Reductionist hydrogeology: The ten top principles: Hydrological Processes, v. 22, p. 4967–4970, doi: 10.1002/hyp.7139. Swanson, M.T., and Bampton, M., 2009, this volume, Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research: An adventure-based approach to teaching new geospatial technologies in an REU Site Program, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical
Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(11). Triska, F.J., Duff, J.H., and Avanzino, R.J., 1993, The role of water exchange between a stream channel and its hyporheic zone in nitrogen cycling at the terrestrial-aquatic interface: Hydrobiologia, v. 251, p. 167–184, doi: 10.1007/BF00007177. Underwood, D., 2007, Near-Surface Seismic Refraction Surveying Field Methods: San Jose, California, Geometrics, Inc., 20 p.; available at ftp://geom .geometrics.com/pub/seismic/Literature/SeismicRefractionSurveying _r4.pdf (accessed August 2009). Whitmeyer, S., Feely, M., De Paor, D., Hennessy, R., Whitmeyer, S., Nicoletti, J., Santangelo, B., Daniels, J., and Rivera, M., 2009, this volume, Visualization techniques in field geology education: A case study from western Ireland, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(10). Willis, J.J., and Groshong, R.H., Jr., 1993, Deformational style of the Wind River uplift and associated flank structures, Wyoming, in Keefer, W.R., Metzger, W.J., and Godwin, L.H., eds., Wyoming Geological Association Special Symposium on Oil and Gas and Other Resources of the Wind River Basin, Wyoming: Casper, Wyoming Geological Association, p. 337–375. Wilson, J.F., Jr., and Rankl, J.G., 1996, Use of dye tracing in water-resources investigations in Wyoming, 1967–94: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report WRI-96-4122, 64 p. Winter, T.C., Harvey, J.W., Franke, O.L., and Alley, W.M., 1998, Ground Water and Surface Water: A Single Resource: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1139, 79 p. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Integrating ground-penetrating radar and traditional stratigraphic study in an undergraduate field methods course R.K. Vance C.H. Trupe F.J. Rich Department of Geology and Geography, PO Box 8149, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia 30460, USA
ABSTRACT Georgia Southern University maintains a traditional geology curriculum for both bachelor of science (B.S.) and bachelor of arts (B.A.) degree candidates. Field experiences figure prominently in our curricula, and students have been taught to use traditional means of gathering and recording field data (e.g., Brunton compasses and notebooks with sketches). We have recently introduced high-resolution geophysical investigations that are focused particularly on ground-penetrating radar. A nearby field location, known as Middleground, offers an excellent road cut with sufficient exposure, lithological heterogeneity, and relief to conduct both geological and geophysical investigations. We have shown students how one technique contrasts with the other, and how they can be used to support each other. Student reactions to the Middleground ground-penetrating radar exercise have been positive and enthusiastic, and have led us to formulate new and diverse applications of ground-penetrating radar to assist students in developing their three-dimensional visualization skills and a greater understanding of geophysical techniques in field investigations.
INTRODUCTION The faculty of the Department of Geology and Geography at Georgia Southern University (GSU) have maintained an undergraduate curriculum that includes traditional hard-rock and softrock course sequences. Direct feedback from graduate programs and companies hiring our graduates indicates that the curriculum is effective, and programs that omit these traditional courses (e.g., mineralogy-petrology-structural geology) are putting their students at a disadvantage. Field-based education is a priority (see Bishop et al., this volume) in the preparation of Georgia Southern geology majors. This critical component is addressed through field trips in courses for geology majors, optional national and international extended trips for both geology and geography
majors, a required introductory course in field methods, and a senior requirement for a full, department-approved field camp for those earning a B.S. in geology. Furthermore, most geology senior thesis projects (required for the B.S. degree) involve a field component. A goal of field training is to build fundamental skills in field identification of minerals, fossils, igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks and textures, structural features, weathering features, basic soil horizons, features of economic or environmental interest, and the use of topographic maps, as well as proficiency with the compass and geographic positioning system (GPS) equipment. Exercises that require the practice of these skills should culminate in representation of the study area in stratigraphic columns, cross sections, geologic maps, and
rock descriptions while developing the ability to view the earth in three dimensions (3-D). Interpretation of these features and application to real-world problems or needs require assimilation and evaluation of diverse data to develop the “big picture.” This process constitutes a capstone experience for undergraduate students, and field exercises build this capability. The GSU Field Methods course emphasizes the basic skills just described, but it has evolved with development of new techniques and equipment, access to this equipment, and the availability of experienced instructors. Students are introduced to the use of Brunton style compasses, and then to basic surveying methods with pace and compass exercises. The traditional plane table and alidade have given way to total station systems. The use of GPS is pervasive and ranges from compact low-cost units with meter-scale resolution to advanced systems with centimeter-scale resolution. Some field programs utilize full digital mapping approaches in the field; however, we still utilize traditional approaches with compass and paper maps supported by GPS. Many Georgia Southern University geology majors are opting for a minor in geographic information systems (GIS), and these students incorporate GIS in their senior thesis fieldwork. Some geophysical tools can be incorporated into introductory field methods courses without requiring the extensive background education in both theory and practice more typical of graduate-level courses. Students can be provided with the basic operational theory and can gain some valuable hands-on experience performing a geophysical survey and interpreting the results of the survey. Learning the limitations of the equipment as applied to interpretation of results is an essential component of this experience. Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is particularly amenable to rapid surveys and is used extensively for geotechnical work and stratigraphic investigations. The practical features and numerous applications of the ground-penetrating radar system, and course time constraints make ground-penetrating radar a good choice of geophysical tools to introduce in a field course. The goal of this project was to integrate ground-penetrating radar and traditional field stratigraphic study to develop the ability of students to interpret and extend data from limited surficial exposure into a three-dimensional view of the local sedimentary rocks.
Figure 1. Georgia Southern University Field Methods course student with cart-mounted MALÅ ground-penetrating radar system composed of a 500 MHz shielded antenna, attached control box, Li-ion battery pack (small black pouch below monitor), and Ramac monitor. The cart includes an odometer attached to one wheel.
THE GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR SYSTEM
Figure 2. Field Methods course students sledding a MALÅ 100 MHz shielded antenna (control box attached) using a shoulder-carried frame for monitor and battery. An odometer wheel is attached to the rear of the antenna.
The Department of Geology and Geography acquired a MALÅ ground-penetrating radar system in 2005 along with a Ramac X3M controller paired with either 100 MHz, 250 MHz, 500 MHz, or 800 MHz antennae. These are shielded antennae that incorporate both transmitter and receiver in one unit. The controller-antenna system can be used in a cart (Fig. 1) or sled mode for the 500 MHz and 250 MHz antenna, but it requires sledding (Fig. 2) for the 100 MHz antenna. Either a laptop computer or the MALÅ Ramac monitor is used to calibrate and configure the system and record data and profile markers. The compact, durable construction and simple operation make the monitor preferable to the laptop for prolonged field use. The system is powered by
a lithium-ion battery that provides ~5 h of use. A second, fully charged backup battery ensures a full day of use. Radar profile distance is recorded internally using a wheel odometer attached to the antenna or cart or by using a hip chain system. A time-triggering mode is also an option if conditions do not allow direct measurement by odometer. Survey data recorded in the monitor can be downloaded to a flash drive or through USB cable to a laptop or desktop computer for processing with MALÅ software. This system was introduced to undergraduates in the field methods course in a campus demonstration prior to integration into a traditional field investigation of local stratigraphy, as described next.
Integrating ground-penetrating radar and traditional stratigraphic study in an undergraduate field methods course INTEGRATING GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR IN A FIELD COURSE Campus Demonstration We incorporated ground-penetrating radar in our field methods class for the first time in the spring 2007 semester and will use this pilot exercise to improve design, implementation, and evaluation for successive courses. The spring 2007 Field Methods class consisted of 20 students and included a mixture of experienced geology majors who had completed most of their upper-level coursework, as well as some for whom field methods was their first upper-level course. The course is generally composed of two distinct segments: exercises that provide training with equipment and techniques make up the first part of the course, and geologic mapping exercises make up the second part. The ground-penetrating radar exercise was introduced in the middle of the semester after the students had done projects on topographic maps, and had used the Brunton compass, total station surveying, and GPS navigation. These exercises were done
157
in teams, and they included evaluation of each student’s field notes along with a graded team product. The students were introduced to ground-penetrating radar with a brief PowerPoint presentation outlining the relative position of GPR within the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationships among, conductivity, dielectric constant, and wave propagation and attenuation were described with respect to sediments, rocks, and man-made materials (Sharma, 2002; Bristow and Jol, 2003; Daniels, 2004; Baker et al., 2007). Wave attenuation by water-saturated sediments and clay was emphasized with respect to regional applications. The final portion of the presentation addressed applications of ground-penetrating radar and system operation (Daniels, 2004). The presentation was followed with a ground-penetrating radar investigation- demonstration outside the geology department building, on campus. The students used the cart system with a 500 MHz shielded antenna and control box operated through the Ramac monitor. The first step was to calibrate the unit for a 30 m distance. The system was then used by several students to generate a suite of profiles (Fig. 3) parallel to the outer wall
Figure 3. Excerpt from a set of three stacked, parallel, 500 MHz ground-penetrating radar profiles run outside the Herty building on the Georgia Southern University (GSU) campus for a class demonstration and practice session. The hyperbolic reflections at ~ 116–122 ft (35.4–37.2 m) and 103–107 ft (31.4–32.6 m) are utility conduits. The heavy reflections at 106–117 ft (32.3–35.7 m) in the uppermost profile are due to a pedestrian walk composed of paving stones. The profile was processed to eliminate most of the ground-air wave, and the time-gain was adjusted to enhance the signal that attenuates sharply at 2–3 ft depth (.6–.9 m) with increasing clay and moisture content. The “X” in the lowest profile is a surface marker for a reference feature noted during the profile. The sharp vertical break in the middle profile represents a point where the student stopped forward motion and rolled the cart backward to locate a reflector, producing a slight “dislocation” in the profile.
158
Vance et al.
of the building and crossing multiple utility features in the subsurface. This class activity allowed the students to gain direct practice with the equipment and introduced a practical application and approach to locating buried utilities and underground storage tanks. The monitor screen scrolls the radar profile as it is produced, allowing immediate observation of anomalous reflections without processing the ground-penetrating radar profile. Surface markers may be added to the profile record to register known surface features and determine their relationship with the imaged subsurface targets. After the demonstration, the profile was downloaded to a flash drive and transferred to a laptop for initial processing and printing. Printouts of the profiles were copied and handed out for review and discussion of features at the next meeting of the class. Group review of profiles introduced students to common components (e.g., ground-air wave signal) of ground-penetrating radar profiles and encouraged interpretation of anomalous features observed on the profile. Signal loss with depth that we observed on printouts prompted discussion of antenna limitations and signal attenuation by clay and moisture. Filtered and unfiltered profiles were displayed to illustrate the role and effect of processing. Field Site Geology The GSU campus is located in Statesboro, Georgia, within the eastern edge of the Inner Coastal Plain of Georgia. As such, topography is typically subdued, and outcrops and road cuts are rare. We are fortunate, however, to have a rather extensive, easily navigated, and lithologically diverse road cut near our campus, and it is this field site that has provided us with an opportunity to merge classic stratigraphic description with a shallow geophysical technique (ground-penetrating radar). Our field site lies ~14 km north of Statesboro, Bulloch County, Georgia (Fig. 4). The small community of Middleground is the nearest geographic feature of note, though the site also lies within the drainage basin of Spring Branch, a minor tributary of the Ogeechee River. Strata in the vicinity of Middleground belong to the Meigs Member of the Miocene Coosawhatchie Formation (Huddlestun, 1988) and are characterized by weakly consolidated, fine- to coarse-grained, locally conglomeratic, clayey sandstones, as well as rhythmically bedded sand and clay couplets (Fig. 5). Preliminary analysis of the units can be found in Bartholomew et al. (2007). The authors and their students have measured and described a series of stratigraphic profiles at the site, recording characteristics of the units at 5 m intervals along a transect that parallels Metz Road, a county road that runs north of Middleground. Initial observations of the Middleground strata revealed fine sands that are typically interbedded with clays and contain discontinuous stringers of hematite-rich sediment. Pebble-bearing horizons are present, as is a large body of cross-bedded sandstone that lies sublateral to, and stratigraphically beneath, the alternating layers of sand and clay. The road cut is, thus, lithologically heterogeneous, but, just as importantly, the sandstones and their interbedded claystones bear ghost shrimp burrows (form genus Ophiomorpha). Thus, all the
Figure 4. Location map for the Middleground field site, Bulloch County, Georgia. The region delineated by dark shading marks the extent of the Coosawhatchie Formation.
Figure 5. Middleground, Georgia, road cut exposure of sand-clay couplets in the Meigs Member of the Miocene Coosawhatchie Formation. Road cut is ~2 m in height.
strata are interpreted to have been deposited at or just below sea level (Rich et al., 2009). The value of this knowledge is considerable as we prepare students to construct three-dimensional representations of the strata based upon the electromagnetic response during their ground-penetrating radar survey. Also worthy of note is the fact that most of the road cut lies near the drainage divide of Spring Branch, so the strata all lie
Integrating ground-penetrating radar and traditional stratigraphic study in an undergraduate field methods course
159
upslope of the local shallow groundwater table. Ground-penetrating radar signals are, therefore, relatively clear and easily read as compared to many sites in the coastal plain where the water table lies very near the surface, contributing to rapid signal attenuation with depth. Three-dimensional visualization of the strata imaged with ground-penetrating radar can be a challenge to many people. Thus, conducting a ground-penetrating radar survey in a location where exposures of the strata are available for direct comparison (ground truth) with the radar image has the potential to facilitate visualization and translation of a two-dimensional image into three-dimensional space. This ideal training situation also allows comparison of the resolution at differing frequencies if multiple antennae are available, and analysis of signal attenuation with changes in composition. Field Exercise In 2007, the ground-penetrating radar exercise was conducted in teams assigned to pair experienced students with those lacking substantial field experience. Preparation for the exercise included the classroom lectures on the physics, capabilities, and limitations of the ground-penetrating radar equipment, the campus demonstration of the MALÅ ground-penetrating radar system, and assigned readings from Compton (1985) and Freeman (1999) to prepare them to describe sedimentary rocks. The Middleground road cut (Fig. 6) was ideal for a local field project because the rock surface at the site is accessible to study, and the ground surface above the road cut is level to gently sloping and has recently been cleared of brush. This surface provides access to run ground-penetrating radar profiles and does not require corrections for topography. This level surface was measured parallel the road cut and flagged at 1 m intervals to provide immediate reference for stratigraphic sketches and ground-penetrating radar profiles. In order to give all students the opportunity to use the equipment, half of the class did their initial fieldwork on a Friday afternoon and the other half began their project on Saturday morning. Students were given the UTM coordinates of the outcrop and a time to meet at the site. The main objectives of the exercise were for each team to: (1) describe an assigned section of the outcrop including rock types, textures, composition, and sedimentary layering, and measure and record planar features such as sedimentary layering and joints; (2) use ground-penetrating radar equipment to obtain a 500 MHz profile plus an additional 250 or 100 MHz profile along the power line right-of-way several meters back from the top of the outcrop; (3) interpret two profiles (different frequencies) for each section, correlating outcrop data with the ground-penetrating radar profiles; and (4) prepare a report explaining how the outcrop data supported the ground-penetrating radar profile interpretation. At the site, the students were introduced to the overall geologic setting of the exposure and began by sketching the entire
Figure 6. Field Methods course students working on field descriptions of the Meigs Member of the Coosawhatchie Formation at the Middleground road cut. The cleared “right of way” visible above the road cut provides excellent access to conduct ground-penetrating radar profiles of the local stratigraphic section.
outcrop with a general description of lithology, textures, and bed forms. Each team was then assigned a 20-m-long section of the road cut for a detailed stratigraphic sketch, including bedding and joint orientations and description. During the Friday and Saturday sessions, each team spent time running groundpenetrating radar surveys immediately above and parallel to the road cut, giving all students some experience collecting data with the ground-penetrating radar system. While one team conducted ground-penetrating radar surveys, the other two teams worked on outcrop descriptions. Additionally, students augered several holes for their assigned section to help them correlate the face of the outcrop with ground-penetrating radar profiles and to check for lateral deviation from the stratigraphy observed on the road cut face. The instructor downloaded the ground-penetrating radar data, performed some minimal processing to eliminate much of the ground-air wave reflection and to enhance the deeper signal, and provided profile printouts for the students to use in the laboratory to compare with field sketches and photos and to use upon return to the field site. The class was given a week to complete the project. Students were encouraged to return to the outcrop as needed to refine their data and interpretations. Assessment of the teams’ products included grading each individual’s field notes and the teams’ interpreted profiles and reports. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The quality and quantity of the field data varied greatly (as expected in early field experiences); some reports included very detailed descriptions of the project, ample data, and had annotated figures and photos (Figs. 7 and 8). Interpretation of profiles was generally good; however, this was not translated to wellmarked correlation of specific reflections on most of the groundpenetrating radar profiles. Student descriptions and comments
160
Vance et al.
Figure 7. (A) A 500 MHz ground-penetrating radar profile of a segment of the Middleground road cut. Field Methods course students have color coded the reflections to mark an upper set of wavy to lenticular bedded, horizontal sand-clay layers (see photo in B) that disconformably overlie an inclined set of Meigs clay-sand couplets (see Fig. 5). Red line denotes detailed section description at 77.5 m. Horizontal and vertical scales are in meters; profile has been processed to remove most of ground-air wave. (B) Portion of the yellow-orange zone of profile 1 (see red marker on 500 MHz profile in A) marking bed forms in the subhorizontal units (from student report). The length of the solid black bar on the photo scale is 5 cm.
indicated the exercise was indeed a step forward in developing 3-D visualization skills and learning some of the applications and limitations of geophysical tools. Comparison of 500 MHz (Fig. 7) and 250 MHz (Fig. 8) profiles demonstrated the differences in resolution and depth of penetration that accompanies change in frequency of the antenna. This was an excellent project for improving their field note-taking skills. Faced with a variety of rock types and sedimentary structures, they had to have
Figure 8. A 250 MHz profile of the same segment of the Middleground road cut; note the position of profile 1 at 77.5 m. Student coding of yellow zone corresponds to yellow-orange package of Figure 7A. All units are in meters; profile has been processed to remove most of ground-air wave. This is a good effort as students are recognizing packages of beds and bounding surfaces between packages. The actual exposure is confined to 1.5–2.5 m.
good notes and sketches to accomplish the project. The student reaction to the experience was very positive, and comments on course evaluations related their enjoyment and appreciation of the hands-on aspect of the course, outdoor activities generally, and an appreciation for very practical knowledge and the techniques they learned. The incorporation of ground-penetrating radar in an undergraduate field exercise was a first-time experience for the teachers; consequently, we have considered numerous ways to improve the project before the next field methods course in the spring of 2009. Enhancements we are considering include the following: (1) a preparation exercise for ground-penetrating radar profile interpretation (perhaps a profile and strata interpretation to discuss in class); (2) more detailed instructions to standardize the method (numeric or color-coding) for correlating key reflections or surfaces on the ground-penetrating radar profile with those on a sketch or photo—the technique could be introduced in the initial campus demonstration; (3) emphasis on major reflections or surfaces or packages of reflections (Hugenholtz et al., 2007); (4) addition of several short ground-penetrating radar surveys oriented at 90° to the long profile that parallels the road cut to obtain a true 3-D perspective to use for generating a block diagram in the field report; (5) a required brief discussion of resolution differences between ground-penetrating radar antennae in the report; (6) a ground-penetrating radar profile conducted in the nearby creek floodplain to look for the water table and compare the stratigraphy between the younger fluvial suite and older
Integrating ground-penetrating radar and traditional stratigraphic study in an undergraduate field methods course marginal marine strata (using an auger to provide ground truth for strata and water table); (7) allow students to do some simple ground-penetrating radar data processing as teams and evaluate the accuracy of the velocity used to generate the profile; (8) require photos with sketches—digital cameras are reasonably priced, and students should get in the habit of photodocumentation of field features; and (9) design and administer an evaluation instrument for this exercise (all major courses are evaluated, but not individual exercises). The overall experience in this initial effort was positive enough to encourage the incorporation of the refinements described here into the second generation effort in 2009. These experiences are learning processes for the instructors as well as the students, and refinement of such exercises is continuous. This pilot project did not include a specific evaluation to test the improvements in student visualization of local geology. A specific evaluation instrument will be employed in the next field class to gauge the success of this effort through a questionnaire on the site geology, administered on site after initial traditional road cut study, followed by a postcourse questionnaire to determine changes in interpretation of site geology after integration of ground-penetrating radar surveys. The use of ground-penetrating radar in geotechnical work and stratigraphic studies and the resulting literature continues to expand; consequently, incorporation of this geophysical tool in field courses is a very practical experience for geologists. An understanding of the limitations of the technique and the challenges of interpretation is an important part of the experience. We are already using ground-penetrating radar in several senior thesis research projects, and we have been encouraged by the trial run described here to continue the introduction of this tool in our field methods course. SUMMARY Field methods course students received limited instruction on theory and basic operation of ground-penetrating radar systems before hands-on training on campus conducting surveys that demonstrated the effectiveness of the instrument for locating buried utilities. The campus exercise also demonstrated depth of penetration limits imposed by the attenuation of ground radar energy by clay and water. This training was extended to stratigraphic investigation of a local road cut, which integrated traditional field observation and measurements with the geophysical survey. The students embraced the use of ground-penetrating radar, extending their “view” of the stratigraphy into the subsurface, while learning that deeper radar energy penetration at lower antenna frequency is accompanied by diminished resolution of stratigraphic features. This pilot project successfully integrated classroom instruction, campus
161
fieldwork, local stratigraphic investigation, and valuable training with a versatile geophysical tool. The project provided the instructors with a foundation to build upon and improve the field exercise through the use of additional ground-penetrating radar surveys that will allow construction of block or fence diagrams, and that will enhance the development of 3-D visualization and representation skills by students. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the improvement of the manuscript resulting from the constructive reviews of Steve Leslie, Ilya Buynevich, and Steve Whitmeyer and the acceptance of roadside project activity by residents of the Middleground community and the Georgia Department of Transportation. REFERENCES CITED Baker, G.S., Jordan, T.E., and Pardy, J., 2007, An introduction to ground penetrating radar (GPR), in Baker, G.S., and Jol, H.M., eds., Stratigraphic Analyses Using GPR: Geological Society of America Special Paper 432, p. 1–18. Bartholomew, M.J., Rich, F.J., Lewis, S.L., Brodie, B.M., Heath, R.D., Slack, T.Z., Trupe, C.H., III, and Greenwell, R.A., 2007, Preliminary interpretation of Mesozoic and Cenozoic fracture sets in Piedmont metamorphic rocks and in coastal plain strata near the Savannah River, Georgia and South Carolina, in Rich, F.J., ed., Guide to Fieldtrips: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, 56th Annual Meeting, Southeastern Section, p. 7–38. Bishop, G.A., Vance, R.K., Rich, F.J., Meyer, B.K., Davis, E.J., Hayes, H., and Marsh, N.B., 2009, this volume, Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors at Georgia Southern University: Historical perspectives and modern approaches, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(19). Bristow, C.S., and Jol, H.M., eds., 2003, Ground Penetrating Radar in Sediments: Geological Society of London Special Publication 211, 366 p. Compton, R., 1985, Geology in the Field: New York, John Wiley and Sons, 398 p. Daniels, D.J., 2004, Ground Penetrating Radar (2nd edition): Institution of Electrical Engineers Radar, Sonar, Navigation and Avionics Series 15 (series editors: N. Stewart and H. Griffiths): Bodwin, Cornwall, UK, MPG Books Limited, 726 p. Freeman, T., 1999, Procedures in Field Geology: Malden, Massachusetts, Blackwell Science, 95 p. Huddlestun, P.F., 1988, A Revision of Lithostratigraphic Units of the Coastal Plain of Georgia, the Miocene through Holocene: Georgia Geological Survey Bulletin 104, 162 p. Hugenholtz, C.H., Moorman, B.J., and Wolfe, S.A., 2007, Ground penetrating radar (GPR) imaging of the internal structure of an active parabolic sand dune, in Baker, G.S., and Jol, H.M., eds., Stratigraphic Analyses Using GPR: Geological Society of America Special Paper 432, p. 35–45. Rich, F.J., Trupe, C.H., III, Slack, T.Z., and Camann, E., 2009, Depositional and ichnofossil characteristics of the Meigs Member, Coosawhatchie Formation (Miocene), east central Georgia: Southeastern Geology, v. 46, no. 2, p. 85–92. Sharma, P.V., 2002, Environmental and Engineering Geophysics: Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 475 p. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Twenty-two years of undergraduate research in the geosciences— The Keck experience Andrew de Wet Department of Earth and Environment, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17604, USA Cathy Manduca Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota 55057, USA Reinhard A. Wobus Department of Geosciences, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts 01267, USA Lori Bettison-Varga President, Scripps College, Claremont, California 91711, USA
ABSTRACT The Keck Geology Consortium is an 18-college collaboration focused on enriching undergraduate education through development of high-quality geoscience research experiences for undergraduate students and faculty participants. The consortium projects are year-long research experiences that extend from summer project design and fieldwork, through collection of laboratory data and analysis during the academic year, to the culminating presentation of research results at the annual spring symposium. The Keck experience incorporates all the characteristics of high-quality undergraduate research. Students are involved in original research, are stakeholders and retain intellectual ownership of their research, experience the excitement of working in group and independent contexts, discuss and publish their findings, and engage in the scientific process from conception to completion. Since 1987, 1094 students (1175 slots, 81 repeats) and over 121 faculty (410 slots, multiple repeats) have participated in 137 projects, providing a substantial data set for studying the impact of undergraduate research and field experiences on geoscience students. Over 56% of the students have been women, and since 1996, 34% of the project faculty have been women. There are now 45 Keck alumni in academic teaching and research positions, a matriculation rate three times the average of U.S. geoscience undergraduates. Twenty-two of these new faculty are women, indicating remarkable success in attracting women to and retaining women in academic geoscience careers.
INTRODUCTION The Keck Geology Consortium was started in 1987 by a group of ten colleges including Amherst, Beloit, Carleton, Colorado, Franklin and Marshall, Pomona, Smith, Whitman, Williams, and The College of Wooster. Funding was provided by the W.M. Keck Foundation, hence the name of the consortium. Trinity and Washington and Lee Universities were added in 1989. In 2006, six more institutions were added: Colgate, Macalester, Mt. Holyoke, Oberlin, Union, and Wesleyan. The idea for the consortium originated with Bud Wobus at Williams College. It was patterned after the National Science Foundation (NSF)–supported WAMSIP Consortium of four of the current Keck colleges (Williams, Amherst, Mt. Holyoke, and Smith) in the 1970s, a collaboration that was nucleated by Wobus at Williams and Mel Kuntz at Amherst (Wobus, 1988). Their idea to support undergraduates as collaborators with faculty in original field-based research was inspired by the historic and highly successful field course at Stanford, where they had been graduate students. The basic concept of the consortium was to bring together a group of small liberal arts colleges that had traditionally produced a disproportionately large share of the Ph.D.’s granted in the earth sciences (Manduca and Woodward, 1995). The consortium was to fund, and support in various ways, research projects by faculty and students from the consortium member institutions (Manduca et al., 1999). The first three projects in 1987–1988 covered carbonate sedimentology (Bahamas), volcanology (Colorado), and paleohydrology and clastic sedimentology (Montana), and they were directed by faculty from Williams, Amherst, and Smith who had been part of the earlier NSF-supported WAMSIP consortium. Providing a diversity of projects has been one of the ongoing goals of the consortium, along with broadening coverage of geoscience subfields as the consortium grows.
The Keck “Nuts and Bolts” Call for proposals: spring and fall
Project approval: spring (symposium) and fall (GSA Annual Meeting)
Projects advertised online at keckgeology.org: November-January
Student application process: deadline early February
Student selection process: notification in March-April
Presummer interactions among students, project faculty, and research advisors/sponsors: spring
Summer research experience: field and/or lab (4 weeks)
Student independent research project: fall and spring
Short contribution draft: March
Project workshops
Annual Keck Geology Research Symposium: April symposium - poster and oral presentations; field trip; project meetings
Publication of symposium proceedings - keckgeology.org: summer
Other presentations and publications
Figure 1. The basic components of the Keck Geology Consortium.
BASIC COMPONENTS OF THE KECK GEOLOGY CONSORTIUM Project Selection The basic structure of the consortium has stayed the same since the beginning (Fig. 1). Each new research cycle begins with the director’s call for proposals. Guidelines for proposals are available at the Keck Web site. Projects must involve one or more Keck faculty, but non-Keck faculty participation is welcome. Typically, projects have a faculty to student ratio of 1–3, and most projects have 6 to 9 student participants. Just 5 of 137 projects have involved only one faculty member. Faculty representatives from all the member institutions discuss the merits of each proposal and select the strongest ones for the upcoming summer. Proposals for the following year are reviewed at the annual Keck Symposium in April, and at the Keck meeting during the Geological Society of American (GSA) Annual Meeting each fall.
Selection of projects is based on a number of criteria, including the scientific value of the project, its scientific focus, the quality of the proposed student projects, geographical location and logistics, and the viability of the budget. Once the proposals are approved by the representatives, the call goes out for student participants. The Keck Web site is the primary source of information about upcoming projects, and the Keck member schools ensure that their students are aware of the summer’s Keck projects. Non-Keck students are attracted through advertising in various online venues such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), Council for Undergraduate Research (CUR), and Northeast Environmental Studies Group (NEES). E-mails and flyers are sent to geoscience departments across the United States, and word-of-mouth remains an important method of locating new applicants. Student from underrepresented groups are strongly encouraged to apply.
Twenty-two years of undergraduate research in the geosciences—The Keck experience Student Selection Interested students (current juniors) apply online to the Keck Consortium. They must secure a recommender and a research advisor at their home institution before applying. The students are encouraged to select three projects in order of preference; however, students almost always receive their first preference (43 of 45 students got their first choice in 2007). Each Keck institution is restricted to five applicants in order to provide some flexibility in the selection process, but it is unlikely that more than two students from any one Keck member school will be selected, since the consortium attempts to distribute the available slots equitably among the member institutions. Under the present funding model, ~30% of the student participants come from outside the Keck Consortium. There are no restrictions on the number of applications from non-Keck schools. Students are selected by the 18 Keck representatives, in consultation with the Keck director and the project faculty, via an online selection process in February and early March. At present, the consortium supports ~45–50 students, but the number of student participants has ranged from 24 in 1988 to a high of 85 in 1997 (when sophomore projects were still offered). Selection is based on the faculty recommendation, student academic background (course prerequisites and performance), motivation for doing the project, membership in underrepresented groups, and equitable distribution across the Keck member schools. Selection is highly competitive (overall grade-point average [GPA] for students selected in 2008–2009 was 3.48, with 3.68 in major courses). The consortium requires students to complete the summer field-based portion of the project, but they also commit to completing their research during the academic year as a senior independent study research course at their home institution. One of the strengths of the Keck experience is that all students are guided by a research advisor from their home institution in addition to their project director. Ideally, this home research advisor will have expertise in the student’s project topic. Joint publications by the project director, student, and home institution research advisor are not uncommon. Clear and frequent communication among all parties is crucial in making this arrangement successful. Most faculty from the Keck member schools are fully aware of the expectations of the research advisor, while non-Keck faculty may require additional guidance. Research advisors are encouraged to visit their students in the field and to attend the Keck Research Symposium in the spring. The project director provides background readings and prepares a preliminary synthesis of what is known about the field site, but individual students are expected to craft their own research proposal and goals. The project director may have a sense of the overall research questions that guide the project, but students must be able to articulate the value of their individual contributions. Historically, there have been two categories of student projects, those for eligible sophomores who had completed their first
165
two years of college and had taken at least one or two geology courses, and those for rising senior geology majors who were between their junior and senior year of college. Sophomore projects were phased out over the past few years, so all projects are now geared toward rising senior students. Summer Research The actual research project may have three distinct phases, beginning with a 4 wk field experience and continuing through summer laboratory and/or sample preparation into research at a student’s home institution during the academic year. In the field phase, students identify a specific project and gather samples, make field observations and measurements, and/or complete mapping projects. As with any research program, the particular methodologies used are matched to the project goals. In some cases, the 4 wk period is divided between the field and laboratory so that students can begin processing samples prior to returning to their home campuses. Pre-fieldwork might include the use of geographic information systems (GIS) to prepare field maps, or training of students in the use of field equipment. Field-based projects involve a wide variety of pedagogical approaches depending on the nature of the project and the preferences and experience of the faculty. Each Keck experience ensures that individual students will have their own research objective within the overall project. In addition, funding for student field-related expenses, and often for analytical data collection, is assured. The field phase is not just data collection; invariably, friendships develop, and a sense of common purpose and community grows. This group identity motivates students during the field season and supports them through their independent study the following academic year. Shared challenges, goals, and experiences help integrate the students into a strong research group. Project faculty employ a number of strategies to engage the students; for example, some students work first in a single large group, or go through a systematic rotation of different roles (lead investigator, field assistant), and others involve students in small teams (three to four students) or assign permanent research partnerships. Regardless of approach, a sense of community is built quickly through student-to-student interactions. Additionally, students are housed together on projects, and the experience of living, socializing, and working together enhances the sense of camaraderie developed during the field season. Many project faculty require their students to complete short project proposals before finalizing the details of the projects. The project faculty, may, in consultation with the student and home institution research advisor, determine the specific project before starting the field season, but usually project selection occurs in the first few days of the summer fieldwork. Many field-based projects include a laboratory component during the summer phase of the project. Laboratory work may occur before, during, or after the field phase. The summer laboratory work may only involve sample preparation, such as cutting
166
de Wet et al.
rock chips for thin sections, while the actual observations or analytical work will be done at the student’s home institution during the academic year. In other cases, the laboratory work needs to be completed over the summer because of the nature of the samples or because the necessary analytical equipment is not available at the student’s home institution. Since the students involved in the Keck projects are required to continue their research as an independent project at their home institution after the summer, the expectations for each project are high. The students need to leave the summer season with a viable independent project that will lead to further research that can be accomplished in an academic year time frame. Academic Year Independent Research While the Keck 4 wk summer experience is shorter than the time frame for many NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) projects, we have found that continuing the student’s research into the academic year has proven successful in many ways. Maintaining momentum through the academic year, while challenging, is one of the most successful aspects of the Keck experience. Shared goals and the commitment of the on-campus faculty research advisor, combined with regular communication and attention by the project director, are fundamental to success during the academic year. Goals are set at the project and program levels. Research plans and deadlines developed by the project directors are in keeping with the project’s overall objectives. In many cases, the student’s project is tailored to the expertise and analytical resources available at the student’s home institution. In other situations, students may analyze their samples at another institution during the academic year. One of the great strengths of the Keck Consortium is that students have access to equipment at other Keck or collaborating institutions. This enriches the students’ research experience and enhances the scientific value of the research. Some projects have effectively used course management software to facilitate communication and data sharing during the academic year. Some projects involve coordinated laboratory work at one institution, or a collaborating research laboratory, during the academic year. For example, the Keck projects directed by Tekla Harms, Jack Cheney, and John Brady in the Tobacco Root Mountains of Montana have involved a midyear workshop at Amherst College, where students meet to discuss their results to date and collect additional analytical data. The 2005 Minnesota project took advantage of laboratory facilities at Washington State University in January 2006. Annual Symposium and Proceedings Volume The annual spring Keck Geology Research Symposium is the culminating event of the Keck research experience. Prior to the symposium, students submit a six-page research paper with illustrations and references reporting the results of their research. These “short contributions” are reviewed by the research advisors and
project directors, edited by the technical editor for consistency in organization and geoscience style, and published as a proceedings volume. Past volumes are archived on the Keck Web site (www .keckgeology.org). Since the 2004–2005 program year, the production of the annual proceedings volume has moved to electronic publication to reflect a process similar to professional publications. A draft version of the proceedings volume is printed for distribution at the symposium, during which groups have time to reconnect, reflect, and share data, often resulting in revisions to their papers. The students are thus exposed to the ongoing process of writing, editing, and manuscript submittal. All students also present a poster of their results at the Keck Symposium. The posters follow standard professional meeting formats. The final online publication becomes available on the Web site in late spring (www.keckgeology.org/publications). The annual symposium is hosted by one of the Keck Consortium members (except in 2001, when it was hosted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration at the Goddard Space Flight Center). The symposium typically involves a 1 d field trip highlighting the local geology near the host institution. The field trip serves several purposes, such as reinforcing the idea that field observations are a critical part of the science of geology, increasing the students’ knowledge of regional geology, and providing an opportunity for social and scientific interactions leading to the development of a geoscience community. The evening after the field trip is devoted to project meetings, which involve final editing of the short contributions, reviewing the posters, and fine-tuning the presentations for the following day. The second day is devoted to the presentation of the research results. Given time constraints, only a subset of the students give oral presentations; however, all students present posters on their research. Each project is assigned a certain amount of time for oral presentations based on the number of participants in the project. Project faculty typically give a short introduction to their project before handing the podium over to the student presenters. The oral presentations are interspersed with poster sessions. This presentation of results in a supportive but professional environment builds the students confidence and provides them with valuable professional experience. Many students also present their results in other forums. For example, the 2005 Dominican Republic project resulted in two presentations at the national meeting of GSA (2005) and nine additional presentations at regional GSA meetings. It is also not uncommon for Keck students to present their research at a national GSA or American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in the year following their graduation. While the consortium encourages presentation of student work at appropriate national and regional venues, the Keck Symposium is an important and substantive part of the Keck research experience because of the collaborative nature of the program. The annual symposium is much more than a place to present results. It is the capstone of the program, serving a number of additional and critical functions. The symposium fosters a sense of “Keck” community for students, project faculty, and sponsors. The presymposium field trip, shared meals, and shared science
Twenty-two years of undergraduate research in the geosciences—The Keck experience
Breadth and Depth in Research Projects The consortium strives to provide a wide variety of projects from which students can choose, ranging from traditional subdisciplines such as igneous and metamorphic petrology, volcanology, structural geology, sedimentology, and paleontology, to interdisciplinary studies such as climatology, geoarchaeology, and environmental geology. In some cases, when the overall theme of a project is not interdisciplinary, the individual student projects within it involves several subdisciplines, reflecting the varying interests and expertise of the faculty and students on the project. Of the 137 projects funded since 1987, 15 have focused on metamorphic petrology, 11 on volcanology, 10 on igneous petrology, 10 on structural geology, 9 on glacial/Quaternary geology, 8 on environmental geology, 8 on tectonics, 7 on geophysics, 6 on carbonate sedimentology, 6 on geomorphology, 5 have been interdisciplinary, 5 have focused on hydrology, 4 on sedimentology, 4 on experimental petrology, 4 on climate, 4 on paleontology/sedimentology, 2 on planetary geology, 2 on soils, 2 on geoarchaeology, 1 on remote sensing, 1 on GIS, and 1 on mineralogy. The remaining projects were broadly interdisciplinary. Over the years, there has been a slight shift toward interdisciplinary and environmental projects, reflecting the changing interests of the participating faculty and students. However, it remains an important goal of the consortium to continue to offer research opportunities in a wide variety of subdisciplines of the geosciences. Of the 137 Keck projects since 1987, 128 have been completely or largely field-based projects, and nine have been laboratory-based projects (experimental petrology, remote sensing, planetary geology, and GIS). Ninety-nine projects have been located in the United States (29 states and U.S. territories), and 38 have been conducted overseas in 15 different countries (Fig. 2). Canada has accounted for 11 projects, while Mongolia, Greece, and the Bahamas have accounted for four projects each. Other countries have included Australia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Mexico, Spain, and Switzerland. Domestic and overseas projects follow the same general structure and have the same oversight. KECK ADMINISTRATION Program Administration and Funding Since its inception, the consortium has been led by a coordinator or director (Fig. 3). Until 1996, this position was a vol-
90 % Non-U.S. projects
80 70
% per year
all act to stimulate the sense of programmatic belonging that is so valuable to all participants. It is at the symposium that faculty meet to discuss future collaborations and develop project ideas. Interaction among all project faculty and sponsors at the symposium is responsible for the strong interconnection among the faculty, and it is a vehicle for including faculty from other schools in the geoscience community. They learn about us as we learn about them, to the benefit of future projects.
167
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Year
Figure 2. Percentage of projects based outside the United States and its territories.
Keck Emergency Response Team
Keck Office: Keck director Keck administrative assistant
Keck Member Institutions (18) Keck representatives council - 18 members: (1 faculty from each member institution) Meets twice a year: Spring - Symposium Fall - Annual GSA
Keck Projects: 5-8 per year
Keck Executive Committee (3 faculty from Keck member institutions)
Keck nonmember institutions Project faculty Project students
Project director Project faculty
Student research advisors
Project students Student research advisors
Other collaborators
Figure 3. The Keck Geology Consortium administrative structure.
untary, part-time position held initially by Bill Fox at Williams and then by Hank Woodard at Beloit. Considerable logistical support was provided by their respective departmental administrative assistants. As the complexity of running the consortium increased, the demands on the director increased, and full- or part-time directors were hired who were not teaching faculty. In 2004, as a cost-cutting measure, the consortium returned to the original model of having a faculty member at one of the consortium institutions direct the program. The consortium director is now a one-third time position, with a part-time administrative assistant, both of which are funded by contributions from the member institutions. The Keck office administers the finances,
168
de Wet et al.
maintains the Keck Web site, solicits project proposals, manages the student selection process, deals with safety and insurance issues, edits and publishes the annual symposium proceedings volume, assists in the organization of the annual symposium, seeks funding, and maintains the records of the consortium. The Keck director is supported in his/her work by an executive committee (three faculty members with substantial experience in directing consortium projects) and a group of representatives, one from each institution (Fig. 3). The consortium has two annual meetings of the executive committee and representatives: one at the annual Geological Society of America (GSA) meeting in the fall and the other during the Keck Symposium in the spring. Along with the general business of the consortium, the representatives plan the program for the coming year at these meetings. The slate of summer projects for the following year is finalized at the fall representatives meeting at GSA. The project directors administer the individual project budgets and, together with the other project faculty, are responsible for the logistical and scientific aspects of the individual projects. The funding model for the consortium has evolved over the years. The W.M. Keck Foundation provided most of the funding for the first 10 yr, with decreasing contributions for the subsequent 5 yr. Since then, funding has been obtained from a variety of sources, including the Keck member institutions, NSF, ExxonMobil Foundation, and the National Geographic Society. Presently, ~50% of the funding for the consortium is provided by the Keck Member institutions, and 50% is provided by NSF (NSF grant EAR-0648782). Safety and Other Issues (Keck Policies) The Keck Geology Consortium is not incorporated, but it is a “consortium” or affiliation of 18 colleges. All participants in the consortium abide by the policies of their home institution and of the institution housing the Keck office and director. In many cases, however, the member institutions may not have explicit guidelines or policies, or there may potentially be conflicting policies. In order to clarify any ambiguities, the consortium has placed an increasing emphasis on safety as the overarching principle governing policy decisions. Over the years, it has become increasingly important to be explicit about policies and procedures concerning field safety, sexual assault and harassment, nonfraternization, alcohol and illegal drug use, publication and authorship of results, and student dismissal from a project. Keck policies are clearly described in a series of handbooks that are tailored to the student participants, faculty members, and project directors. The handbooks are updated annually and are provided to every participant. Project faculty are required to review all the Keck policies with the students at the first meeting of the project participants in the summer. These policies have been largely successful in preventing problems by being clear and proactive. Safety is the top priority for all projects. Throughout the program, the consortium has implemented numerous practices
to optimize the safety of all participants. Medical and other information is collected by the Keck office and distributed to the project faculty prior to the start of the summer research. Access to medical care while in the field is determined prior to departure. While it is not required, many faculty have emergency medical training, and, in some cases, a medical doctor has accompanied the project in the field. Communication in the field has become more important: two-way radios, cell phones, and, in more remote areas, satellite phones are used. Typically, students work in pairs in the field. While the consortium strives to accommodate any special needs of students, some projects have unusual requirements, even for geological fieldwork. For example, scuba certification was required for the 2007 Saint Croix project, while training in the use of kayaks was required for many projects on Vinalhaven Island, Maine. Bears and other natural hazards are a concern in many locations, and, in some situations, specialized training is provided. Dietary flexibility is particularly necessary on the Mongolia projects, and some overseas projects require extensive vaccinations. The consortium has an emergency response team that includes the Keck director, several administrators from the host institution (at present: Franklin and Marshall College), and faculty or administrators from the member institutions. This team is available to respond to any serious issues that might arise during the field season or during the academic year (Fig. 3). Depending on the type of emergency, it is not inconceivable that members of the team might need to travel to the project location in order to most effectively deal with the situation. To date, the Emergency Response Team has not been activated. Assessment and Feedback An ongoing assessment and evaluation effort is used to continually improve the program. The Keck office maintains basic statistics about the projects and the faculty and student participants, including the size and disciplinary focus of the projects, Keck and non-Keck student and faculty participation, gender, and participation by underrepresented groups. All student participants anonymously complete a project assessment at the annual symposium in the spring. These responses cover not only the overall structure of the Keck experience but also the details of the individual projects. This information is then compiled by the Keck office and distributed to the project faculty. The consortium office keeps these records and uses past responses to guide the next program cycle. There was a 90% completion rate for student evaluations for the 2004–2005 and 2005–2006 projects. Of those, 100% of student participants reported the educational value of their Keck experience to be a 4 or 5, and 84% of those ranked the experience as excellent (5). Evaluations include Likert scale responses to seven questions, including the effectiveness of communication prior to the summer experience and during the academic year, as well as open-ended responses to a variety of questions related to experience.
Twenty-two years of undergraduate research in the geosciences—The Keck experience Finally, the Keck office gathers information about Keck alumni, either directly or through the member institutions. Results from alumni surveys indicate that the Keck experience enhances fundamental scientific and geoscience skills, but it also positively impacts student enthusiasm for science (Lauer-Glebov and Palmer, 2004). The assessment results indicate that the preparation students receive in their Keck undergraduate research experiences translates into skills relevant for their careers. ENDURING LESSONS The Keck Geology Consortium was founded with two primary objectives: to provide high-quality undergraduate research opportunities for liberal arts students, and to energize and support faculty with new opportunities for research and a new network of colleagues. The program design addressed both of these goals simultaneously by using collaborative research projects that involved students and faculty from multiple institutions. Twentytwo years later, this basic program design is still in place. Perhaps the greatest strength of the Keck Consortium experience is that students work in collaborative research groups directly with faculty who have dedicated their lives to the synergy of research and teaching that permeates the undergraduate environment within the consortium institutions (Manduca, 1996; Palmer, 2002; Bettison-Varga, 2005). The Keck faculty know, from significant individual and collective experience, what undergraduates are capable of accomplishing in the field and laboratory when properly supported and mentored during the summer and academic year. The guiding principle among faculty in the consortium is their commitment to high-level undergraduate research (Manduca, 1996; Knapp et al., 2006). Although the consortium is primarily a research-oriented entity, collaborations, camaraderie, further education, and mentoring have invariably become integral aspects of the consortium’s philosophy. The Keck Consortium is not prescriptive in its approach to studentfaculty collaborations, but rather it provides a framework in which faculty have the freedom to design projects based on their own experience and expertise. Right from the beginning, it was recognized that students would benefit from exposure to the complete research experience, from the development of scientific questions, fieldwork and sampling, sample and data analysis, to the publication of results (Elgren and Hensel, 2006). The use of cross-institutional faculty teams supports professional development in both research and teaching, and the project groups provide a rich environment for students to integrate and apply their geoscience knowledge, to develop as geoscience researchers, to meet students from across the country who share their research interests, and to test their interest in pursuing further study in geoscience. Faculty and students at the member institutions and beyond relish the opportunity to participate in “Keck projects.” Apart from a few projects that have focused on topics like planetary geology or experimental petrology, all Keck projects have had a significant field component. This reflects the fact that
169
most aspects of the geosciences are firmly rooted in fieldwork and that field experiences are a crucial aspect of the training of a geoscientist. Consortium projects involving fieldwork are distinct from other field-related experiences, such as traditional field camps, because they emphasize original research, and not necessarily learning a full compendium of field skills. This takes the faculty and students into uncharted territory, which is both exciting and unpredictable. While almost all Keck faculty would agree that exposure to fieldwork such as completion of a traditional field camp is desirable before a student starts a Keck project, this is not always possible. Many Keck institutions do not require field camp, but most encourage students to complete a field camp before graduation. Students without prior fieldwork usually require some field training during the Keck project. Generally, faculty support the idea that a typical Keck project is complementary to a traditional field camp but does not fully replace the broad range of skills learned through that experience (Baker, 2006). The required completion of an independent research project based on the summer research and the associated “short contribution” is also an important aspect of the program. Keck faculty firmly believe that student writing is a crucial aspect of engaging in successful research. Many project faculty require the students to complete numerous writing exercises during the summer research season including a research proposal, fieldwork reports, and a fieldwork summary. The consortium continues to invest considerable resources in the reporting of the results of the research through participation in the annual symposium and the publication of the annual proceedings volume. For many years, the consortium funded numerous academic year workshops for students and faculty geared toward the ongoing research projects, or workshops for Keck faculty to introduce new techniques, pedagogy, or equipment that could benefit future projects. Faculty workshop topics have included computer applications, remote sensing, teaching geomorphology, and teaching paleontology. Many of these topics are being perpetuated by the NSF-sponsored “On the Cutting Edge” workshops today. Funding challenges have meant that workshops can no longer be supported by the consortium. Given the widespread enthusiasm, particularly for the research workshops, reinstating these workshops should be a priority for the consortium. RESULTS To date, the consortium has supported 1094 undergraduate students (1175 slots, 81 repeats) from more than 80 schools across the nation (Fig. 4). The 137 research projects sponsored by the consortium have involved over 121 faculty (410 slots, many repeats) representing more than 46 different colleges, universities, governmental agencies, and businesses. Participants in the program are diverse. Women students have always been attracted to the program, filling 661 (56%) of the 1175 student positions that have been offered to date. Female participation on projects has remained remarkably stable over
170
de Wet et al. 80
90
% Female faculty
Faculty Students Projects
80
% Female students
70
% Female BA degrees (all U.S.)
70 60
50
50
%
Number per year
60
40 30
40 30
20
20 10
10 0 1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Year
Figure 4. Faculty and student participants in Keck projects and number of Keck projects over time (data compiled from the Keck records and the annual symposium proceedings, available at www.keckgeology.org).
22 yr (Fig. 5). This overall participation rate is significantly higher than the rate at which women have been receiving geoscience baccalaureate degrees from all U.S. institutions over the same period (AGI, 2008). Female faculty participation is lower, reflecting the lower proportion of women in faculty positions. Initially, female faculty participation averaged 3% (7 out of 203), but since 1996, the average participation rate has been 34% (71 out of 207), significantly higher than the 17% (2003 ratio) of female geoscience faculty in U.S. B.A. and B.S. degree-granting institutions (Holmes and O’Connell, 2004). Increasing the participation of underrepresented groups was a consortium goal from the outset. An early grant from the National Science Foundation specifically targeted minority participation, including the development of 6 wk projects for sophomores. The sophomore projects were designed to give students, particularly minority students, an early research experience to encourage their completion of a geology major. Once the initial program was established and successful, funding was put in place to expand participation beyond the original institutions (which had been specified by the Keck Foundation). Opening up participation was an important goal from both the student and faculty perspectives. Faculty were interested in the highest quality research experiences possible with an expanding circle of colleagues who shared their research and teaching interests. It was clear that funding that enabled broader participation would strengthen the scientific base of the projects—what were the odds that 12 liberal arts colleges would have the right mix of expertise to address any specific problem?—while allowing new perspectives, new colleagues, and new discussion to enter the consortium faculty community. Similarly, drawing students from a broader community would enrich the student cohort while expanding the opportunities for motivated students to participate in research
0 1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Year
Figure 5. Percentage female faculty and student participation through time. The rate at which women have been receiving geoscience baccalaureate degrees from all U.S. institutions over the same period is from AGI (2008).
(at the time, undergraduate research experiences were not as readily available as they are today). Expanding involvement in the program proved to be rewarding for all, broadening the pool of excellent students and faculty involved in projects, and providing increased access to resources and advanced facilities at other colleges and universities. The number of faculty and students from nonmember institutions has continued to increase (member institutions contribute toward the funding of the program) (Fig. 6). To date, non-Keck students have occupied 161 out of 1175 student slots, or 13.7%. More recently the Keck Consortium is committed to ~25%–30% nonKeck student participation as required by the NSF REU 0648782 grant for 2007–2010. In 2007, 28% of students were from 13 nonKeck institutions. In 2008, the portion of non-Keck students was 29% from 11 non-Keck institutions. A key to success in this area has been a strong advertising and recruiting effort, coupled with mentoring of faculty new to the program to help them become familiar with the educational goals and best practices developed through the years. Alumni records indicate that well over 50% of Keck alumni have attended graduate and/or professional schools, and the vast majority have received advanced degrees in the geosciences. Since 1988, Keck students and faculty have presented over 340 multi-authored papers at professional conferences and published over 70 articles in peer-reviewed journals, including a GSA Special Paper (Brady et al., 2004). Since the Keck Consortium has been in existence for such a long time, it is now possible to assess the long-term impacts of the Keck experience on students. Keck alumni can be found in a wide variety of occupations, including K–12 teaching, consulting, industry, state and federal agencies, and academia. Recently,
Twenty-two years of undergraduate research in the geosciences—The Keck experience 60 Non-Keck faculty Non-Keck students
50
% per year
40
30
20
10
0 1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Year
Figure 6. Percentage of non-Keck faculty and student participation.
we compiled information on alumni who entered academia (visiting, tenure-track, and tenured) as a career. This information is instructive in evaluating claims that high-quality research experiences lead students to choose a career involving research and teaching. Since on average there is about a 7 yr delay between completing a B.A. degree and achieving a Ph.D., the following information reflects the students that participated in Keck projects in the 1980s and 1990s. Presently, there are over 44 Keck alumni, out of 710 Keck students from 1988 to 1999, in faculty positions (visiting, tenuretrack, and tenured) in U.S. colleges and universities. This represents a yield of ~6%. When only junior projects are considered (42 out of 44 Keck alums in academia completed a junior project, which involved a senior research project during the academic year), the yield is even higher, 42 out of 503 junior students for a yield of 8%. For comparison, an average of 3138 earth science bachelor’s degrees were awarded in the U.S. between 1989 and 2000 (National Science Board, 2008). Taking into account the approximately 7 yr delay between the B.A. and the Ph.D., and looking at the years between 1997 and 2005, an average of 420 doctoral degrees were awarded in the United States (National Science Board, 2008). Around 15%–25% (~84) of Ph.D. graduates enter academia (Keelor, 2005; National Science Board, 2008) resulting in a 2%–3% yield of bachelor degree students in geology moving into academic careers. This number is almost certainly even lower, considering that many academic positions in the United States are occupied by graduates who completed their undergraduate degree outside the United States. According to the National Science Board (2008), 26% of all geoscience Ph.D.’s in 2003 were foreign-born. Based on these data, Keck alumni that completed a junior project are at least three times more likely than average to obtain a faculty geoscience appointment.
171
Additionally, 22 out of 44, or 50%, of Keck alums in faculty positions are women. This is comparable to the proportion of women participating in Keck junior projects between 1989 and 1999, which was 54% (58% for sophomore projects). This is a yield of 93%. Compare this to the fact that in the United States around 40% of bachelors degrees are awarded to women, while only 21%–22% of assistant professors are women, and we observe a nearly 50% attrition rate (Holmes and O’Connell, 2004; AGI, 2008). Proportionally, female Keck alumni are almost twice as likely as other female geology undergraduates to enter college and university teaching, so there is effectively no “leaky academic pipeline” for Keck female alumni. While we cannot be certain that Keck participation was the dominant reason for the success of these students in pursuing an academic career, it is certainly true that for most of them, the Keck research experience was their most significant exposure to doing research as undergraduates. Highly selective liberal arts colleges have long been well regarded for their success in producing geoscience Ph.D.’s, and in many ways the Keck Geology Consortium has expanded and enhanced the successful student mentoring activities of the participating geoscience departments prior to Keck’s inception in 1987. Since successful research skills and experience are crucial for success at the Ph.D. level, and ultimately for entering academia, is not unreasonable to suggest that the Keck experience positively impacted these students. As participation in the consortium expands to many non-Keck institutions, it will be informative to see if the success of the program can be duplicated. FUTURE CHALLENGES Despite past successes, the consortium faces numerous challenges. One of the biggest challenges is maintaining the integrity of the program while expanding participation to non-Keck students and faculty. The program relies on the full commitment of all the participants, including the project faculty, students, and research advisors. Senior faculty at the Keck institutions have extensive experience with the workings and goals of the consortium and actively mentor their junior faculty. Students and faculty from outside the consortium must quickly come up to speed with these requirements to realize the program’s full benefits. Another challenge involves increasing the participation of students from underrepresented groups. For years, the consortium had an excellent track record of involving woman in the program; however, women are no longer underrepresented at the undergraduate and graduate levels in the geosciences. Over several years, the consortium ran sophomore projects that specifically targeted students from underrepresented groups. This funding is no longer available and the participation of students from underrepresented groups in rising senior projects continues to be a challenge. Recently, the consortium has received funding from the ExxonMobil Foundation that provides several “enhanced grants” for students from underrepresented groups. We anticipate that the successful recruitment of increasing numbers of students
172
de Wet et al.
from underrepresented groups into the Keck program will have lasting effects on the geoscience community. CONCLUSION The Keck Geology Consortium has an extremely strong record in engaging undergraduate students in meaningful research. It exposes students to a wide spectrum of the scientific research endeavors, providing them with skills, self-confidence, and sense of ownership in the scientific process. This is a process that has long-lasting, positive consequences, as shown by the very high percentage of Keck alumni who have come full circle and are now teaching geology, many in undergraduate institutions similar to those they graduated from. Fieldwork has remained one of the core components of almost all the Keck projects. Participation in a Keck project invariably increases the appreciation of the students for field-based observations and skills. The Keck experience demonstrates that a carefully crafted, well-organized, field-based research project may be a key component in retaining students in the geosciences and in providing a vehicle for the continuation of undergraduates, particularly women, into a wide variety of geoscience-related careers, including academia. REFERENCES CITED AGI, 2008, Female participation in the academic geoscience community: Geoscience Currents, v. 9, 1 p. Baker, M.A., 2006, Status Report on Geoscience Summer Field Camps: American Geological Institute Geoscience Workforce Report GW-06-003, 8 p. Bettison-Varga, L., 2005, Learning through research: Best practices from the Keck Geology Consortium: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 7, p. 492.
Brady, J.B., Burger, H.R, Cheney, J.T., and Harms, T.A., eds., 2004, Precambrian Geology of the Tobacco Root Mountains, Montana: Geological Society of America Special Paper 377, 256 p. Elgren, T., and Hensel, N., 2006, Undergraduate research experiences: Synergies between scholarship and teaching: Peer Review, v. 8, no. 1. Holmes, M.A., and O’Connell, S., 2004, Where are the women geoscience professors?: Report on the National Science Foundation/Association for Women Geoscientists Foundation Sponsored Workshop: Lincoln, Nebraska, 40 p., available at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/geosciencefacpub/86/ (accessed 19 August 2009). Keelor, B., 2005, Earth and Space Science Ph.D. Class of 2003, Report Released: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 86, no. 31, doi: 10.1029/2005EO310004. Knapp, E.P., Greer, L., Connors, C.D., and Harbor, D.J., 2006, Field-based instruction as part of a balanced geoscience curriculum at Washington and Lee University: Journal of Geological Education, v. 54, no. 2, p. 103–108. Lauer-Glebov, J.M., and Palmer, B.A., 2004, Knowing what we know: Assessing the Keck Consortium’s core outcomes from a historical perspective: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 5, p. 156. Manduca, C.A., 1996, The value of undergraduate research experiences: Reflections from Keck Geology Consortium alumni: Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, v. 16, no. 3, p. 176–178. Manduca, C.A., and Woodard, H.H., 1995, Research groups for undergraduate students and faculty in the Keck Geology Consortium: Journal of Geological Education, v. 43, no. 4, p. 400–403. Manduca, C.A., Grosfils, E., and Wobus, R.A., 1999, Working together for our best interests: Sustainable collaboration in the Keck Geology Consortium: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 80, no. 46, p. F111. National Science Board, 2008, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Two Volumes): Arlington, Virginia, National Science Foundation (volume 1, NSB 08-01, 588 p.; volume 2, NSB 08-01A, 575 p.). Palmer, B., 2002, Lessons from the Keck Geology Consortium: Benefits and costs of large collaborations: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35, no. 6, p. 601. Wobus, R.A., 1988, Interinstitutional collaboration in undergraduate geological research: The consortium approach: Council on Undergraduate Research Newsletter, v. 9, no. 2, p. 32–35. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Field glaciology and earth systems science: The Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP), 1946–2008 Cathy Connor Department of Natural Sciences, University Alaska Southeast, Juneau, Alaska 99801, USA
ABSTRACT For over 50 yr, the Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP) has provided undergraduate students with an 8 wk summer earth systems and glaciology field camp. This field experience engages students in the geosciences by placing them directly into the physically challenging glacierized alpine landscape of southeastern Alaska. Mountaintop camps across the Juneau Icefield provide essential shelter and facilitate the program’s instructional aim to enable direct observations by students of active glacier surface processes, glaciogenic landscapes, and the region’s tectonically deformed bedrock. Disciplinary knowledge is transferred by teams of JIRP faculty in the style of a scientific institute. JIRP staffers provide glacier safety training, facilitate essential camp logistics, and develop JIRP student field skills through daily chores, remote camp management, and glacier travel in small field parties. These practical elements are important components of the program’s instructional philosophy. Students receive on-glacier training in mass-balance data collection and ice-velocity measurements as they ski ~320 km across the icefield glaciers between Juneau, Alaska, and Atlin, British Columbia. They use their glacier skills and disciplinary interests to develop research experiments, collect field data, and produce reports. Students present their research at a public forum at the end of the summer. This experience develops its participants for successful careers as researchers in extreme and remote environments. The long-term value of the JIRP program is examined here through the professional evolution of six of its recent alumni. Since its inception, ~1300 students, faculty, and staff have participated in the Juneau Icefield Research Program. Most of these faculty and staff have participated for multiple summers and many JIRP students have returned to work as program staff and sometimes later as faculty. The number of JIRP participants (1946–2008) can also be measured by adding up each summer’s participants, raising the total to ~2500. INTRODUCTION Ralph Waldo Emerson believed in “the education of the scholar by nature, by books, and by action” (Emerson, 1837). He was probably the first North American philosopher to advocate for the education of students using a pedagogy with emphasis on direct student involvement and experience relative to bibliomania. Over the last half century, the Juneau Icefield Research
Program (JIRP) has created a singular summer field experience founded on Emerson’s educational doctrine (Fig. 1). Southeast Alaska’s maritime rain forest and Coast Range Mountains provide the extraordinary glacier laboratory that has guided the program’s founder and director, Maynard M. Miller, with his application of Emerson’s philosophy by “bringing the students into nature” (Miller, 1994, personal commun.). Each summer, JIRP students travel to Juneau, Alaska, and receive an extensive,
Figure 1. The Juneau Icefield Research Program’s pedagogy is based on Ralph Waldo Emerson’s (1837) Philosophy.
on-site synthesis of Alaska’s coastal geology, glaciology, climatology, geomorphology, ecology, meteorology, hydrology, geophysics, and other landscape information. They are trained in the acquisition of discipline-specific data from nunatak base camps located on bedrock ridge tops across the 3176 km2 glacierized U.S.-Canada border region in the Coast Mountains of southeastern Alaska and northwestern British Columbia (Fig. 2). Students are required to develop a research experiment and the data collection methodology and analysis to address it. Since initial research on this glacier system beginning in 1946, Miller and his JIRP faculty colleagues have incorporated geoscience education and student training into their own Juneau Icefield summer research program, inspiring generations of earth system science students. At the 2002 meeting of the International Glaciological Society held in Yakutat, Alaska, a straw poll of the audience revealed that over 50% of the attendees, a broad spectrum of the world’s working and highly respected research climate scientists and their graduate students were JIRP alumni. Evolution of a Glacier Science Education Program: A Brief JIRP History Since its inception, research on the Juneau Icefield has been directed toward the understanding of temperate coastal glacier change under the influence of climate. Following World War II and into the Cold War, U.S. strategic interests included Arctic sea-ice research and measurements of ice thickness to assess effects on missile trajectories beneath the ice. The Taku Glacier in the Juneau Icefield system, located in the southeastern Alaska
panhandle, was identified as a more accessible and economical outdoor laboratory for cold regions research. Beginning in 1946, reconnaissance of the Juneau Icefield enabled planning for studies of Taku Glacier’s mass balance (Heusser, 2007). The “Project on the Taku Glacier” (The Project), a 10 yr contract with the Office of Naval Research to the American Geographical Society of New York, led to eight field seasons beginning in 1948 through the International Geophysical Year (IGY, 1957–1958). During the IGY, researchers also measured and monitored Juneau Icefield’s Lemon Creek Glacier, one of nine glaciers selected for its global climatic significance (Marcus et al., 1995) and the location of JIRP Camp 17 (Fig. 2). Members of the Project on the Taku Glacier also investigated icefield-wide glacier processes, the relationships between hydrology and ice-terminus positions, their links to climate, and the paleoclimate records in adjacent landscapes through their glacier and bog sediments (Miller, 1947, 1950, 1954, 1956–1957, 1957, 1961, 1963; Field and Miller, 1950; Miller and Field, 1951; R.D. Miller, 1973, 1975; Heusser, 2007). Glacier studies in the Juneau region were built upon the work of Cooper (1937), Field (1947), and others referenced in Connor et al. (2009), who worked extensively on the post–Little Ice Age recessional glacier terminus positions in nearby Glacier Bay. The nonprofit Foundation for Glacier and Environmental Research (FGER) was established in 1955 to support the Juneau Icefield Research Program, which followed the termination of the Project on the Taku Glacier, and which has continued for the last half century with student training in mountaineering techniques, glaciology, and extensive field studies of the Taku Glacier region (Miller, 1976, 1977, 1985; Pelto and Miller, 1990; Marcus et al.,
Field glaciology and earth systems science: The Juneau Icefield Research Program
175
Figure 2. Location map of the Juneau Icefield with selected research camps referenced in text. Basemap is by Bowen (2005).
1995; McGee et al., 1996–2007; Adema et al., 1997; Sprenke et al., 1999; Miller and Molnia, 2006; Pelto et al., 2008). A seminal date for support of the early JIRP program was 3 November 1957, the launch by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of the first satellite, Sputnik. This event intensified the space race (1957–1975) between the United States and Russia and resulted in massive infusions of U.S. federal funding for science education. From 1960 through 1975, as selected U.S. elementary students were abruptly switched into learning the “new math,” to find the next generation of engineering students, the JIRP program’s basic research mission included the education of graduate students. Support came in part from National Science Foundation (NSF) awards to the Institute of Glaciological and Arctic Environmental Sciences, which transferred from Michigan State University to the University of Idaho in 1975. Miller’s wide ranging interests in glacier processes and mountaineering led to his participation in the first American ascent team of Mount Everest in 1963, following
Sir Edmund Hillary’s achievement in 1953, and included Miller’s analysis of tritium isotopes in firn pack stratigraphy collected at 7470 m (Miller et al., 1965). His annual Camp 10 (Fig. 3) summer evening recount of this expedition has inspired generations of JIRP participants to combine their mountaineering and scientific interests. In 1979, eight undergraduates were included in the JIRP program for the first time. With support from the NSF Research for Undergraduates (REU) program (1987–1995), 98 undergraduates hailing from 74 different universities were JIRP alumni by 1997. High school students joined JIRP program through the NSF Young Scholars Program (YSP). Beginning in 1996, the University Alaska Southeast (UAS) began offering National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)–Alaska Space Grant Scholarships to JIRP students annually (Table 1), and by 1998, the UAS Environmental Science Program offered university credits to JIRP students. Since the beginning of the JIRP program, ~1300 students, faculty, and staff have participated in a Taku Glacier
176
Connor mer semester JIRP credits toward their respective university field camp requirements or for their degree program’s breadth course requirements. Students come from countries throughout the world to participate in the JIRP program. Summer JIRP student numbers have varied over the years, ranging from between 15 and 50, depending on funding resources and faculty and staff availability. In-service K–12 science teachers have also participated in JIRP, deeply enhancing their climate science teaching. Teacher training methods developed by the JIRP program have provided a template for other glacier-based, science education efforts for Alaska’s K–12 teachers and students (Connor and Prakash, 2008). Introduction of JIRP Students to Alaskan Glaciers in a Maritime Rain Forest
Figure 3. Matt Beedle (JIRP [Juneau Icefield Research Program], 1995) atop Taku B (1461 m) east of Taku Glacier Camp 10. View is westward showing Taku Towers in background. This peak is the focus of an annual JIRP program hike to look at Neoglacial moraine locations, Last Glacial Maximum striations, the Juneau Icefield Peaks, and for JIRP students to practice their “plunge step” descent back to camp (photo by Alf Pinchak).
summer field experience. Program support has also come from thousands of hours donated by the Miller family, summer JIRP faculty (university and agency researchers), and JIRP staffers. Many JIRP alumni have also contributed financially to FGER to help sustain the program through time. DEVELOPING EARTH SCIENCE CONCEPTS THROUGH INQUIRY METHODS ON GLACIERS JIRP Students To create a lasting understanding of the physical processes that have shaped southern Alaska’s coastal alpine regions, JIRP students spend their 8 wk summer learning the questions to ask about the tectonic and climate history of the region (Huntoon et al., 2001) while making quantitative and qualitative observations of glacier ice, mountaintop geomorphology, and the complex bedrock spatial distribution as they travel across this landscape. They journey an average of 320 km on foot, skis, or crampons, across the Lemon Creek, Taku, Llewellyn, and the smaller glaciers of the Juneau Icefield (Fig. 2). Safety is a primary program concern for all JIRP participants, and much of the early part of the program is dedicated to safety training. JIRP students are typically undergraduates majoring in geology, environmental geology, environmental science, physical geography, or allied disciplines (Table 1). They come from urban and rural universities, range widely in their athletic abilities, and include ski racers, rock climbers, studio dancers, hockey players, tractor drivers, and kite fliers (useful skills for deploying low-budget, remotesensing instruments on ice). Many students apply their 3–9 sum-
Students begin their first week in Juneau receiving daily, discipline-specific lectures and engaging with the region through introductory sea-level field trips. They learn about the tectonic history of this contractional orogenic belt (Stowell and McClelland, 2000) and observe its record in local metamorphic and plutonic bedrock outcrops and in the area’s extensive gold mineralization. JIRP students hike through Tongass National Forest’s temperate rain forest ecosystem and learn how patterns of soils and vegetation have developed on this intensely glaciated landscape. They observe the coastal geomorphic evidence for sealevel dynamism and post–Little Ice Age crustal uplift (Arendt et al., 2002; Larsen et al., 2005). Throughout this time, JIRP students test their glacier field gear and their own physical stamina. They also learn to make palatable and nutritious food in cooking groups, to share in camp maintenance chores, to develop wilderness first-aid skills, and to become adept at tying the essential knots that will be needed for glacier rope teams and successful crevasse investigations. For many years, JIRP students have marched in synchronized rope teams in the annual Juneau Fourth of July Parade, distributing Mendenhall Glacier ice to the locals and forming one of the program’s important links with the Juneau community. This community service activity also aids JIRP students in the development of the teamwork skills and logistical planning that will be needed later in the summer as they travel across glaciers in small field parties over crevassed terrain. Landscape Traverses and Spatial Thinking The first week of the program provides JIRP faculty and staff with the opportunities to assess JIRP students’ physical and mental abilities. This facilitates the selections of viable field travel groups for overall team strength and skill set diversity. After this first round of intensive and initial training, JIRP students detach from Juneau’s hydropowered electrical system and ascend 1200 m from sea level to Camp 17, the nearest icefield camp to Alaska’s capital city. To access the first JIRP camp, students, guided by experienced JIRP staffers, climb steep slopes vegetated by devils club, spruce, and hemlock,
Field glaciology and earth systems science: The Juneau Icefield Research Program TABLE 1. 1996–2008 JUNEAU ICEFIELD RECIPIENTS OF NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA) ALASKA SPACE GRANT SCHOLARSHIPS–UNIVERSITY ALASKA SOUTHEAST Year Student University Major 1 2008 Nicholas Chamberlin Appalachia State University Environmental Geology 2 2008 William Honsaker University of Cincinnati Geology 3 2008 Benjamin Kraemer Lawrence University Environmental Studies/Biochemistry 4 2008 James Menking Tulane University Geology/Spanish/Latin American Studies 5 2008 Wilson Salls Vassar College Earth Science 6 2007 Seth Campell University of Maine Earth Sciences 7 2007 Corinne Griffing University of Nevada Geoscience 8 2007 Ruth Heindel Brown University Geology-Biology 9 2007 Marie McLane Smith College Geology 10 2007 Megan O’Sadnick Wheaton College Physics/Minor Astronomy 11 2007 Brooks Prather Central Washington U.* Geology 12 2006 Peter Flynn U. of Alaska Southeast Environmental Science 13 2006 Lauren Adrian Whitman College Geology 14 2006 Alana Wilson University of North Carolina Environmental Science 15 2006 Xavier Bruehler Western Washington U. Environmental Geology 16 2006 Dan Sturgis University of Idaho Geology 17 2005 Linnea Koons Cornell University Science of Earth Systems 18 2005 Orion Lakota Stanford University Geology 19 2005 Janelle Mueller Portland State University Geology/Earth Science 20 2005 Mathew Nelson U. of Alaska Southeast Environmental Science 21 2005 Nathan Turpen University of Washington Earth and Space Science † 22 2004 Evan Burgess University of Colorado Boulder Physical Geography/GIS 23 2004 Keith Laslowski Brown University Geology/Geomorphology 24 2004 Erin Wharton University of Washington Earth/Space Sciences 25 2004 Kate Harris University of North Carolina Geology and Biology 26 2004 Aaron Mordecai University of Utah Glaciology 27 2003 Lisa Chaiet University of Idaho Geoscience/Environmental Science 28 2003 Emilie Chatelain University of San Diego Environmental Science/Physical Geology/Geography 29 2003 William Naisbitt University of Utah PhysGeog/Geomorph/Remote Sensing/GIS 30 2003 Andrew Thorpe Brown University Geology 31 2003 Heather Whitney Colorado State University Chemistry 32 2002 Ari Berland Pomona College, California Geology Environmental Science 33 2002 Liam Cover U. of Alaska Southeast Geology 34 2002 Ryan Cross U. of Alaska Fairbanks 35 2002 Anna Henderson Brown University Geology 36 2001 Eleanor Boyce Colby College, Maine Geology 37 2001 Chris Kratt Plymouth State College Physics and Geology § Geology/Geomorphology 38 2001 Evan Mankoff SUNY Oneonta, New York 39 2001 Colby Smith University of Maine Geology/Geomorphology 40 2001 Haley Wright U. of California Santa Cruz Geology/Environmental Science 41 2000 Michael Bradway University of Idaho Geology 42 2000 Danielle Kitover Alaska Pacific University Environmental Science 43 2000 Brady Phillips Oregon State University Environmental Science 44 2000 Jeanna Probala Western Washington U. Geology Physical Geography 45 1999 Matthew Beedle Montana State University Environmental Science 46 1999 Julian Deiss U. of Alaska Southeast Geology 47 1999 Hiram Henry Western Washington U. 48 1999 Kevin Stitzinger U. of British Columbia Geography 49 1998 April Graves U. of Alaska Southeast Environmental Science 50 1998 Hiram Henry Western Washington U. Geology 51 1998 David Potere Harvard University Geology 52 1998 Joan Ramage Cornell University Geology 53 1997 Matthew Beedle Montana State University Earth Science 54 1997 Joan Ramage Cornell University Geology 55 1996 Adam Hopson Wesleyan College Environmental Science 56 1996 Johanna Nelson Stanford University Earth Systems Science Shad O’Neel 57 1996 University of Montana Geology 58 1996 Brett Vanden Heuval Hope College Geology 59 1996 Erin Whitney Williams College Chemistry/Geophysics Note: This table provides a snapshot of the diversity of U.S. institutions that have sent their students to the Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP). Participation by international JIRP students from Canada, the UK, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and South America is not reflected in this table, since non-U.S. citizens do not qualify for NASA Space Grant scholarships. *U.—University † GIS—global information system § SUNY—State University of New York
177
178
Connor
transitioning through tree line into alpine elevations covered by mosses and heath family shrubs. Students end this first ascent with a final climb up the Ptarmigan Glacier (Fig. 2), walking directly on the firnpack, which still covers the lower glacier ice in the early summer. This vertical traverse develops students’ observational skills and begins to familiarize them with the effects of elevation on synoptic weather patterns and surface hydrologic processes. Important weather and climate concepts such as insolation, albedo, sensible and latent heat transfer, and land surface radiation in high mountain environments begin to make sense during this initial climb up onto the icefield. Adjacent to the northeastern Pacific, the Juneau area receives frequent storms generated by the Aleutian Low. JIRP students quickly make the connection between the high rates of precipitation and the location of Alaska’s temperate glacier systems along this southeastern mountainous coast. The JIRP camps provide crucial shelter for learning and working in this wet glaciated environment and facilitate safe access to and from the glaciers’ surfaces. Climbing up and down the icefield nunataks, students begin to make the links between longer-term climate and landscape development over geologic time scales that are relatively recent (Herbert, 2006). This physically challenging introduction to the rain forest and alpine glacier systems lingers for a lifetime in JIRP student memories and provides them with important ground-truth experiences for the information they have received earlier in discipline-specific lectures (Huntoon et al., 2001). Students move onto and off of the glacier surfaces from these bedrock glacial refugia. They soon are adept at camp life, can self-arrest with their ice axes on steep, ice-covered slopes, and are able to rescue their colleagues from crevasses. They are skillful at running diesel generators, ColemanTM lanterns, gas cooking stoves, creating walk-in freezers in snow banks, and safely loading and unloading helicopters. Students are also trained in the daily collection of meteorological data at each camp. These data are used to complement long-term temperature records collected by a network of temperature sensors and data loggers located across the icefield (Pelto et al., 2008). Icefield camps are strategically located about one day’s travel apart. This requires development or refinement of student skills in skiing with heavy packs, map and global positioning system (GPS) navigation, cold wet weather survival, and the identification of crevasse types. After much glacier and camp safety training, students are assessed as “ice-safe” by ever-watchful JIRP staff safety trainers. They are next able to begin glacier massbalance data collection through the digging of surface snow pits. Snow stratigraphy, structure, and density are measured in snowpit profiles at a network of annually studied sites. Through these glacier surface activities, JIRP students become adapted to life in this environment. They learn to ski safely across glacier surfaces and navigate in bad weather. These activities are a prelude to longer-distance, multiday glacier travel across the Lemon Creek, Taku, and Llewellyn Glaciers, which rise up to 1980 m in their uppermost snowfields (Fig. 2).
BEDROCK AND GLACIER ICE STRUCTURAL DEFORMATION: CONNECTING TECTONICS AND CLIMATE The location of JIRP camps on emergent bedrock ridges provides students with the opportunities to also study the glacially polished exposures of the Yukon-Tanana and Stikine terranes, the Sloko volcanics, and the plutonic rocks of the Coast Range batholith. Many interesting geologic structures and petrologic and mineral assemblages can be easily observed on these Juneau Icefield nunataks. JIRP students can compare their observations with other geologic regions they have familiarity with. These isolated bedrock exposures surrounded by glacier ice, also provide JIRP faculty with many outcrop-scale, field mapping exercise opportunities. Students evolve their spatial analysis and mapping skills as they interpret the forces that have formed and exposed local geologic structures. This understanding links them with the published tectonic interpretations for the region (Ernst, 2006). As JIRP students create outcrop-scale geologic maps, they also develop insights into the linkages between orogenic continental margin development as recorded in the bedrock and the forces that have sculpted the landscape surfaces under the influence of changing climate (Anders et al., 2008). The uplift and intense deformation of the region is mirrored in the near real-time formation of extensional and compressional crevasses in the glaciers. Fast-flowing, warm glaciers are noisy as they actively deform with ice flow. Their brittle upper surfaces contrast with their plastically deformed, sheared, and folded basal ice and provide an important rheological contrast. Students can observe these ice deformation features and understand the stresses that formed them. Higher-order thinking allows them to apply this glacier ice deformation knowledge to observed bedrock structures that locally have recorded plastic deformation structures such as the ptygmatic folds of deeply exhumed Yukon-Tanana terrane gneisses that underlie the western regions of the icefield (Kastens and Ishikawa, 2006). Developing Authentic Student Research Projects With its focus on earth systems science education, especially with respect to climate, the JIRP summer program has welcomed many U.S. and international university faculty and researchers from a wide range of disciplines, as well as in-service secondary science educators. Faculty participants overlap their tenure on the icefield, moving by helicopter on and off the ice throughout the 8 wk field program. They provide basic information to JIRP students through in-camp lectures and also through the guided collection of data and its interpretation. JIRP faculty cumulatively expose students to published research data in glacier mass balance, ice physics and ice velocity, ice thickness, nunatak structural geology, firnpack and supraglacier stream hydrology, alpine meteorology, nunatak botany, and firnpack ecology over the course of their 8 wk summer experience. They often give evening programs about their own current research.
Field glaciology and earth systems science: The Juneau Icefield Research Program Students keep lecture and field notes in waterproof Rite in the RainTM notebooks for permanent and portable records of their daily observations and experiences. These durable archives are also used for student research project data, gear lists, and other pertinent information. Students can later refer to their camp lecture notes as they review for their comprehensive final exam given during the fall semester following their JIRP summer field experience. This discipline-specific information, coupled with their field observations, helps to prime JIRP student thinking and guides the development of modest, short-time-scale research projects. Students also evolve data collection plans and identify appropriate analytical methods for data reduction with help from the resources of the JIRP camp libraries. Field project logistics are organized by JIRP staff around each student’s geographic requirements. Once research plans are developed, students are subdivided into synergistic research groups. Students assemble their final research abstracts and reports on laptops at Camp 18 prior to the final descent of and departure from Llewellyn Glacier at the end of the program (Fig. 1). To complete their JIRP field experience, students leave Camp 18 and traverse across the high ice plateau region that forms the Alaska–British Columbia border (Sprenke et al., 1999). This segment of the Continental Divide forms the headwater boundary of the 847,642 km2 Yukon River watershed and separates the south-flowing Taku Glacier system from the north-flowing Llewellyn Glacier. JIRP students ski northward up the Taku and Matthes Glaciers and cross the International Border, following the Llewellyn Glacier’s north-directed meltwater into Lake Atlin, British Columbia (Fig. 2). Students leave the firnpack on the upper Lewelleyn Glacier and hike using crampons over the blue bubbly Llewellyn Glacier ice to Camp 26 (Fig. 2). They continue descending down the glacier, exit onto the southern shoreline of Lake Atlin, and cross the 133 km lake by boat, returning to civilization in Atlin, British Columbia (population 400). In Atlin, JIRP students refine their project results and present their work in a specially convened annual JIRP Science Symposium for local Atlin residents and visitors alike. At the end of their JIRP summer experience, the students are generally transformed individuals. They have gained great confidence and maturity from their research experiences, from their enhanced capabilities in remote-site field logistics and glacier survival, and, most importantly, from the cohort bonding resulting from their shared understanding of the processes operating in this wild, sometimes dangerous, glaciated environment. Such experiences early in an undergraduate’s education can often change a student’s way of thinking about their long-term interests and may redirect their career paths.
179
(IPY) 2007–2009, JIRP faculty and their students have expanded their research area footprint beyond the Juneau Icefield to other Alaskan glaciers, as well as glaciers in the Canadian Arctic, the European Alps, Asia, South America, Greenland, and Antarctica. The long duration of the program has created an extensive network of student and faculty alumni, including internationally known glaciologists, climatologists, geophysicists, geologists, physical geographers, mineralogists, palynologists, physicians, barristers, economists, photographers, educators, and politicians who have published a cornucopia of information related to the Juneau Icefield region and other Alaskan glaciers (see bold-faced author names in the References Cited section). This ever-growing knowledge base provides an important starting point for each summer’s incoming JIRP students. JIRP student observations over the past 60 yr across the Juneau Icefield have documented (1) a rise in the minimum winter temperatures over the past 20 yr on the source névés, 1–3.8 °C above temperatures recorded 30–50 yr ago, (2) a rise in the elevation of the icefield’s regional freezing level, resulting in a substantial increase in snowfall on the higher névés, and (3) the marked thinning and retreat of several low-elevation distributary glaciers (Lemon Creek, Mendenhall, Herbert, Eagle, Norris) relative to the continued and even accelerated advance of the Taku Glacier, with its high elevation source area and currently shoaled tidewater status (Pelto et al., 2008). Over the past 30 yr, mass-balance studies utilizing JIRP student data in the Llewellyn Glacier region have documented a rise in minimum average temperature from −30 °C to −10 °C (Miller and Molnia, 2006). JIRP Student Scholarship and Career Pathways Table 2 provides a summary of the scholarship that develops out of JIRP summer research. JIRP student projects have ranged from structural maps of the bedrock, petrography, and mineralization of Taku Glacier nunataks (Abrams et al., 1990, USF senior thesis) to studies of the valley geomorphology of the glacially carved Gilkey trench (Fig. 2). Students have provided ground-truth data for remote-sensing imagery by examining the relationships among snowpack, surface geochemistry, and synoptic weather patterns (Ramage and Isacks, 2003). They have charted the changing distribution of nunatak flora and fauna with warming climate (Bass, 2007, Ph.D. thesis, University of Georgia) and identified the cryobiologic elements living in the firn pack atop glacier ice. JIRP students have dug countless snow pits to measure the mass balance of the Lemon Creek and Taku Glaciers and skied many hundreds of kilometers implementing global positioning system (GPS) surveys
JIRP STUDENT PROJECT OUTCOMES Adding Value to the Climate Research Community Spanning the 50 yr between the International Geophysical Year (IGY) 1957–1958 through the International Polar Year
TABLE 2. JUNEAU ICEFIELD RESEARCH PROGRAM STUDENT SCHOLARSHIP, 1958–2008 Senior/honor’s Master’s Ph.D. Peer-reviewed paper thesis thesis thesis authors (1995–2008) 35 41 25 21+
180
Connor
to determine glacier surface ice velocities (Pelto et al., 2008). JIRP student glacier-hydrologists have calculated discharge of supraglacial streams and firn packs and studied the annual ogives at the base of the Vaughn Lewis Icefall (Henry, 2006, M.S. thesis, Portland State University, Oregon, PSU). JIRP alumni have adapted seismological tools to identify avalanches and crevassing events and have determined the great ice thickness of the Taku Glacier above its underlying bedrock (Nolan et al., 1995). Student project results are first presented to their peers and interested citizens of Atlin, British Columbia, at the end of the summer program. Student reports are archived as open-file reports of the Glaciological and Arctic Sciences Institute, University Idaho, and stored in JIRP camp libraries and in the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) Egan Library. Some of this student work has been further developed into abstracts and presented at Geological Society of America (GSA), American Geophysical Union (AGU), and International Glaciological Society (IGS) meetings in poster and oral formats. Some work has evolved further into journal articles and has been published in peer-reviewed publications (Table 2). Some examples of recent JIRP student publications are cited in the references section (Molnia, 2008; Cross, 2007; Deiss et al., 2004; Hocker et al., 2003; Currie et al., 1996; Nolan et al., 1995). JIRP student alumni can be found carrying out research on Arctic sea ice or Alaskan, Antarctic, and Greenlandic glaciers; working for mineral exploration companies; practicing environmental law; carrying out oceanographic research; working overseas in the U.S. Peace Corps; employed by the National Weather Service; guiding the Mars Rover projects; working on programs in geodynamic research (Kaufman et al., 2006); working for government resource agencies or in the National Parks; interpreting satellite imagery to monitor global ice loss; earning medical degrees and practicing medicine; teaching the next generations as college and university earth science faculty (Copland et al., 2003); and working in high schools as science teachers. The value of this research-based field experiences is evident in the accomplishments of its alumni and has been widely documented for other field-camp experiences (Huntoon et al., 2001). Since the program’s inception, ~1300 students, faculty, and staff appear on the participants’ lists. Many of those listed have returned for additional JIRP summers, raising the sum of annual participants to ~2500 (Foundation for Glacier and Environmental Research, 1997; unpublished JIRP participant lists 1994–2008). Long-Term Value of the JIRP Field Experience: Six Alumni Case Studies From 1996 to 2008, the University Alaska Southeast, through the Alaska Space Grant Program, has provided scholarships to partially support 59 JIRP students through their 8 wk JIRP summer (Table 1; Fig. 3). Six of these awardees are profiled here as they continued their Juneau Icefield studies into related graduate studies. The synopses serve as longitudinal surveys with which to track the long-term value of the JIRP experience.
Matt Beedle: JIRP (1995)–Doctoral Candidate (2008) Juneau Douglas High School graduate and Alaskan Matt Beedle completed his first JIRP summer in 1995 while still a high school student (Fig. 3). As an undergraduate at Montana State University, he returned to the program as a JIRP staff member in various forms in 1997 and 1999. He received his B.S. in earth science in 2000. He returned to JIRP during the summers of 2003, 2004, and 2005, working as a Manager of Field and Safety Operations and leading the mass-balance data collection effort. Matt began a master’s program in geography at University of Colorado (CU)–Boulder in 2004, working as a research assistant with the National Snow and Ice data center in the Glacier Land Ice Measurement from Space (GLIMS) program. Portions of his work included identification of the boundaries of southeast Alaskan glaciers from satellite imagery. Beedle’s M.A. thesis focused on the relations between the Lemon Creek and Taku mass-balance records and North Pacific climate variability (Beedle et al., 2005; Pelto et al., 2005). Beedle received his M.A. in geography in 2005 from CU along with a Graduate Certificate in Environment, Policy and Society. He also completed a project on Alaska’s Bering Glacier (Beedle et al., 2008; Raup et al., 2007). Beedle is presently a doctoral student in natural resources and environmental studies at the University of Northern British Columbia. He is working with Brian Menounos and Roger Wheate on measurements of volume change of British Columbia glaciers and their relationships with climate as part of the Western Canadian Cryospheric Network. Matt is a member of the Alaska–Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS) community and provides data updates on the St. Elias, Glacier Bay, Juneau, and Stikine Icefields. Shad O’Neel: JIRP (1996)–Research Glaciologist (2008) Shad O’Neel (Fig. 4B) participated in the 1996 JIRP during the summer preceding his senior year in the Geology Department of University Montana (UM), from which he received a B.A. in environmental geology in 1997. Like many JIRP students, Shad had previous mountaineering and glacier travel experience in Alaska before joining the JIRP program. Such skills are very useful as trail parties move from camp to camp. Groups of 10–12 JIRP students, staff, and faculty make their way across the Lemon Creek, Taku, and Llewellyn Glaciers carrying their own food and sleeping in tent camps directly on the firn pack. Following graduation from UM, Shad began graduate work at the University Alaska–Fairbanks, under Professors Keith Echelmeyer (JIRP faculty 1974), Will Harrison, and Juneau-based Roman Motyka, in the Glaciology Group at the Geophysical Institute. He received his M.S. in 2000. Initially collecting data on Juneau’s Mendenhall Glacier (Motyka et al., 2002), O’Neel’s master’s research migrated to a study of tidewater glacier calving retreat at North America’s southernmost tidewater glacier (LeConte Glacier) near Petersburg, Alaska (O’Neel et al., 2001; 2003; Connor, 1999). He next worked as a geodetic engineer with University NAVSTAR Consortium (UNAVCO), assisting in NSF-funded glacier research projects in Antarctica, Alaska,
Field glaciology and earth systems science: The Juneau Icefield Research Program and Iceland. O’Neel began his doctoral work at the University of Colorado–Boulder under Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) Professor Tad Pfeffer, returning to work on Alaskan tidewater glacier calving retreat dynamics, this time at the Columbia Glacier in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Shad’s JIRP training paid off when, from 2004 to 2005, he was in charge of field logistics for the Columbia Glacier seismic project, including scheduling helicopter, organizing all personnel, supplies, and instrumentation, including a blasting campaign. He received his Ph.D. in 2006 and has published his Columbia Glacier research, as well as other work, including seismic studies on the Bering Glacier (O’Neel et al., 2005, 2007; Anderson et al., 2004; Harper et al., 2006; Meier et al., 2007; Pfeffer et al., 2008). He completed two postdoctoral research fellowships at University of Alaska–Fairbanks and at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University California–San Diego. He is currently employed as a research geophysicist at the U.S. Geological Survey Alaska Science Center in Anchorage, where he works on glacier-climate interactions and sea-level rise. Shad is also affiliated with the Glaciological Group at the Geophysical Institute at University Alaska–Fairbanks. Erin Whitney: JIRP (1996)–Researcher, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2008) A graduate of Service High School in Anchorage, Alaskan Erin Whitney (Fig. 5A) first participated in JIRP in 1996 while an undergraduate at Williams College. Interested in chemistry as an undergraduate, she later worked as a researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory, completed her M.S. at University Colorado– Boulder in 1999, and returned to JIRP as a staff member in 2004. She continued her graduate work in Boulder and earned her Ph.D. in 2006 in physical chemistry under Dr. David Nesbitt. She was initially interested in studying the chemical processes occurring above the icefield and in the upper atmosphere. For her doctoral research, she used high-resolution infrared spectroscopy to study the structures of slit jet-cooled gas-phase halogenated methyl radicals, as well as quantum state-resolved reaction dynamics in atom + polyatom systems (Whitney et al., 2005, 2006). Now employed at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Whitney’s research focuses on the synthesis and characterization of novel nanostructured materials for the storage of hydrogen in next-generation automobiles, as well as the development of new electrodes for lithium-ion batteries. This work will lead to solutions to our global fossil-fuel dependency and its consequences. Joan Ramage Macdonald: JIRP (1997–1998)–University Professor (2008) Joan Ramage (Fig. 5B) began her interaction with JIRP in 1997, at the beginning of her doctoral research at Cornell University under geology department professor Bryan Isacks. At that time, she had already earned a B.S. in geology from Carleton College (1993) and an M.S. from Pennsylvania State University
181
Figure 4. (A) 2008 Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP) student and NASA Alaska Space Grant Awardee Nicholas Chamberlain of Appalachia State University pictured at the Herbert Glacier terminus (photo by Connor). (B) JIRP 1996 student Shad O’Neel deploys an ice velocity survey tetrad on LeConte Glacier near Petersburg, Alaska, in 1999 (photo by Connor).
Figure 5. (A) 1996 Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP) student Erin Whitney poses in front of the JIRP program’s first Camp 17 building, the 1954-vintage Jamesway, before skiing about 25 miles from Lemon Creek Glacier to Taku Glacier’s Camp 10 in typical temperate coastal rainforest weather (photo by Connor). (B) Joan Ramage Macdonald on the Taku Glacier circa 1998 (courtesy of Joan Ramage Macdonald).
(1995). In her second JIRP field season in 1998, she guided 16 other students, staff, and faculty through delineation of the 1998 glacier ablation surface characteristic to provide ground truth for glacier zones detected from Synthetic Aperature Radar imagery of the icefield. She and her team recorded many measurements
182
Connor
of wetness, roughness, grain size, and meteorological observations of the snowpack as it metamorphosed and roughened over the summer season. She earned her Ph.D. from Cornell in 2001 using these microwave observations of Juneau Icefield glaciers to study its snow and glacier melt characteristics (Ramage et al., 2000; Ramage and Isacks, 2002, 2003). Joan has held faculty positions at Union College, New York, Creighton University, Nebraska, and Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, where she is presently an assistant professor in the Earth and Environmental Science Department. She teaches courses in remote sensing, and her research interests have taken her beyond the Juneau Icefield into the Yukon Territory, Canada, the loess hills of Nebraska, and the Peruvian Andes and the Patagonian Icefields of South America. Most of her research centers on observation of spatial and temporal variability of seasonal snowpacks and past and present mountain glaciers. Hiram Henry: JIRP (1999)–Geo-Environmental Engineer (2008) Juneau Douglas High School 1992 graduate, Alaskan Hiram Henry (Fig. 6A) received his B.S. in geology from Western Washington University. During his first summer with JIRP in 1999, his research project involved descending 300 m down the bedrock cleaver below Camp 18 onto the Gilkey Glacier (Fig. 2), where he measured diurnal flow stage relationships in its supraglacial streams. Hiram returned to JIRP in the summers of 2000 and 2001 as a senior staff member and teaching assistant. During the winter of 2000, he worked in Antarctica. In 2004, he began a graduate program in glacier hydrology and engineering at Portland State University in Oregon under Christine Hulbe (JIRP student in 1989). He finished his study of firn pack hydrology and meltwater production (Henry, 2006)
and earned two degrees in geology and civil engineering from Portland State University, Oregon, in 2007. Henry worked for Golder Associates, an international environmental and ground engineering company, in Anchorage, Alaska. His firm recently worked on a study for the Alaska Department of Transportation. Hiram helped to delineate the geologic hazards along a proposed Juneau access road corridor in northeastern Lynn Canal, bordering the western edge of the Juneau Icefield (Golder Associates, 2006). Henry has since returned to Juneau to work on bridge engineering with the Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Eleanor Boyce: JIRP (2001)–Geodetic Project Engineer (2008) Alaskan Eleanor Boyce, a graduate of Haines High School at the northwestern end of Lynn Canal and the Juneau Icefield, participated in JIRP in 2001 while an undergraduate at Colby College in Maine. For her JIRP summer project, she looked at strain rates in the wave-bulge (ogive) zone of the Vaughan Lewis Glacier, a tributary of the Gilkey Glacier. She received her B.S. in geology in 2003. She began her graduate work at University Alaska–Fairbanks under Roman Motyka, Martin Truffer, and Keith Echelmeyer of the Geophysical Institute’s Glaciology Group. Working with University Alaska Southeast environmental science student undergraduates in 2004, she carried out a study of flotation and terminus retreat of the Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau (Boyce et al., 2007). Since completing her M.S. in geophysics, she has worked as a UNAVCO project engineer on the Plate Boundary Observation (PBO) Nucleus project, facilitating geodetic research across western North America and the Afar Triangle through maintenance of high precision GPS networks (Boyce appears in Fig. 6B; Blume et al., 2007). CONCLUSIONS The JIRP summer field program places students directly into a dynamic glacial environment and gives them the tools to observe and understand local ice and landscape processes and discover the linkage with the global cryosphere. The 8 wk length of the program allows time for a pedagogy that blends faculty instruction and mentoring with student field studies and authentic research in the context of a challenging wilderness glacier expedition. The success of the program can be partially measured by the scholarly work of its alumni and by their career pathways. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Figure 6. (A) Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP) 1999 student Hiram Henry returns to the program in 2000 as a staffer (photo by Connor). (B) JIRP 2001 student Ellie Boyce surveys U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey monuments for uplift measurements in Glacier Bay National Park circa 2004 (photo by Roman Motyka).
The extraordinary efforts of Maynard M. Miller, Joan W. Miller, Ross Miller, and Lance Miller have put students on ice for more than 50 yr and provided the spark for generations of climate research scientists. Without them, this paper would not be possible. Thanks also go to Dave Mogk and Steve Whitmeyer for organizing this valuable Geological Society of America Special Paper.
Field glaciology and earth systems science: The Juneau Icefield Research Program REFERENCES CITED (JIRP faculty and student alumni authors are given in bold type.) Abrams, R.H., Miller, M.M., Leadbeater, J.M., and Vrooman, A., 1990, Petrogenesis of Migmatite Complex on Vantage Peak Nunatak, Juneau Icefield, Alaska: San Francisco, Glaciological and Arctic Sciences Institute, University of Idaho, Open-File Report 1990 (Abrams’ senior thesis: University of San Francisco). Adema, G.W., Sprenke, K.F., and Miller, M.M., 1997, Inferred bed morphology from seismic depth profiles of the Taku Glacier, Juneau Icefield, Alaska: Program with Abstracts: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union) v. 98, abstract H31A-27. Anders, A.M., Roe, G.H., Montgomery, D.R., and Hallet, B., 2008, Influence of precipitation phase on the form of mountain ranges: Geology, v. 36, no. 6, p. 479–482, doi: 10.1130/G24821A.1. Anderson, R.S., Anderson, S.P., and MacGregor, K.R., O’Neel, S., Riihimaki, C.A., Waddington, E.D., and Loso, M.G., 2004, Strong feedbacks between hydrology and sliding of a small alpine glacier: Journal of Geophysical Research–Earth Surface, v. 109, p. F03005. Arendt, A.A., Echelmeyer, K.A., Harrison, W.D., Lingle, C.S., and Valentine, V.B., 2002, Rapid wastage of Alaska glaciers and their contribution to rising sea level: Science, v. 297, p. 382–386, doi: 10.1126/science.1072497. Bass, P., 2007, Nunataks and Island Biogeography in the Alaska-Canada Boundary Range: An Investigation of the Flora and Its Implications for Climate Change [Ph.D. thesis]: Athens, Georgia, University of Georgia, 225 p. Beedle, M.J., Pelto, M.S., and Miller, M.M., 2005, Drivers of glacier mass balance in southeast Alaska in the second half of the 20th century, in Climate and Cryosphere (Clic) First Science Conference Program with Abstracts, 11–15 April 2005: Beijing. Beedle, M.J., Dyurgerov, M., Tangborn, W., Khalsa, S.J.S., Helm, B., Raup, R., Armstrong, R., and Barry, R.G., 2008, Improving estimation of glacier volume change: A GLIMS study of Bering Glacier system, Alaska: The Crysosphere, v. 2, p. 33–51. Blume, F., Meertens, C., Anderson, G., Erikson, S., and Boyce, E.S., 2007, PBO Nucleus Project status: Integration of 209 existing GPS stations in the Plate Boundary Observatory, in Southern California Earthquake Center Annual Meeting Program with Abstracts, September 9–12, 2007: Palm Springs, California. Bowen, W., 2005, Alaska Panoramic Map Atlas: http://130.166.124.2/alaska _panorama_atlas/index.html (accessed 2005). Boyce, E.S., Motyka, R.J., and Truffer, M., 2007, Flotation and retreat of lakecalving terminus, Mendenhall Glacier, southeast Alaska, USA: Journal of Glaciology, v. 53, p. 211–224, doi: 10.3189/172756507782202928. Connor, C.L., 1999, LeConte: A Tidewater Glacier in Calving Retreat: Juneau, University Alaska Southeast Media Services, 11 min DVD, (http://www .uas.alaska.edu/media/productions/index.htm?collection=Miscellaneous). Connor, C.L., and Prakash, A., 2008, Experiential discoveries in geoscience education: The EDGE program: Journal of Geoscience Education, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, v. 56, no. 2, p. 179–186, www.edge.alaska.edu. Connor, C.L., Streveler, G., Post, A., Monteith, D., and Howell, W., 2009, The neoglacial landscape and human history of Glacier Bay, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, southeast Alaska, USA: The Holocene, v. 19, no. 3, p. 381–393, doi: 10.1177/0959683608101389. Cooper, W.S., 1937, The problem of Glacier Bay, Alaska: Geographical Review, v. 27, p. 37–62, doi: 10.2307/209660. Copland, L., Sharp, M., and Dowdeswell, J., 2003, The distribution and flow characteristics of surge-type glaciers in the Canadian High Arctic: Annals of Glaciology, v. 36, p. 73–81, doi: 10.3189/172756403781816301. Cross, R.S., 2007, GPS-Based Tectonic Analysis of the Aleutian Arc and Bering Plate [M.S. thesis]: Fairbanks, University of Alaska–Fairbanks, 100 p. Currie, L.D., Carter, D.T., Cooper, J., Gunter, M.E., and Connor, C.L., 1996, Geology of the northeastern end of the Juneau Icefield Research Program Camp 26 nunatak, northwestern British Columbia: Geological Survey of Canada, Current Research 1996-E, p. 77–86. Deiss, J., Clover, D., D’Amore, D., Love, A., Menzies, M., Powell, J., and Walter, M.T., 2004. Transport of lead and diesel fuel through a peat soil near Juneau, AK: A pilot study: Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, v. 74, p. 1–18. Emerson, R.W., 1837, American Scholar: From Addresses Published as Part of Nature: Addresses and Lectures, An Oration Delivered before the
183
Phi Beta Kappa Society at Cambridge, 31 August 1837: http://www .emersoncentral.com/amscholar.htm (accessed 1 October 2009). Ernst, W.G., 2006, Geologic mapping—Where the rubber hits the road, in Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, p. 13–28. Field, W.O., 1947, Glacier recession in Muir Inlet, Glacier Bay, Alaska: Geographical Review, v. 37, p. 369–399, doi: 10.2307/211127. Field, W.O., and Miller, M.M., 1950, The Juneau Ice Field Research Project: Geographical Review, v. 40, p. 179–190, doi: 10.2307/211279. Foundation for Glacier and Environmental Research, 1997, 50th Anniversary Directory of Participants 1946–1996, The Juneau Icefield Research Program: Seattle, Washington, Foundation for Glacier Research and the Glaciological and Arctic Sciences Institute, University of Idaho, 88 p. Golder Associates, 2006, Lynn Canal Highway Phase I, Zone 4 Geotechnical Investigation State Project Number: 71100 Final Report: Juneau Access Road for Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Southeast Region: Anchorage, Alaska, Golder Associates, 361 p., www .golder.com. Harper, J.T., Humphrey, N.F., Pfeffer, W.T., Fudge, T., and O’Neel, S., 2006, Seasonal evolution of subglacial water pressure: Annals of Glaciology, v. 24, no. 6, doi: wiley.com/10.1111/j.1502-3885.2008.00079.x. Henry, H., 2006, A study of the role of firn in the melt season hydrology of temperate glaciers [M.S. thesis]: Portland, Portland State University. Henry, H.M., and Hulbe, C., 2005, The role of firn pack in melt season drainage from temperate glaciers: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 86, p. 52. Herbert, B.E., 2006, Student understanding of complex earth systems, in Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, p. 95–104. Heusser, C., 2007, Juneau Icefield Research Project (1949–1958): A retrospective, in Van der Meer, J.J.M., ed., Developments in Quaternary Science 8: Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Elsevier Press, 232 p. Hocker, C., Schwarz, T., and Carstensen, R., 2003, The Streamwalker’s Companion: Juneau, Alaska, Discovery Southeast, 60 p. Huntoon, J.E., Bluth, G.J.S., and Kennedy, W., 2001, Measuring the effects of research-based field experiences on undergraduates and K–12 teachers: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, no. 3, p. 235–248. Kastens, K., and Ishikawa, T., 2006, Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences: A cross-disciplinary look at the intersection of the two fields, in Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, p. 53–76. Kaufman, A.M., Freymueller, J.T., Miura, S., Cross, R.S., Sato, T., Sun, W., and Fujimoto, H., 2006, ISEA (International Geodetic Project in Southeastern Alaska) for rapid uplifting caused by glacial retreat. 2: Establishment of continuous GPS sites (CGPS): Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 87, p. 52. Larsen, C.F., Motyka, R.J., Freymuller, K.A., and Ivins, E.R., 2005, Rapid viscoelastic uplift in southeast Alaska caused by post–Little Ice Age retreat: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 237, p. 548–560, doi: 10.1016/j .epsl.2005.06.032. Marcus, M.F., Chambers, F., Miller, M.M., and Lang, M., 1995, Recent trends in the Lemon Creek Glacier, Alaska: Physical Geography, v. 16, no. 2, p. 150–161. (Scale 1:10,000 Lemon Glacier Map by Juneau Icefield Research Program.) McGee, S.R., Welsch, W., and Lang, M., 1996–2007, Geodetic Activities during Various JIRP Field Seasons (with contributions by Welsch, W., and Lang, M.): Münich, Germany, Universitat der Bundewehr (also available as Foundation for Glacier and Environmental Research [FGER] OpenFile Reports, http://crevassezone.org/). Meier, M.F., Dyurgerov, M.B., Rick, U.K., O’Neel, S., Pfeffer, W.T., Anderson, R.S., Anderson, S.P., and Glazovsky, A.F., 2007, Glaciers dominate eustatic sea-level rise in the 21st century: Science, v. 317, no. 5841, p. 1064–1067, doi: 10.1126/science.1143906. Miller, M.M., 1947, Alaska glacier studies, 1946: American Alpine Journal, v. VI, p. 339–343. Miller, M.M., 1950, Preliminary Report of Field Operations: The Juneau Icefield Research Project, 1949 Season: Office of Naval Research Task Order N9, p. onr-83001.
184
Connor
Miller, M.M., 1951, Englacial investigations related to core drilling on the Upper Taku Glacier, Alaska: Journal of Glaciology, v. 1, no. 10, p. 579–580. Miller, M.M., 1954, Glaciothermal studies on the Taku Glacier southeastern Alaska: L’Association Internationale d’Hydrologie Publication 39, p. 309–327. Miller, M.M., 1956–1957, Glaciological Investigations on the Juneau Icefield, Alaska with Special Reference to the Taku Anomaly [Ph.D. thesis]: Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University. Miller, M.M., 1957, The role of diastrophism in the regimen of glaciers in the St. Elias District, Alaska: Journal of Glaciology, v. 3, p. 292–297. Miller, M.M., 1961, A distribution study of abandoned cirques in the AlaskaCanada Boundary Range, in Raasch, G.O., ed., Geology of the Arctic: Toronto, University of Toronto Press, p. 833–847. Miller, M.M., 1963, The Vaughan Lewis Glacier, Juneau Icefield, Alaska: Journal of Glaciology, v. 4, p. 666–667. Miller, M.M., 1964, Glaciology and geology of the Mount Everest region, central Nepal: Chap 16, in Ullman, J.R., ed., Americans on Everest: New York, J.D. Lippincott Co., p. 401–412. Miller, M.M., 1976, Comments on the thermo-physical characteristics of glaciers: Toward a rational classification: Journal of Glaciology, v. 16, p. 297–300. Miller, M.M., 1977, Quaternary erosional and stratigraphic sequences in the Alaska-Canada Boundary Range, in Mahaney, W., ed., Quaternary Stratigraphy of North America: New York, John Wiley and Sons, p. 492–563. Miller, M.M., 1985, Recent climate variations, their causes and Neogene perspectives, in Smiley, C.J., ed., Late Cenozoic History of the Pacific Northwest: Interdisciplinary Studies on the Clarkia Fossil Beds of Northern Idaho: San Francisco, Pacific Division for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, p. 357–414. Miller, M.M., and Field, W.O., 1951, Exploring the Juneau Ice Cap: Research Reviews, April, p. 7–15. Miller, M.M., and Field, W.O., 1951, Exploring the Juneau Ice Cap: Office of Naval Research, Department of the Navy, Report NAVEXOS P-510, p. 7–15. Miller, M.M., and Molnia, B.F., 2006, Extreme global warming impacts on Alaskan coastal glaciers shown in long-term mass balance records from the Juneau Icefield: European Geosciences Union: Geophysical Research Abstracts, v. 8, p. 10,363. Miller, M.M., Levanthal, J.S., and Libby, W.F., 1965, Tritium in Mt. Everest ice: Annual accumulation and climatology at great equatorial altitudes: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 70, no. 16, p. 3885–3888, doi: 10.1029/JZ070i016p03885. Miller, R.D., 1973, Gastineau Channel Formation, a Composite Glaciomarine Deposit near Juneau, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1394-C, 20 p. Molnia, B.F., 2008, Glaciers of North America–Glaciers of Alaska, in Williams, R.S., Jr., and Ferrigno, J.G., eds., Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1386-K, 525 p. Motyka, R.J., O’Neel, S., Connor, C.L., and Echelmeyer, K., 2002, 20th century thinning of Mendenhall Glacier, Alaska, and its relationship to climate, lake-calving, and glacier runoff: Journal of Global and Planetary Change. v. 35, p. 93–112, http://uas.alaska.edu/envs/publications/pubs/ motyka_etal.2002.pdf. Nolan, M., Motyka, R.J., Echelmeyer, K.A., and Trabant, D.C., 1995, Icethickness measurements of Taku Glacier, Alaska, U.S.A., and their relevance to its recent behavior: Journal of Glaciology, v. 41, no. 139, p. 541–553. O’Neel, S., Echelmeyer, K.A., and Motyka, R.J., 2001, Short-term flow dynamics of a retreating tidewater glacier: LeConte Glacier, Alaska,
USA: Journal of Glaciology, v. 47, no. 159, p. 567–578, doi: 10.3189/ 172756501781831855. O’Neel, S., Echelmeyer, K.A., and Motyka, R.J., 2003, Short-term variations in calving of a tidewater glacier: LeConte Glacier, Alaska: Journal of Glaciology, v. 49, no. 167, p. 587–598, doi: 10.3189/172756503781830430. O’Neel, S., Pfeffer, W.T., Krimmel, R.M., and Meier, M.F., 2005, Evolving force balance at Columbia Glacier, during its rapid retreat: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 110, F03012, 18 p., doi: 10.1029/2005JP000292. O’Neel, S., Marshall, H.P., McNamara, D.E., and Pfeffer, W.T., 2007, Seismic detection and analysis of icequakes at Columbia Glacier, Alaska: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 112, p. F03S23, doi: 10.1029/2006JF000595. Pelto, M.S., and Miller, M.M., 1990, Mass balance of the Taku Glacier, Alaska from 1946–1986: Northwest Science, v. 64, no. 3, p. 121–130. Pelto, M.S., Beedle, M., and Miller, M.M., 2005, Mass Balance Measurements of the Taku Glacier, Juneau Icefield, Alaska, 1946–2005: Juneau Icefield Research Program: http://www.nichols.edu/departments/Glacier/taku .html (accessed 2 July 2009). Pelto, M.S., McGee, S.R., Adema, G.W., Beedle, M.J., Miller, M.M., Sprenke, K.F., and Lang, M., 2008, The equilibrium flow and mass balance of the Taku Glacier, Alaska 1950–2006: The Cryosphere, v. 2, p. 275–298. Pfeffer, W.T., Harper, J.T., and O’Neel, S., 2008, Kinematic constraints on glacier contributions to 21st-century sea-level rise: Science, v. 321. no. 5894, p. 1340–1343, doi: 10.1126/science.1159099. Ramage, J.M., and Isacks, B.L., 2002, Determination of melt onset and refreeze timing on southeast Alaskan icefields using SSM/I diurnal amplitude variations: Annals of Glaciology, v. 34, p. 391–398, doi: 10.3189/ 172756402781817761. Ramage, J.M., and Isacks, B.L., 2003, Interannual variations in snow melt and refreeze timing on southeast Alaskan Glaciers: Journal of Glaciology, v. 49, no. 164, p. 102–116, doi: 10.3189/172756503781830908. Ramage, J., Isacks, B.L., and Miller, M.M., 2000, Radar glacier zones in southeast Alaska: Field and satellite observations: Journal of Glaciology, v. 46, no. 153, p. 287–296, doi: 10.3189/172756500781832828. Raup, B.H., Kaab, A., Kargel, J.S., Bishop, M.P., Hamilton, G., Lee, E., Paul, F., Rau, F., Soltesz, D., Khalsa, S.J.S., Beedle, M., and Helm, C., 2007, Remote sensing and GIS technology in the Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS) Project: Computers and Geosciences, v. 33, p. 104–125, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2006.05.015. Sprenke, K.F., Miller, M.M., McGee, S.R., Adema, G.W., and Lang, M., 1999, The high plateau of the Juneau Icefield, B.C.: Form and dynamics: The Canadian Geographer, v. 43, no. 1, p. 99–104, doi: 10.1111/j.1541 -0064.1999.tb01363.x. Stowell, H.H., and McClelland, W.C., eds., 2000, Tectonics of the Coast Mountains, Southeastern Alaska and British Columbia: Geological Society of America Special Paper 343, 289 p. Whitney, E.S., Zolot, A.M., McCoy, A.B., and Nesbitt, D.J., 2005, Quantum state-resolved reactive scattering of F + C2H6 à HF(v,J) + C2H5: Journal of Chemical Physics, v. 122, p. 124310-1 to 124310-10. Whitney, E.S., Dong, F. and Nesbitt, D.J., 2006, Jet-cooled infrared spectroscopy in slit supersonic discharges: Symmetric and antisymmetric CH_ {2} stretching modes of fluoromethyl (CH_{2}F) radical: The Journal of Chemical Physics, v. 125, no. 5, p. 054303(10). MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Long-term field-based studies in geoscience teaching Noel Potter Jr.* Jeffrey W. Niemitz Peter B. Sak Department of Geology, Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, USA
ABSTRACT Multiyear measurements of geologic processes with slow rates of change can provide valuable data sets for student learning in the classroom and opportunities for undergraduate independent research. Here, we describe three projects for which data have been collected for 34, 20, and 10 yr, respectively: the erosion of a small meandering stream, the weathering of limestone cubes, and local stream hydrology/chemistry, including discharge, dissolved and suspended load, and major ion chemistry. These data have been used at all levels of the curriculum in various ways, from visualizing basic geologic principles in introductory courses to sophisticated statistical analysis and interpretation in upper-level courses, always in a context of student research leading to discovery about Earth systems. Depending on the project and the schedule for data collection, students have played a major role in the data collection, synthesis, and interpretation while also learning valuable analytical and statistical skills. Because the data sets are the product of many classes of students, there is a strong sense of ownership of the data and thus significant quality control, making the data sets useful as baseline studies for future projects. Where the study requires frequent and time-sensitive sampling, it is more difficult for students to collect data or make measurements. They may, however, have a hand in analyzing the samples collected in order to learn analytical and interpretive techniques. In some cases, these projects have expanded to include new long-term data sets that augment the original studies. INTRODUCTION The use of long-term data sets to elucidate slow natural processes is not unique to us in either type or length of project. Our limestone weathering cubes project was the result of the convergence of ideas derived from two experiments: one from the long-term erosion of Plexiglas rods and cubes by wind in the Coachella Valley, California (Sharp, 1964), and another from the study of tombstone weathering in New England (Rahn, 1971). More recently, studies by Godfrey et al. (2008) and Matsukura et al. (2007) have examined geomorphological processes similar *retired
to our studies but, in one case, for an even longer period of time. Long-term studies are not solely the domain of geology. Fieldbased ecological studies are typically long standing, such as the various Long-Term Ecological Research sites (e.g., Greenland et al., 2003) and the well-known Hubbard Brook study in New Hampshire (Likens and Bormann, 1995). Long-term projects with field components that involve undergraduate students in data acquisition and analysis, however, can be a valuable part of a geoscience education. Like many geoscience programs, the Dickinson College curriculum is built around a core of field-based experiences. A key factor that makes the Dickinson curriculum unique is that some of these experiences involve local site studies and data collection over decadal time scales to solve
real-world problems, and thus they foster a sense of research literacy at all levels of the curriculum. The three projects described in this paper share several commonalities: (1) they all require accumulation of data over time—short-term measurement will produce little or no useful data; (2) they have produced data sets that are used across the curriculum, from introductory to advanced courses, with varying levels of sophistication expected; and (3) all of these projects have served as the topics for independent student research projects. At Dickinson, we attract two types of geology students, some of whom go to graduate school and others who proceed directly into environmental consulting careers. These field-based projects serve both groups well. Two of the projects have continued beyond the retirement of the faculty member who initiated them. A project need not end upon a faculty member’s retirement, nor is the data set useless if the field study ceases. There are several learning goals common to the three projects. Each project demonstrates that imperceptible change adds up over time, emphasizing an understanding of geologic time and rates of change. In these projects, we are able to quantify geologic rates with student-collected data sets that are useful across a wide range of courses in the geoscience curriculum. Unlike contrived or laboratory-based projects, students see the variability in natural systems, and they see that they are part of something larger. With a continually growing data set, they recognize the need for quality control, and they feel a sense of ownership toward the growing data set. Most errors in data collection and processing become obvious when compared to previous measurements. Students must face the issue of what to do with these errors. These kinds of projects counteract the Crime Scene Investigators (CSI) mentality and enable students to see that solutions are not readily apparent and that, frequently, a new set of questions arises every time a new addition to the data set is acquired. Students can ask “how could we (or a future group) do better next time?” This mentality allows new methodologies and analytical techniques to be developed midstream. These types of projects allow for
77°30′W
40°N
expansion by integrating other long-term data sets into the existing ones. Engagement with these data sets enhances students’ systems-based critical thinking skills by searching out concrete connections between different but related types of data. These data sets have also been used as baselines for student independent research projects. This paper describes three examples of local long-term projects used across our curriculum at Dickinson College (Fig. 1). The projects are described in chronological order (by the date of inception). The “Meanders Project,” started in 1974 and continuing, measures meander migration of a small stream and is used in the geomorphology and field geology courses. The “Weathering Cubes” experiment, started in 1989 and continuing, is used in multiple introductory geology courses, geomorphology, and sedimentology and stratigraphy courses. The Yellow Breeches Creek Project produced a data set of discharge and suspended and dissolved sediment data collected over a 10 yr period from 1993 to 2003. These data are used in introductory geology, geomorphology, geochemistry, environmental geology, and hydrogeology. The projects fall into two categories: those with flexible and/ or less frequent sampling intervals (Meanders and Weathering Cubes) and one, the Yellow Breeches Creek Project, where frequent sampling is necessary. The former are more amenable to data collection by students. In the latter, the faculty collected the samples, but students were responsible for much of the sample analysis. We describe these projects and the transition of the “Meanders Project” to adoption by a new member of the department upon the retirement of the faculty member who initiated it. MEANDERS In spring 1974, two students in Potter’s geomorphology class surveyed four high-resolution topographic profiles across three meanders on a small unnamed stream NW of Carlisle, Pennsylvania (Fig. 1). At normal flow, the stream is only ~10 cm deep
77°W
0
5 10
20 km
77°30′W
77°W
40°N
Figure 1. Map of the Conodoquinet Creek and Yellow Breeches Creek Watersheds in the Cumberland Valley, Pennsylvania, showing the locations of three study areas. Symbols: thick black line—drainage divide between the Conodoquinet (to the north) and the Yellow Breeches (to the south); star— location of Weathering Cubes Project (on the Dickinson College campus); northern open dot—Meanders Project study site; southern open dot—Yellow Breeches Watershed sampling site.
Long-term field-based studies in geoscience teaching 0.2
A
Elevation (m)
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6 1974 1979 1985
-0.8
6
10
8
1994 2004 2008
12
14
Distance (m) 0.2
Elevation (m)
and 30–40 cm wide, but it rises to nearly 1 m deep at bankfull after heavy rain. These profiles were not resurveyed until 1979. The second survey demonstrated that the meanders were actively migrating. Over the past 34 yr, we have reoccupied the profile lines 15 times. We have been fortunate to have the same landowners as hosts for the entire time, which is something to consider when choosing long-term survey sites. Early surveys were simple. The ends of profiles were marked with steel rebar or pins driven flush with the ground. We established a level line with a transit and used a tape to measure horizontal distance and a surveying rod for vertical measurement. One of the pins became the reference for all future surveys. Since the earliest surveys, this project has involved collecting data in the field, generating topographic profiles, and interpreting the temporal changes between surveys. The mechanics of generating the topographic profiles has become less tedious with the advent of computers, leaving more time for data analysis and interpretation. In-depth data interpretation ensures the integrity of the growing data set while simultaneously providing an opportunity to trouble-shoot problem measurements. By examining data collected in previous years, students recognize little to no change in elevation at the ends of the profiles on the floodplain (Fig. 2). When the students superimpose their data on the recent surveys they are typically surprised by the general agreement in profile shape. However, it is not uncommon for problems to become apparent. Typically, these errors fall into three categories: (1) transposing numbers when entering the data into the spreadsheet, (2) nonsystematic errors within the data set and, (3) systematic errors that increase along the length of the profile. Transposed numbers are the most straightforward to correct by having students carefully compare data tables and graphs. The origins of an errant point along a given profile may be more difficult to determine, although it does provide an opportunity to emphasize the importance of detailed note taking. For example, the surveying rod may have been placed on a rock or log. If the students had noted such a detail in the field, it might explain the anomalous point. In contrast, systematic errors that grow larger along the length of the profile provide an interesting dilemma for the students. With some discussion, students typically arrive at the conclusion that this type of error occurs when the surveying equipment becomes unlevel. After the group has assessed the quality of the data collected during the first survey, they must determine if it is of adequate quality or if additional surveying is necessary. In our experience, these discussions have been particularly rewarding because this is when the class typically takes a sense of ownership in the project. They are concerned that their data is not up to the standards of the previous surveys. Even in cases where the overall surveys are of high quality, students typically want to return to clean up a few errant points. During these class debates, some students will mention a desire to maintain the overall integrity of the data set for future classes. This is an important lesson for students planning to continue with scientific research and for those considering careers in the environmental consulting industry.
187
0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8
1974 2008
B 0
5
10
15
20
Distance (m)
Figure 2. Profiles across a meander showing 34 yr of migration. (A) Selected years in the channel (10× vertical exaggeration [VE]). (B) Beginning and end years for entire profile (7.3× VE).
Since, its inception in 1974, the Meanders Project has expanded. In 1988, we realized that one of the meanders was migrating downstream from beneath our profile. At that time, we established a grid over that meander and did a series of profiles so that we could remap the whole meander system every few years (Fig. 3). We also inserted four meter-long rods horizontally into the cutbank in order to measure retreat of the bank easily and frequently (Fig. 4). Periodically, we have had to reset the rebar by driving the rods horizontally into the cutbank. We now have a 20 yr record of cumulative bank retreat across the cutbank (Figs. 3 and 4). In 1992, the department obtained an electronic total station (ETS), and we switched to doing some of the profiles with the total station. The drawback to using the ETS was that only a few people were needed for the measurements, so we continued to use the old transit-tape-rod method with students switching instruments and methods so that all had experience with both methods. In 2008, we began surveying with a tripodmounted laser range finder (LRF). When we introduced the LRF,
188
Potter et al.
Figure 3. Low-altitude, high-resolution aerial photograph of a segment of the Meanders Project area (modified after Roth and Helmke, 2006). Locations of the profiles (white lines), the location of erosion rods W, X, Y, and Z (red dots), and stream channel (blue polygon from the 22 March 2001 Potter et al. [2001 survey]) are superimposed on this image. The base image was collected on 22 January 2005. Note that in the nearly 4 yr interval between the survey and the aerial photograph, the channel has migrated southward, so the former positions of the erosion rods X and Y are in the middle of the 2005 channel.
the students designed an experiment to assess the precision of the LRF (both vertical and horizontal position) and provide a recommendation for its use in subsequent surveys. This simply designed project illustrates nicely the degree of student learning about streams and research methodologies. In both our field methods and geomorphology courses, students participate in a research project in which they see results and get to add to the body of data. They also enjoy working with surveying instruments. This project has resulted in a series of publications (Potter et al., 2001, and references therein; Allmendinger et al., 2005). WEATHERING CUBES In 1989, we revised the laboratory exercises for our introductory physical geology course by including a three-laboratory landscape development module. Each of these laboratory exercises emphasized the scientific method, including quantitative analysis of data and analytical writing (Niemitz and Potter, 1991). In one laboratory based on a paper by Rahn (1971), we planned to take students to a local cemetery to gather data on tombstone weathering, relating date of death to the differential weathering rates based on tombstone rock type. We quickly realized that it would be difficult to truly quantify the rates of weathering. The weathering cube project was an outgrowth of the need to quantify the process.
Figure 4. Cumulative erosion on four rods placed in the cutbank of a meander. Locations are labeled W through Z in Figure 3.
To quantify the rate of local limestone weathering, we collected a large block of local micritic limestone, cut several cubes of limestone, and put them out on the roof of a campus building to weather. Six limestone cubes have now been weathering for 19 yr, except for one week a year, when they are brought inside to be dried and weighed. The average cube weighed 177 g at the inception of the experiment. Each exposed cube has lost over 3 g since they were put outside (Fig. 5). An unexposed and thus unweathered control cube is weighed to establish the continuing veracity of the experiment. Each year we dry the cubes, and students weigh them. They are asked to calculate the rate of weathering in g yr–1, and to estimate how long it would take the average cube to weather away using that rate. This exercise is fine for an introductory class, but, of course, as the cubes weather away, their surface area decreases, the surface chemistry of the cubes changes, and presumably the rate will slow over time. This change of weathering rate suggests other studies for upper-level courses. For example, we have asked our geomorphology classes to determine the surface area of the cubes, and determine a bare-rock surface weathering rate. That rate, based on the cube weathering, is ~8 m Ma–1 (Potter and Niemitz, 2001a). When we discuss the local landscape, we contrast the valley underlain by limestone to the adjacent ridges underlain by sandstone. This is a nice way to illustrate the distinction between weathering of carbonate and silicate rocks in a wet temperate climate. When we first put the limestone cubes out to weather, it
Long-term field-based studies in geoscience teaching
Figure 5. Average weight loss of six limestone cubes weathering over 20 yr of measurement.
did not occur to us that it would be good to let some sandstone cubes also weather for contrast. We have since added six cubes of sandstone to the experiment, and we are now convinced that they are not changing. For future study, more local rock types could be added to the suite of weathering cubes, and we could bury cubes to study regolith formation. Another way we could expand these weathering experiments is to have enough cubes to be able to sacrifice some over the years. For example, we could cut a thin section every five years for scanning electron and optical microscopy to determine changes in mineralogy and mineral composition. These samples could be the basis for experiments in carbonate weathering kinetics for the geochemistry course. YELLOW BREECHES WATERSHED PROJECTS Unlike the first two, more narrowly focused projects, this project was faculty-initiated, and the field data are collected by faculty rather than students in classes. It and its spin-offs started out of a desire by faculty to determine denudation rates in a carbonate terrain in comparison with rates measured in other terrains (e.g., Sevon, 1989). In 1993, Potter began collecting stream discharge measurements and dissolved and suspended load in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed (YBCW), one of the two major streams that drain the Great Valley near Carlisle, Pennsylvania (Figs. 1 and 6). Faculty collected weekly liter-sized water samples and measured stream stage height over a 10 yr period from 1993 to 2003. A wireline gauge on a bridge at the site made measurement of stream stage simple. High-flow events were often sampled twice daily over several days. By the time we stopped
189
measurements (Potter was about to retire and Niemitz was on a 2 yr leave in the UK from 2004 to 2006), over 1000 measurements of discharge and ~720 water samples had been obtained (Fig. 6). The water samples were used to determine total suspended and dissolved load. We filtered sediment from a 100 mL sample for geochemical analysis, and the rest was filtered, dried, and weighed to obtain the suspended sediment mass. Geochemical analysis included measurement of pH, and analysis for Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, and K+ by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Over a 7 yr period, we obtained a total dissolved load denudation rate of 13.4 m Ma–1 and a suspended load denudation rate of 3.0 m Ma–1 (Potter and Niemitz, 2001c). Significantly, the dissolved load denudation rate compares favorably with the barerock denudation rate from the weathering cubes of ~8 m Ma–1. In the YBCW, Reuter (2005) estimated a long-term average total denudation rate of 19 m Ma–1 based on cosmogenic 10Be accumulations. This rate is similar to the rate of regolith formation of 16.4 m Ma–1 based on the watershed solute flux normalized to the geometric surface area expressed as unit regolith area. The agreement of these rates supports the assumption of a steadystate regolith profile. Thus, the total denudation rate is commonly equated with the rate of bedrock transformation to regolith, where the weathering rate is assumed to be constant. Although unintended, the combination of the weathering cube study with the decade-long YBCW denudation rate results yields evidence of steady state. As so often happens, one experiment leads serendipitously to other teaching and research applications for the accumulating data set. It became evident that by simply taking an aliquot of the weekly water sample and measuring pH and the major ion chemistry, we could begin to explore the relationships among elements of the hydrologic cycle in the watershed. The YBCW traverses karstic limestone terrain. The stream discharge is therefore a product of overland flow and groundwater effluence to the stream. The annual weather cycle dictates the precise mix of these end-member sources. Two years into the denudation study, we were able to add long-term groundwater level and watershed rainfall data collected at our water well field located ~0.4 km from the discharge and stream sampling site and at three rain gauges located in the upper reach of the watershed (Figs. 7 and 8). The long-term data set of discharge, stream chemistry, and weathering parameters has encouraged critical thinking in the introductory and upper-level classes at different levels of sophistication. For example, in introductory courses that study the hydrologic cycle, students can easily grasp the effect of rainfall on discharge, but they go on to understand that in a karst terrain, the influence of groundwater discharge and overland flow on stream discharge and chemistry provides a more complete picture of the local system. The long-term trend of pH helps students differentiate between unbuffered overland flow from winter snowmelt versus water brought to the stream via well-buffered limestone-based groundwater the remainder of the year. The long-term record of discharge (Fig. 7) mirrors climate variability, where some years have significant rainfall and higher than normal
190
Potter et al. 77°15′ W
77°00′W
40°15′N
Figure 6. Location map of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, noting locations of primary and secondary discharge sites for long-term studies and research projects, rain gauges, the college well field, and the sole U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge in the watershed. 40°00′N
Figure 7. The weekly 10 yr discharge record on the Yellow Breeches Creek collected at discharge site 1 (Fig. 1) with rainfall data. The record shows major discharge events as well as the effects of overall wet and dry years on the discharge of the stream. Note that large rain events, particularly in the summer, do not always produce large discharge events, showing the underlying complexity of relationships in the system. Water years begin on October 1.
Long-term field-based studies in geoscience teaching
Figure 8. Calendar year 1997 record of Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed (YBCW) discharge and stream chemistry as total carbonate rock–sourced elements (Ca2+, Mg2+) and silicate rock–sourced elements (K+, Na+) compared to groundwater level and rainfall. Note the examples of high correlation of longer time periods (1, 2) or specific events (3) of high rainfall with discharge and groundwater-level responses. The rapid response of groundwater to rainfall is most likely the result of stream discharge increases infiltrating the bedrock and increasing groundwater level than the result of direct recharge of rain to the groundwater table. A data gap exists between water days 1273 and 1295. CFS—cubic feet per second (ft3/s).
discharge and other years show the effects of drought conditions. These discharge and chemical trends can be highly correlated with groundwater level and local rainfall over short time intervals (Fig. 8). There is a very high correlation between the stream discharge and chemistry, particularly carbonate-sourced ions like Ca2+ and Mg2+. When the discharge is low, groundwater with full exposure to the karst limestone bedrock makes up much of the stream water flow, with high Ca2+ and Mg2+ concentrations in evidence. When discharge is elevated, usually in association with a storm event, the stream chemistry reflects more water with low total dissolved solids being added by overland flow relative to the groundwater contributions. This stream water may have higher
191
concentrations of K+ and Na+ from soil erosion or runoff from the noncarbonate bedrock regions. Students quickly recognize that groundwater level follows the stream discharge quite closely. Upon closer examination, however, they see that the spikes in the groundwater level show a very short lag to rainfall events. This may be an indication that the discharge in the stream is pushing water into the groundwater table and raising the level rather than the level being elevated by direct local recharge through the vadose zone. These kinds of in-depth data analyses are done by students in the environmental geology, hydrogeology, and geochemistry courses. Each class has added to the stream chemistry data set through the analysis of a small subset of the stream samples taken during that semester. Much like the Meander Project, where previous class data sets are available, students quickly identify anomalies in the context of the overall trends in the data set to date. If outliers occur, the students are compelled to retrace their steps by checking the instrument’s proper operation, reconstructing the calibration curves, and/or simply rerunning the samples in question. If the results come out the same, then they must assess their interpretation of the data by either changing or modifying the working hypothesis. For undergraduates in introductory or second-year electives, this is good training for later research, teaching them to be critical of instrumental “black box” data, and to maintain good scientific methodologies. There are important lessons learned regarding the need for duplicate and replicate samples and statistical error. Each class approaches and uses the long-term data sets differently. The environmental geology class is mainly populated by environmental studies majors who do not have the opportunity to analyze water samples for more than pH, alkalinity, and nutrients. One class project is an environmental geochemical assessment of the state of the YBCW, whereby discharge, pH, carbonate alkalinity, nutrients, and major ion chemistry, including Cl– and SO42– and those mentioned earlier, are collected at several locations along the stream’s reach covering forested, agricultural, and urban-industrial land use. The data from this oneday study are added to data sets from similar studies done by previous classes and are placed in the context of the variability of discharge and chemistry introduced by seasonal weather and the extent of human impact on the watershed over time. Merging a single-day longitudinal study (upper watershed to confluence with the Susquehanna River; Fig. 7) with a larger, longer-term data set can be challenging for students. However, the results of this exercise provide students with the big picture of a mixed land-use watershed and recognition of the changes that can occur over time due to human impacts. The hydrogeology course uses the YBCW discharge and chemistry and the long-term water well field data sets (groundwater static level and rainfall) for studies of the chemical and physical interactions between stream flow over karst terrain and the seasonal groundwater effluence to and influence from the water table. Here, we can examine the local hydrologic cycle from rain to soil moisture to groundwater to stream discharge within a
192
Potter et al.
1 km2 area. Pump tests from the water wells allow calculation of average linear velocity to understand the amount of time it takes the groundwater in storage to approach chemical equilibrium. The geochemistry course is required for the geology major. Students are taught more of the theory behind the instrumentation used to produce the chemical data from the water samples. These analyses are given more statistical scrutiny than in other classes, and more in-depth analyses of degree of saturation and water facies types are produced from limestone and sandstonemetavolcanic lithofacies, as well as shale and Fe-rich sandstone found in other parts of the watershed. We have been fortunate to have obtained grant money to instrument the well field and watershed. However, it is not necessary to have a drilled water well for monitoring in order to collect these kinds of data, nor is it unreasonably expensive to obtain and use data loggers (<$100) to collect data on short time intervals. The water-level monitors and rain gauges we use are relatively inexpensive ($100–500) while being quite robust. We have had them in the field for years without any breakdowns except to change batteries. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)–cased soil auger holes for shallow groundwater-level monitoring and simple stilling wells for stream-level monitoring are adequate. Rain gauges can be placed just about anywhere as long as there are no large trees or buildings blocking the rainfall path. The primary Yellow Breeches discharge site has produced the longest data set. Shortly after the start of the primary study, we added secondary water-level sites on the major tributaries of the Yellow Breeches Creek and the well field with rain gauge (1995). Another rain gauge transect was added in 1997 (Fig. 6). Collection of the latter data sets continues to the present. Course research projects from this particular long-term project have become starting points for senior independent research. Two examples directly involve the original long-term stream discharge and chemistry database and the subsequent addition of rainfall and groundwater level. Over the past 5 yr, there has been considerable concern about so-called “legacy” sediments (i.e., Walter and Merritts, 2008). Legacy sediments are sediment volumes that have been trapped behind thousands of mill dams throughout the Middle Atlantic states starting in the mid-eighteenth century. They include much of the nutrient supply and other harmful constituents from urban and/or agricultural runoff before today’s best management practices and sewage treatment plant pollution-control measures were in place. Originally, these dams were necessary to provide water power for the grinding of grain and other industrial processes. However, with the advent of electricity, the mills were abandoned, and the dams began to decay due to neglect. Now, many of the remaining dams are being removed to return the streams to their original gradient and to improve stream biodiversity. With the removal of the dams, the sediment and its potentially harmful load are being remobilized, sending sediment to the Susquehanna River and ultimately to Chesapeake Bay. In order to understand this system and the potential threat to Chesapeake Bay, we are interested in the rate of release, the
chemistry of the sediment load, and how that chemistry is apportioned to the mineralogy of the sediments. The YBC database is invaluable as we are examining a very large legacy sediment deposit upstream from the long-term discharge/chemistry collection site (Fig. 6). The data set partially covers the years over which the deposit has been remobilized since the dam was removed in 1987. Filtered samples of suspended sediment captured downstream during the 10 yr study are being used to determine temporal changes in mineralogy and bulk chemistry. We can use these time-tracked samples along with core samples from the legacy deposit to determine mass balances and fluxes of elements indicative of land use and anthropogenic inputs. As these sediments all come from low human impact land-use (state forest) areas, we can use our findings as a baseline to compare to similar studies from nearby agricultural and urban land-use sectors. A second project uses all the long-term databases from stream water, groundwater level, and rainfall to quantify the mass fluxes of elements from local rain to vadose water to the groundwater and into the groundwater-fed stream. Dickinson College is fortunate to own a 187 acre farm adjacent to the Yellow Breeches Creek. Through the work of many academic departments and individuals, the farm is not only striving for organic certification but also to become a center for biogeochemical studies in the context of agriculture. Because our well field is located on the farm property, we have an opportunity to quantify the purging of the nutrients, pesticides, and herbicides used in heretofore traditional farming practices as the farm transitions to certified organic status. In addition, with rainfall, soil water, and groundwater chemistry measurements, we are documenting chemical transformations within soil types associated with three different rock types within the farm boundaries as they undergo weathering in a wet temperate climate. Most of these kinds of regolith development studies have been done only in humid climates. As the YBCW is studied more and more, we suspect there will be more opportunities to use the long-term databases already established and to start others. By introducing the data set itself and the methodologies for collecting a valid data set over time at the beginning of students’ undergraduate education, we provide more opportunity for in-depth study of various geologic processes and rates that would otherwise be quite invisible to them. Long-term data sets provide opportunities to increase students’ critical thinking, quantitative, and communication skills as well as learn more about the processes themselves. PROJECT CONTINUES: NEW PERSON, NEW IDEAS Long-term monitoring projects such as the Meanders Project may extend beyond a given faculty member’s career, provided that younger members of the department are committed to maintaining the project. At Dickinson, Potter’s retirement did not mean the end of either the Meanders or Weathering Cube Projects. In fact, his retirement represented an expansion of the Meanders Project. Our success in maintaining these projects is born out of several factors. First, although Potter had retired,
Long-term field-based studies in geoscience teaching he remained active around the department and was willing to invest time in the long-term monitoring projects. This eased the time burden on other members of the department as we gradually took on the role of running these projects. In addition, the scope of the project has grown as the technologies on campus have changed and the data set has grown. For example, at its inception, the Meanders Project focused on quantifying rates of lateral migration. However, over time, other trends have emerged within the data set. With more regular measurement of the erosion rods (Figs. 2 and 3), students found that the rates of erosion of the cutbank accelerate during the winter months. This is superimposed upon a trend of accelerated erosion rates over the past 10 yr. This acceleration is attributed to the construction of a small dam <100 m upstream of the survey area that was built in 1998. In essence, the student data collected prior to 1998 serves as a baseline for assessing the influence of dams on downstream sediment fluxes and channel migration rates. The study area has also experienced one additional change that is evident in the data. In the mid-1980s, the landowners converted the study area from a cow pasture with low cropped grass and a stream with banks trampled by cattle into a dormant floodplain. In subsequent years, weeds, briars, and shrubs have flourished and stabilized the banks. This transition is evident in the data that have been collected. The project that began as a student-developed survey across a small unnamed creek has ballooned into a vehicle for assessing the influence of land use and climate on patterns and rates of deposition and erosion. The project has recently taken on a geographic information system (GIS) dimension, integrating high-resolution low altitude photographs with the ground surveys to illustrate magnitudes of channel migration (Fig. 2). This new dimension of the project exposes students in the geomorphology and field methods courses to projections, georectifying, and basic editing functions in ArcGIS while highlighting the fact that imperceptible change, given sufficient time, does sum to significant change. In addition, the aerial photograph of the meanders was produced as part of an independent study that involved outfitting a remotely controlled airplane with a digital camera attached to take high-resolution photographs (Roth and Helmke, 2006). ASSESSMENT While field-based studies are most engaging for students and faculty alike, the intended learning goals are notoriously difficult to assess for success, especially when one of the primary learning outcomes is an increased level of critical thinking. It is clear to us, however, that a progressive or formative assessment of critical thinking and geologically relevant skills is most appropriate. We have noted that some of these longterm data sets are introduced and analyzed in our introductory geology courses. These and other data sets frequently return in electives and required courses for the major in more sophisticated forms and with questions that require higher level criti-
193
cal thinking skills. For example, while first-year students may be required to make simple relationships between rainfall and discharge, hydrogeology students must include the chemistry and groundwater components of the system and quantitatively determine the hydrologic budget over time. For those students who will only take one geology course, we are limited in our assessment of critical thinking skills and must use other means (e.g., laboratory project papers and essay exams) to determine success. For students who major and may be exposed to all of these long-term data sets, we have a more opportunities to validate advanced understanding of natural processes and the connection between disparate data sets. The YBCW data set is particularly useful in this respect. While quantitative measurement of an increase in critical thinking skills is difficult, we do see a trend toward more and more students doing independent research projects, and increased quality and sophistication of the projects. We recognize the need for a formal assessment of the teaching and learning activities associated with these longterm studies and data sets. To that end, we are developing a formal, field-based, skills and critical thinking exercise for our graduating seniors as a bookend to the critical thinking assessment we now do before and after the course within the introductory offerings. CONCLUSIONS We have discovered that long-term field-based projects provide opportunities for teaching geologic processes, such as weathering and erosion, in a local setting as well as skills for collecting and analyzing field data sets. These are of two types. Projects that can be maintained by episodic data collection are appropriate for students to be part of the data collecting process. Projects that require high-frequency periodic data collection are more likely to be successful if started and maintained by faculty or research students. The accumulating data set can be used in class projects as baseline surveys at all levels of student understanding and/or for teaching analytical research techniques and field data collection skills. We offer some recommendations based on our experiences with long-term projects: (1) Begin with a simple project. Once you see a pattern evolving, you can always extend the project in new directions. However, be aware that these extensions add up to more work than a class can manage in a project of a few weeks duration. (2) Consider that a small version of the process (e.g., small meander) you wish to study may be just as satisfactory to measure as a larger entity, and it may be more conducive to sampling. (3) Think carefully about where you collect data on site. For example, a meander may migrate out from under your profile over time. (4) Make quality control an essential part of the project. Some students are not careful when collecting data. Instructors should demand quality control when collecting and analyzing data. Bad data collected in a longitudinal study is a data gap forever.
194
Potter et al.
(5) Consider adding growing data sets to other appropriate courses, especially if ancillary long-term data sets can be added from other sources (e.g., National Weather Service rainfall, U.S. Geological Survey discharge at other sites). (6) Think about access to your chosen site over a time period of decades, in terms of relations with landowners, and in terms of getting there from campus. (7) Use robust sampling equipment, especially if you leave data loggers outside for extended periods of time. (8) Find inconspicuous locations for monitoring equipment to avoid vandalism or theft. (9) Obtain permits, as necessary. (10) Check equipment on a set schedule to avoid battery failure or other mishaps that lead to gaps in the data set. For example, we once had a flood take out a stilling well, leaving the waterlevel probe dangling in the stream for more than a week. (11) Start using SI units right away where it is common practice (hydrogeology measurements are frequently in English units) to avoid future conversion problems. For example, in 1974, our surveying rods for the meander study were all in English units, and we continued surveying in feet until recently changing to SI units. (12) Use advanced technology as necessary. Having students learn to collect data the “old-fashioned” way avoids the tendency to blindly accept “black-box” data. (13) Use long-term data sets as starting points for more in-depth independent research opportunities. By assessing the outcomes of these terminal projects you can get some sense of the success with which learning goals are being met. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the Hurley family for continued access to the Meanders site since 1974; Carretti Quarry of Plainfield, Pennsylvania, for providing the limestone for the weathering cubes; and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission for 10 yr of access to the wireline gauge for the YBCW project. Reviews by Bill Locke, Dave Mogk, and an anonymous reviewer greatly improved the clarity and presentation of the manuscript. Support for this work was provided in part by the Dickinson College Research and Development Committee and National Science Foundation CCLI grant 9550929 to Niemitz.
REFERENCES CITED Allmendinger, N.E., Pizzuto, J.E., Potter, N., Jr., Johnson, T.E., and Hession, W.C., 2005, The influence of riparian vegetation on stream width, eastern Pennsylvania, USA: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 117, p. 229–243, doi: 10.1130/B25447.1. Godfrey, A.E., Everitt, B.L., and Martin Duque, J.F., 2008, Episodic sediment delivery and landscape connectivity in the Mancos Shale badlands and Fremont River system, Utah, USA: Geomorphology, v. 102, p. 242–251, doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.05.002. Greenland, D., Gooding, D.G., and Smith, R.C., eds., 2003, Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response at Long-Term Ecological Research Sites: New York, Oxford University Press, 480 p. Likens, G.E., and Bormann, F.H., 1995, Biogeochemistry of a Forested Ecosystem (2nd edition): New York, Springer-Verlag, 159 p. Matsukura, Y., Hattanji, T., Oguchi, C.T., and Hirose, T., 2007, Ten year measurements of weathering rates of rock tablets on a forested hillslope in a humid temperate region, Japan: Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, v. 51, p. 27–40, doi: 10.1127/0372-8854/2007/0051S-0027. Niemitz, J.W., and Potter, N., Jr., 1991, The scientific method and writing in introductory landscape development laboratories: Journal of Geological Education, v. 39, p. 190–195. Potter, N., Jr., and Niemitz, J.W., 2001a, An alternate approach to a local denudation rate: A 12-year record of limestone weathering in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, in Potter, N., Jr., ed., The Geomorphic Evolution of the Great Valley near Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Southeast Friends of the Pleistocene, 2001 Annual Meeting Guidebook, p. 33–35. Potter, N., Jr., and Niemitz, J.W., 2001b, Suspended and dissolved load in Yellow Breeches Creek: An approximation to a denudation rate for the Cumberland Valley based on 7 years of record, in Potter, N., Jr., ed., The Geomorphic Evolution of the Great Valley near Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Southeast Friends of the Pleistocene, 2001 Annual Meeting Guidebook, p. 30–32. Potter, N., Jr., Hartman, D., and Allmendinger, N., 2001, STOP 1. 27 years of meander migration on an unnamed creek, in Potter, N., Jr., ed., The Geomorphic Evolution of the Great Valley near Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Southeast Friends of the Pleistocene, 2001 Annual Meeting Guidebook, p. 66–79. Rahn, P.H., 1971, The weathering of tombstones and its relationship to topography in New England: Journal of Geological Education, v. 19, p. 112–118. Reuter, J.M., 2005, Erosion Rates and Patterns Inferred from Cosmogenic 10Be in the Susquehanna River Basin [M.S. thesis]: Burlington, The University of Vermont, 172 p. Roth, A.M., and Helmke, M.F., 2006, High times in the Great Valley: Remote sensing by unoccupied aerial vehicle (UAV): Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 2, p. A25. Sevon, W.D., 1989, Erosion in the Juniata River drainage basin, Pennsylvania, in Gardner, T.W., and Sevon, W.D., eds., Appalachian Geomorphology: Geomorphology v. 2, p. 303–318, and Addendum, v. 20, no. 3, p.5. Sharp, R.P., 1964, Wind-driven sand in Coachella Valley, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 75, p. 785–804, doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1964)75[785:WSICVC]2.0.CO;2. Walter, R., and Merritts, D., 2008, Natural streams and the legacy of water-powered milling: Science, v. 319, no. 5861, p. 299–304, doi: 10.1126/science.1151716. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Integrating student-led research in fluvial geomorphology into traditional field courses: A case study from James Madison University’s field course in Ireland C.L. May L.S. Eaton S.J. Whitmeyer Department of Geology and Environmental Science, James Madison University, 800 S. Main Street, MSC 6903, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, USA
ABSTRACT The objective of the environmental science component of the James Madison University field course in Ireland is to provide students with opportunities to conduct original hypothesis-driven research. We use an exercise in fluvial geomorphology as a case example of the way students used field observations and basic principles demonstrated by faculty mentors to develop and test hypotheses about the formation and function of rivers. Specifically, students addressed two fundamental, and currently unresolved, questions: (1) Can the location of large gravel bars be predicted? (2) What controls channel width? Students also gained insight into foundational concepts in fluvial geomorphology by investigating the distribution of deposited sediments, and deciphering how past environmental conditions provide first-order controls on the morphology of a modern-day river channel. In addition to identifying important geomorphic patterns, students gained useful skills in developing and testing scientific questions in a rigorous and data-rich manner. INTRODUCTION Geology field courses that include a blending of both traditional and contemporary topics and targeted research projects provide the ideal “capstone experience” for undergraduate geoscience students. Undergraduate students’ participation in original research is widely believed to encourage students to pursue advanced degrees and careers in science (Russell et al., 2007). The environmental science component of the James Madison University field course provides students with an opportunity to engage in the process of science by conducting hands-on research projects based on timely and pressing questions that
require application of their scientific and geoscience training. This experience is particularly important for undergraduates who do not have the opportunity to conduct senior research projects at their home universities. Specific objectives of the environmental science component of the field course include: (1) developing a research experience for students that provides hands-on discovery into the scientific method and group problem solving; (2) encouraging field-based formulation and testing of hypotheses that address key uncertainties in fluvial geomorphology; and (3) providing insight into foundational concepts in applied geology and skills in measurement techniques.
Why an Environmental Science Component in a Field Course Setting? What is the relevance of a geology field course in the twentyfirst century? Some will argue that coursework combined with field trips is sufficient for preparing undergraduates for graduate studies or for the workforce. Others surmise that an undergraduate research experience or an internship is an appropriate substitution for the field course experience. Some cite the unfortunate convergences of rising tuition, increasing travel costs, a general “graying” of field course faculty, and increasing demands on students’ time as reasons to omit field course programs from the curriculum. Attending a lengthy field camp in a remote location can also pose significant hardship on nontraditional students, especially young parents and those already in the workforce. However, informal surveys and discussions with students and colleagues who participated in a field course during the past several decades reveal the opposite. The vast majority indicate that the experience was one of the defining moments of their undergraduate training. Some students compare the field course to a medical doctor’s residency program, where they synthesize and apply their four years of geoscience training in a 6 wk immersion course, requiring their full commitment and concentration. Several geoscience professional organizations concur with the value of an emersion experience. Both the American Geological Institute (AGI) and the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) recommend a geology field course as part of undergraduate geoscience curriculum. In summary, it appears that many geoscience professionals agree that the field course ties together much of the undergraduate classroom coursework in an intense, applied setting of the outdoor laboratory. Traditional field courses often focus on identification, interpretation, and mapping of geologic landforms and structures; however, many programs do not include opportunities for students to conduct original hypothesis-driven research. During a session that focused on the content and curricula development of geology field courses (The Future of Geoscience Field Courses, Denver, Colorado) at the 2007 Geological Society of America (GSA) Annual Meeting, many of the presentations suggested that traditional bedrock mapping was the exclusive focus of their course. While the authors recognize that bedrock mapping is an important and necessary experience for students to develop foundational skills in geology, only a small percentage of students will serve as bedrock mappers as a profession. A study by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) in 2003 showed that over half of all geoscience graduates in the United States and Canada went to work in environmental fields (e.g., the applied geologic fields of hydrology, soils, aqueous geochemistry, engineering, shallow-earth geophysics, and others), and the remainder was split nearly evenly among oil and gas, teaching, and government jobs (Katz, 2004). Given the diversity of professions that geology students enter, a greater diversity in field course curriculum is warranted (De Paor and Whitmeyer, 2009). In addition to increasing the breadth of topics covered during the
course, a stronger focus on the important skill sets of synthesis and hypothesis testing is also needed for training young scientists with sharp critical thinking skills. To meet the changing needs of geology students, James Madison University’s (JMU) field course in Ireland has developed a broad curriculum. Traditional bedrock and structural mapping is still a major focus of the course, and it contributes at least 50% of the 6 wk endeavor. Other topics covered in the past 3 yr include digital mapping with global positioning systems (GPS) and geographic information systems (GIS), glacial geomorphology, landslides, coastal processes, and geophysics, where each topic will span from 1 to 5 d, depending on the specialties of faculty present. The final week of the field course is spent on student-led research projects that apply their scientific skills and geoscience training to an applied problem. The exercise is openended, experimental, and intended to promote discovery of new knowledge. The specific topic of the environmental science component of the course varies annually, and this article presents one specific study from the 2007 field course. STRUCTURE OF THE EXERCISE Student-Led Research and the Role of the Faculty Mentor Small student groups, of four to six students each, were given a problem statement in environmental science and 5 d to formulate and complete a research project. The role of the faculty mentor was to guide observations and help students focus on developing solid and testable hypotheses. The area of expertise of the faculty mentors was fluvial geomorphology, which explores the form and function of rivers, an area of limited focus in other components of the field course. While students were exploring the field area, the faculty mentor found opportunities to demonstrate and discuss foundational concepts in fluvial geomorphology. More importantly, the mentor reigned in the desire of students to start immediately collecting data before research questions were well developed and the research approach was designed. An important aspect to note in the daily structure of the course (Table 1) is that students spent more time developing research questions based on their field observations, and exploring how geomorphic concepts were evident in the form and function of TABLE 1. DAILY STRUCTURE OF THE JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY FIELD COURSE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE RESEARCH PROJECT Day 1—Overview of field area and introduction to a broad research question. Day 2—Demonstration of key concepts in fluvial geomorphology by the faculty mentor. Preliminary observations by the students, which they use to refine research questions and develop specific hypotheses. Day 3—Training in field sampling techniques; demonstration of concepts in geomorphology that complement field observations. Day 4—Field sampling. Day 5—Field sampling (morning); data analysis and synthesis (afternoon); presentations and discussion session (evening).
Integrating student-led research in fluvial geomorphology into traditional field courses the river network, than in the act of data collection. The instructors believe that this is an important and often underrepresented component of training students to conduct research. Data collection, although a tangible task, is only interesting when set in the context of a unique scientific question that provides insight into geologic principles.
9 54' 00" N 53 44' 00" W
14 Outlet to Atlantic Ocean
Lower River
13 12
11
Preliminary Observations and Developing Hypotheses On the second field day, students spent a full day with a faculty mentor making preliminary observations that served as a foundation for developing testable hypotheses and designing an observational study. The first question was to determine the location in the river network to search for gold deposits. During the initial visit to rock outcrops and gold panning in the riverbed, students observed that gold was present in predominantly sandsized particles (<2 mm). The question then became, where were sand deposits most abundant in the riverbed? Students began in the steep headwater streams of the upper river basin and observed that sand deposits were infrequent in small, high-energy streams. There are 772 m of relief in the basin, 92% of which occurs in the upper river basin (Fig. 1, upstream of site 1). Students then deduced that after the river exited the mountains and entered a broad floodplain valley, sand deposits should be more abundant. The group then visited a low-gradient, meandering river in the middle portion of the river channel network (Fig. 1, site 8). The channel had an alternating pool and riffle morphology (Montgom-
10
9
Middle River
8 7 6
Identifying an Applied Problem Students were guided through the scientific method, which did not begin with an abstract discussion of the process but rather hands-on discovery through inquiry-based learning. Field courses are an ideal setting for this type of learning because students experience the scientific method as a rich, complex, and unpredictable process, instead of the oversimplified representation that is often taught in classroom settings. We began by identifying a broad question of interest, and as the line of questioning evolved, questions became more specific, and knowledge gaps in the understanding of river systems were identified. To initiate this process, students were guided to field sites that provided opportunities to make observations about a particular topic. In this specific case example, the broad question of interest was identified by a local geoscientist (K.R. Moore, Department of Earth and Ocean Science, National University of Ireland, Galway) and was based on the timely issue that western Ireland is a major target for gold exploration (Moore, 2006). On the first field day, students were taken to a rock outcrop and shown that gold was present in hillslopes, but in low concentrations that were broadly dispersed. Next, students were taken to the Carrownisky River and provided with an opportunity to pan for gold. From their observations, students came to the conclusion that gold was present on hillslopes, but it was concentrated in channels. The question then became, how can the location of preferential deposition be identified?
197
5 3 41 2
Northern Ireland
Study Area
Upper River
Republic of Ireland N
0
1 km
9 42' 00" N 53 40' 00" W
Figure 1. Map of the study area. The midsection of the river, denoted by dashed lines that bisect the basin, contains large gravel bars investigated by student groups 1 and 2. Numbered circles indicate the location of sampling areas for student groups 3 and 4. Inset highlights the location of County Mayo in western Ireland.
ery and Buffington, 1997) and large gravel bars. Students then went searching for areas where sand deposits had formed. To their surprise, and initial disappointment, surficial deposits of sandsized material were also uncommon in this portion of the channel network. The role of the faculty advisor was then to demonstrate and discuss the process of channel armoring, where finer-grained sediments are trapped, and therefore protected, by a coarse surface layer (Dietrich et al., 1989). This line of inquiry and discovery provided an opportunity to discuss the importance of striving for creative alternatives when preliminary observations do not fit expectations, and it served to illustrate that real learning and discovery involve a constant process of evolving our understanding and questioning of complex environmental systems. From their observations, students deduced that subsurface sediment deposits in large gravel bars would be a rich source of sand, and therefore gold, deposits. Students were then surprised to find that gravel bars were limited to a relatively small portion of the channel network in the midsection of the basin (Fig. 1, sites 1–8). In the upper section of the basin, bar development was limited by channel steepness; downstream bar development appeared to be limited by channel incision into thick layers of cohesive sediment. Cohesive bank materials, caused by roots of streamside vegetation or clay-rich soil, have a direct effect on the processes and rates of bank erosion (Micheli and Kirchner, 2002a, 2002b). In the Carrownisky River, thick clay and organicrich sediments in the lower floodplain valley have distinct stratigraphic characteristics that suggest the lower river was formerly a wetland (Fig. 1, sites 9–14). Based on field observations and concepts described and demonstrated by the faculty mentor, specific hypotheses were developed by each of four smaller groups (Table 2). Students
TABLE 2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS, OBSERVATIONS, AND INSIGHTS GAINED FROM FIELD OBSERVATIONS MADE BY EACH STUDENT GROUP Group number and research Observations summarized by Process-based understanding of Important concepts in fluvial Specific hypothesis tested question the students observations demonstrated by the geomorphology demonstrated faculty mentor and discussed 1. Where are deposits of sandSurficial deposits of sand were Streambeds are characterized by two Selective transport of If the streambed is well armored, sized particles most abundant? uncommon on the surface of the distinct layers of the sediment. The sediment; channel armoring; then deposits of sand-sized streambed or bars throughout the surface layer is primarily composed of and interpretation of material will be more abundant in channel network. The subsurface coarse sediment that is difficult for the imbricated deposits. the subsurface, because the sediments of gravel bars in the river to transport. This coarse surface coarse surface layer prevents low-gradient floodplain valley layer protects the finer-grained transport of the finer-grained contained an abundance of sandsubsurface, which more closely material stored in the subsurface. sized particles. approximates the load the river carries. 2. In reaches of the river where Gravel bars of various sizes were The size of gravel bars is largely Gravel bar and meander If bar size is determined by the present in the midsection of the dependent upon the space available to development; mechanisms of bars form, can the occurrence radius of curvature in meander of large bars be predicted? river. Large bars appeared to be accommodate bar formation. Bar bank erosion. bends, then small bars should related to the curvature of formation is limited in tightly confined occur where the angle of meander bends. river canyons but can be extensive in curvature is low, because there is broad floodplain valleys. less room for lateral expansion and sediment deposition on the inside of tight meander bends compared to broad, high-angle bends. 3. Where in the channel The upstream end of the study Bar development is limited to channels Morphologic channel If channel width inhibits bar network do gravel bars form? area was bounded by steep with less than 2% slope, which is well development; hydraulic development in cohesive channels, which limited the documented in the literature (e.g., geometry; bank erosion and sediments, then stream banks potential for bar formation. In the Montgomery and Buffington, 1997). In characteristics of cohesive composed of noncohesive midsection of the river, gravel bars low-gradient channels, bar sediments. materials will have the greatest of various sizes were very development can also be inhibited in abundance of bars, because abundant. In the lower river, the narrow channels; however, the channels can erode floodplains channel was narrow, deeply controls on channel width are not well laterally in noncohesive sediment, incised, and lacked bar understood. whereas channels incise vertically development. into cohesive sediments. 4. How do past environmental Stratigraphic evidence exposed in Climate change affects river discharge, Stratigraphic evidence for past If the cohesion of stream-bank conditions affect the modern the channel banks indicated that sediment load, and fluvial landform fluvial features; sediment materials affects channel river channel? landforms in the Carrownisky River development. transport and deposition under development, then areas of valley have varied dramatically varying environmental cohesive and noncohesive through time. Evidence for conditions. stream banks are determined by alternating conditions of gravelpast environmental conditions, bed river floodplains, deltas, and because paleolake beds and shallow lakes is present. wetlands contain cohesive sediments, paleochannels produce noncohesive sediments, and deltas have a mixture of cohesive and noncohesive sediments.
198
Integrating student-led research in fluvial geomorphology into traditional field courses were taught a structured form of developing hypothesis statements, in an “if…then…because” format. The “if” portion facilitates recognition of the underlying assumption of the hypothesis, the “then” portion is the actual statement of a testable hypothesis, and the “because” portion provides a causal mechanism for the hypothesis (Smallidge and Everham, 1994). We acknowledge that this is not the classical null and alternative hypothesis format; however, the hypothesis structure we used helps students to identify assumptions and causal mechanisms. This hypothesis structure also helps students to identify two variables and the way they relate to each other. Specifically, if the independent variable is changed, then the dependent variable will change in a predictable way. Developing an Approach to Test Specific Hypotheses After each group formulated a specific hypothesis, the approach for testing the hypothesis was developed. Students identified the data needed to answer their specific question. The explicit expectation was that the research projects would be quantitative and data rich, and not merely descriptive. The role of the faculty mentor was to help to identify specific tools and techniques for acquiring the necessary data. Students were then asked to envision the key graphs that could be developed from the data, which led to a plan for the forms of analysis to be used. Groups 1 and 2 focused their efforts in 2.75 km section of river in the midsection of the basin where large gravel bars were abundant (Fig. 1, sites 1–8). Group 1 measured surface and subsurface grain-size distributions in plot samples on exposed gravel bars using standard methods for pebble counts described in Bunte and Abt (2001). Group 2 measured the surface area and angle of curvature of all gravel bars in this section of the river
199
(Fig. 2). Groups 3 and 4 sampled 14 sites along 12 km of channel in the middle and lower river. Sample sites were spaced such that a broad area was covered with relatively easy access. Group 3 measured hydraulic geometry relations using standard methods described in Leopold and Maddock (1953) and Leopold et al. (1964). This group also identified areas of cohesive, noncohesive, and mixed bank materials. Noncohesive banks were characterized by gravel and sand deposits, cohesive banks were composed primarily of clay and organic-rich deposits, and mixed bank materials were classified as having >25% of the exposed river bank composed of more than one type of bank material. Group 4 interpreted stratigraphic sequences exposed in the channel banks and used this information to infer past environmental conditions. River deposits were identified as clast-supported deposits of imbricated and rounded gravel. Delta deposits were identified by narrow, and often abandoned, river channels composed of fine gravels and coarse sand, interspersed with marsh deposits. Wetland or shallow lake deposits were identified by organic-rich deposits and/or laminated layers of fine sediment. Communication of Results through Presentations At the end of the fifth field day, a student research symposium was held in the evening. Each group gave a 15 min, GSA style, presentation of their results. Students were informed that participation in the presentation, and in question and answer sessions, would be an important component in the overall evaluation of the project. Groups also shared a common theme and study area, so each insight helped to build a broader understanding of the topic, leading to a synthesis discussion. Students were asked to evaluate themselves, their group, and peer groups. Following the presentations, students were expected to turn in well-documented and organized data as part of their project summaries. GEOLOGIC SETTING
Angl An Angle gle gl e (° (°))
Figure 2. Illustration of the method students used to measure the angle of curvature of river bends. Tight turns in the river channel had low angles (~90°); broader bends had higher angles. A measure of 180° indicates a straight channel.
Student research projects were conducted in the Carrownisky River basin, located in the Murrisk Peninsula of southwestern County Mayo, along the western coast of Ireland (Fig. 1). The river originates in the glacial cirques of the Sheefry Hills of the South Mayo region and flows northwest through predominantly flat, boggy terrain prior to reaching the Atlantic coast, south of Clew Bay. The river is underlain by lightly metamorphosed, Ordovician to Silurian sedimentary rocks of the South Mayo Trough, which range from turbidite sequences of the Sheefry Formation through calcareous siltstones, quartzites, and sandstones of the Croagh Patrick succession (Dewey, 1963; Williams and Harper, 1988; Graham et al., 1989; Dewey and Ryan, 1990). The trend of the Carrownisky River generally follows the axial hinge region of a broad, east-west–trending syncline as the river progresses downstream from headwaters among the steeply north-dipping strata of the southern limb of the syncline. Much of the present-day high-elevation landscape of westcentral Ireland is dominated by spectacular cirques, U-shaped
200
May et al. 100
A Percent of grains <4 mm
B 80
60
40
20
0
Surface
Subsurface
Figure 3. (A) Coarse surface layer of gravel bars underlain by finer subsurface sediments. (B) Distribution of fine sediment (<4 mm) in the surface and subsurface layers throughout the study reach. Error bars indicate one standard deviation around the mean value.
valleys, and fjords carved during the Last Glacial Maximum (Wisconsinian-Devensian glaciation) ca. 19,000–23,000 ka (Mix et al., 2001), during which western Ireland was largely covered by the British and Irish Ice Sheet (Bowen et al., 2002). In the Murrisk Peninsula, retreat and removal of the ice sheet and dramatic warming ca. 10 ka (Walker et al., 1994; Coxon, 2001) were followed by establishment of a pervasive deciduous forest, as evidenced by ancient oak stumps preserved in boggy lowlands (Bradshaw, 2001). Vast expanses of the Carrownisky lowlands are dominated by peat bogs, and these are evidence of a wet and warm period that developed ca. 4500 yr B.P. (Bradshaw, 2001) and persists to the present day. Long-lived human interaction with the local landscape is evidenced by archaeological sites in the Carrownisky River valley that date back to the Neolithic (McNally, 1984; Moore, 2006).
so the differences between surface and subsurface grain-size distributions is likely to be greater than reported. Measurements of channel width revealed a surprising pattern. Hydraulic geometry relations predict that channel width typically increases with drainage area. Data from the Carrownisky River indicate the opposite trend: bankfull width decreased with drainage area (Fig. 4). In this river system, bankfull width was primarily a function of the composition of the stream-bank sediments (Fig. 5). Noncohesive banks were common in the midsection of the river, whereas cohesive banks dominated in the lower river. Cohesive sediments were associated with narrower and deeper channels compared to noncohesive or mixed layered banks (Fig. 6). This supports the students’ hypothesis
100
Each student group addressed a specific component of the broader question. The initial question focused on where gold deposits would be most plentiful in a river network; however, interests and observations of the students led to a refinement of the research questions that revealed insights into where and why large bars and sand deposits form in particular sections of a river. Investigations of surface and subsurface grain-size distributions of bars indicated that the channel was extremely well armored. The average for the median grain size (d50) of the surface layer was gravel-sized particles (29 mm), with a much finer subsurface layer composed primarily of sand (3 mm). The proportion of fine sediment in the subsurface was also greater than in the surface layer (Fig. 3), which supported the students’ initial hypothesis that sand-sized material would be more abundant in the subsurface. However, it is also important to note that pebble counts underestimate the quantity of fine bed material,
Bankfull width (m)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION y = 70.35x –0.58 r 2 = 0.39
10
1 1
10
100 2
Drainage area (km )
Figure 4. Relation between drainage area and bankfull channel width in Carrownisky River basin.
Integrating student-led research in fluvial geomorphology into traditional field courses
A
201
B
C D
Figure 5. (A) Noncohesive stream banks composed of clast-supported gravels. (B) Broad river channel and gravel bars formed in areas of noncohesive stream banks. (C) Cohesive stream banks formed in clay-rich sediments; organic-rich midlevel layer overtopped by laminated layers of fine sand. (D) Narrow and incised river channel formed in areas of cohesive stream banks. Scale bar denotes 0.5 m increments.
202
May et al.
Bankfull channel width (m)
30 25 20 15 10 5
Cohesive
Mixed
Noncohesive
Bank material
Figure 6. Relationship between bankfull channel width and cohesion of stream-bank sediments.
that cohesive banks can restrict channel width and therefore bar development. Students were able to predict where bars of varying sizes would occur based on the angle of curvature of meander bends (Fig. 7). High-angle bends were associated with large bars because there was ample room for channel expansion and sediment deposition on the inside of bends. In contrast, low-angle bends were associated with smaller bars because the space to accommodate bar formation was limited in tight river bends. Emanating from an interest in understanding the pattern of channel development, students also wanted to interpret how past environmental conditions influenced the present-day channel. Stratigraphic evidence revealed that the Carrownisky River valley has undergone dramatic changes in landforms and fluvial features (Fig. 8). Stratigraphic evidence in exposed river banks suggests that a broad, braided river system flowed through the midsection of the basin. These deposits form the noncohesive banks where the modern-day channel is a single-thread meandering channel with abundant gravel bars (Figs. 5A and 5B). In the lower river, stratigraphic evidence suggests that the valley has alternated between a delta and shallow lake or wetland, and a river-floodplain. These deposits form the cohesive sediments where the modern-day channel is narrow and deeply incised into the floodplain (Figs. 5C and 5D). The combined landforms of braided rivers and wetlands are indicative of wetter climate periods, when river discharge increases and sediment supply to rivers is high due to accelerated hillslope erosion. Evidence of widespread climatic cycles, including major flood events and the expansion of wetlands, has been observed in other sedimentary and archaeological records in the region (e.g., Barber et al., 2003; Macklin and Lewin, 2003; Moore, 2006). Learning Assessment Students were evaluated on the quality of the data, thoroughness of the analysis, and content of the final presentation. A high
level of student learning was evident. During the field component of the exercise, students displayed a sense of curiosity and pride in discovery as their research questions evolved and the data provided answers. Their drive to discover patterns and their underlying mechanisms was acutely evident in the discussions students had with peers and the faculty mentor. Several of the students commented that the exercise provided a “real understanding” of concepts they had learned about in lectures and textbooks. In addition to providing a research experience for undergraduates, the data collected in this endeavor provided insight into timely and pressing questions in fluvial geomorphology over which the students felt ownership. Discovery is particularly important since student experiences are often limited to “canned” exercises, where results are known by the instructor in advance, and the task of the student is to find the “correct” answer. In this exercise, the students took the lead in developing and refining the research questions, and the role of the faculty mentor was to facilitate this student-led exploration. Another critical role of the faculty advisor was to ensure that reliable data were collected. This was accomplished through training, oversight, and quality control at all stages in the process. CONCLUSIONS In the environmental science component of the field course, students learned important concepts in fluvial geomorphology (e.g., hydraulic geometry, channel morphologic development, sediment transport, and landform development). These concepts were demonstrated and explored in the student-led research projects and presentations, which provided an opportunity to learn how scientists develop, test, and communicate ideas based on foundational concepts in the geosciences. In addition to gaining insight into the scientific method and foundational concepts, students were able to address two fundamental (and currently unresolved) questions in geomorphology: Can the location of large gravel bars be predicted, and what controls channel width? Importantly, students were able to use simple field methods to develop observational studies that were quantitatively rigorous and data rich. Specific research questions focused on four key topics: (1) identifying where sand deposits would be most abundant in the river network; (2) predicting where large gravel bars were most likely to form within the river network; (3) identifying important controls on channel width and incision; and (4) interpreting how past landforms have influenced the development of the modern-day river channel. These research questions were derived from the initial observations that gold deposits were linked to in-stream deposits of sand, which led to a process-based understanding of how rivers form and function. The specific new knowledge gained from the students’ research will form the foundation for future research projects during the field course. One particularly important aspect of the research project was the emergence of new questions and insights throughout the course of the study. Through their observations of the linkages between sand deposition and gold deposits, and the constraints
Integrating student-led research in fluvial geomorphology into traditional field courses
203
A
Figure 7. (A) Large gravel bar formed in high-angle bend. (B) Relation between angle of curvature of the river and surface area of gravel bars.
10000
B
y = 0.0003x3.064 r 2 = 0.67
Bar area (m2)
1000
100
10 10
100
1000
Angle of curvature (deg)
A
B
steep mountain streams braided stream
delta and shallow lake or wetland
steep mountain streams meandering river with alternate bars
incised and narrow channel with cohesive stream banks and the absence of gravel bars
Figure 8. Conceptual model of how (A) past environmental conditions create the template for (B) the modern-day river morphology.
204
May et al.
on channel width in the field area that provided a first-order control on bar development and sediment deposition, new research questions emerged. The emergence of new ideas and questions is critical to the way scientific knowledge evolves and progresses. Only through active inquiry can the evolution of learning be demonstrated, and our experience suggests that this is best done through student-led research in a field-based setting. Field courses provide an ideal opportunity for teaching geoscience in a way that mirrors the processes of discovery used by professional researchers, and it moves far beyond many traditional methods of teaching that only present established knowledge. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish to thank all of the students in the James Madison University field course in Ireland, 2007, for contributing their research results to this paper. We would especially like to thank Joseph Bell for compiling data, and Greg Finklestein, Nikki Jenkins, and Kean Lewis for contributing site photographs. Kate Moore at the Department of Earth and Ocean Science, National University of Ireland, Galway, provided field instructional assistance, logistical support, and the initial inspiration for this endeavor. REFERENCES CITED Barber, K.E., Chambers, F.M., and Maddy, D., 2003, Holocene paleoclimates from peat stratigraphy: Macrofossil proxy climate records from three oceanic raised bogs in England and Ireland: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 22, p. 521–539, doi: 10.1016/S0277-3791(02)00185-3. Bowen, D.Q., Phillips, F.M., McCabe, A.M., Knutz, P.C., and Sykes, G.A., 2002, New data for the Last Glacial Maximum in Great Britain and Ireland: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 21, p. 89–101, doi: 10.1016/S0277 -3791(01)00102-0. Bradshaw, R.H.W., 2001, The Littletonian Warm Stage—Post 10,000 BP, in Holland, C.H., ed., The Geology of Ireland: Edinburgh, Dunedin Academic Press, p. 429–442. Bunte, K., and Abt, S.R., 2001, Sampling Surface and Subsurface Particle-Size Distributions in Wadeable Gravel- and Cobble-Bed Streams for Analyses in Sediment Transport, Hydraulics, and Streambed Monitoring: U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report 74, 428 p. Coxon, P., 2001, Cenozoic: Tertiary and Quaternary (until 10,000 years before present), in Holland, C.H., ed., The Geology of Ireland: Edinburgh, Dunedin Academic Press, p. 387–428. De Paor, D.G., and Whitmeyer, S.J., 2009, this volume, Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(05).
Dewey, J.F., 1963, The Lower Palaeozoic stratigraphy of central Murrisk, County Mayo, Ireland, and the evolution of the South Mayo Trough: Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 119, p. 313–344. Dewey, J.F., and Ryan, P.D., 1990, The Ordovician evolution of the South Mayo Trough, western Ireland: Tectonics, v. 9, p. 887–903, doi: 10.1029/ TC009i004p00887. Dietrich, W.E., Kirchner, J.W., Ikeda, H., and Iseya, F., 1989, Sediment supply and the development of the coarse surface layer in gravel-bedded rivers: Nature, v. 340, p. 215–217, doi: 10.1038/340215a0. Graham, J.R., Leake, B.E., and Ryan, P.D., 1989. The Geology of South Mayo, Western Ireland: Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press, 75 p. Katz, B.J., 2004, Report on the status of academic geoscience departments: Explorer (American Association of Petroleum Geologists), v. 25, no. 7, p. 10. Leopold, L.B., and Maddock, T., Jr., 1953, The Hydraulic Geometry of Stream Channels and Some Physiographic Implications: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 252, 56 p. Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G., and Miller, J.P., 1964, Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology: San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Co., 522 p. Macklin, M.G., and Lewin, J., 2003, River sediments, great floods and centennial-scale Holocene climate change: Journal of Quaternary Science, v. 18, p. 101–105, doi: 10.1002/jqs.751. McNally, K., 1984, Standing Stones and Other Monuments of Early Ireland: Belfast, Appletree Press, 128 p. Micheli, E.R., and Kirchner, J.W., 2002a, Effects of wet meadow riparian vegetation on streambank erosion: 1. Remote sensing measurements of streambank migration and erodibility: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 27, p. 627–639, doi: 10.1002/esp.338. Micheli, E.R., and Kirchner, J.W., 2002b, Effects of wet meadow riparian vegetation on streambank erosion: 2. Measurements of vegetated bank strength and consequences for failure mechanics: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 27, p. 687–697, doi: 10.1002/esp.340. Mix, A.C., Bard, E., and Schneider, R., 2001, Environmental processes of the ice age: Land, oceans, glaciers (EPILOG): Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 20, p. 627–658, doi: 10.1016/S0277-3791(00)00145-1. Montgomery, D.R., and Buffington, J.M., 1997, Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 109, p. 596–611, doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1997)109<0596:CRMIMD >2.3.CO;2. Moore, K.R., 2006, Prehistoric gold markers and environmental change: A twoage system for standing stones in western Ireland: Geoarcheology, v. 21, p. 155–170, doi: 10.1002/gea.20095. Russell, S.H., Hancock, M.P., and McCullough, J., 2007, Benefits of undergraduate research experiences: Science, v. 316, p. 548–549, doi: 10.1126/ science.1140384. Smallidge, P.J., and Everham, E.M., 1994, Motivating students to participate in a discussion-format course: Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, v. 75, p. 164–165. Walker, M.J.C., Bohncke, S.J.P., Coope, G.R., O’Connell, M., Usinger, H., and Verbruggen, C., 1994, The Devensian/Weichselian late-glacial in northwest Europe (Ireland, Britain, north Belgium, The Netherlands, northwest Germany): Journal of Quaternary Science, v. 9, p. 109–118, doi: 10.1002/ jqs.3390090204. Williams, D.M., and Harper, D.A.T., 1988, A basin model for the Silurian of the Midland Valley of Scotland and Ireland: Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 145, p. 741–748, doi: 10.1144/gsjgs.145.5.0741.
MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
A comparative study of field inquiry in an undergraduate petrology course David Gonzales* Department of Geosciences, Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado 81301, USA Steven Semken† School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-1404, USA
ABSTRACT Since 2003, the standard igneous and metamorphic petrology class at Fort Lewis College has been taught as a field-based, inquiry-driven course focused on topics in three different field areas (Ship Rock, Western Needle Mountains, San Juan volcanic field). This format allows undergraduate students to investigate advanced topics in petrology through field research while developing skills for continuing education and scientific careers. These courses serve the needs of the students by promoting critical analysis and inquiry, and building on content taught in previous courses to solve actual geologic problems. Many of the students also find enthusiasm for continued research and make further contributions to the geologic community. A research-focused field course at the undergraduate level allows students to engage in all facets of research in the context of natural geologic complexity. In addition, these students can collaborate with professional geoscientists to network and find opportunities that are not readily available to their peers outside the course. Engaging undergraduate geoscience students in authentic research projects is a benefit to their education and career development.
INTRODUCTION Petrology at the undergraduate level is a core element of geology curriculum. This course plays an important role in the education of students, helping them to develop skills in inquiry, observation, and analysis. In the past 20 years, the undergraduate igneous and metamorphic petrology course at many colleges and universities has undergone a major transformation. The traditional format of this course often involved laborious, timeintensive petrographic and hand-specimen studies of rocks and *[email protected] † [email protected]
memorization of abstruse terminology. At many institutions, the course has been dropped under an assumption that it is not essential to the career needs of students. At other schools, igneousmetamorphic petrology is melded into a more general “Earth materials” course (e.g., Goodell, 2001; Mogk et al., 2003) to reflect the focus of modern petrologic research on rock-forming processes in the context of material reservoirs and cycles (e.g., Dutrow, 2004; Best, 2003). This shift in curriculum has reduced student engagement with advanced topics in petrology except at large, well-funded research institutions equipped with modern instrumentation and technologies for materials analysis. For colleges and universities with limited research infrastructure, field studies offer an alternative means of introducing
authentic research in petrology to enhance the undergraduate experience. In this paper, we discuss a one-semester, inquirydriven upper-division undergraduate course in igneous and metamorphic petrology with research conducted exclusively in the field after a brief period of preparation. This course was designed to complement and reinforce existing curriculum while sustaining student engagement with rocks and petrologic processes, as well as bolster meaningful student-faculty research opportunities. Our field-research course is taught in the Southern Rocky Mountains and Colorado Plateau, and it is focused on petrologic studies relevant to current faculty research on igneousmetamorphic systems. This experiential format is suited to programs sited anywhere where rocks are exposed and accessible. The pilot offering of the class was described in Gonzales and Semken (2006), and it has since been taught twice more in different localities and focused on different petrologic problems. Here, we present formative and summative assessment data to compare the effectiveness and outcomes of different learning strategies used, and we report on the way that the field-research course has influenced subsequent academic (and later career) paths of the students.
FIELD-BASED STUDIES IN EDUCATION Most undergraduate geoscience students have some component of field-based inquiry in their education and training. In the past 20 years, numerous studies have provided evidence that field activities have a positive effect on geoscientific knowledge and higher-order learning skills (Kern and Carpenter, 1984, 1986; Orion and Hofstein, 1994; Garvey, 2002; Ambers, 2005; Guertin, 2005; Boyle et al., 2007; Elkins and Elkins, 2007); sense of place (Rossbacher, 2002; Semken, 2005); student confidence in the classroom (Bluth and Huntoon, 2001); and enhancement of curriculum in modern liberal arts programs and preparation for diverse workplace challenges (Kirchner, 1994; Schwab, 2001; DiConti, 2004; Plymate et al., 2005). Field studies can also benefit faculty mentoring of students (Hoskins and Price, 2001) and enhance expertise of in-service science teachers (Mattox and Babb, 2004). Frodeman (2003) contended that field research is the most authentic model for scientific inquiry, developing intuitive knowledge and skills for education and professional development. In spite of all this, a poll of geoscience faculty in the United States in 2005 indicated that fewer than 10% included field studies as a routine part of the curriculum (MacDonald et al., 2005).
INQUIRY IN EDUCATION COURSE CONTEXT Inquiry has become an important if not yet ubiquitous component of science education, and the merits and methods of inquiry are disseminated in the National Science Education Standards (NSES; National Research Council, 1996). The positive impact on student learning of inquiry via authentic, scientific research and similar experiential activities is documented (e.g., Project Kaleidoscope, 1991; Tobias, 1992; Haury, 1993, National Academy of Sciences, 1997; Huntoon et al., 2001; Harnik and Ross, 2003; Jarrett and Burnley, 2003; O’Neal, 2003; Seymour et al., 2004; Apedoe et al., 2006; Apedoe, 2007; Hunter et al., 2007). The overall implication is that students can benefit greatly when they have the opportunity to design a research project, collect and interpret their own data, and communicate their findings in field settings. However, MacDonald et al. (2005) reported that only 1% of a sampling of geoscience faculty in the United States used research as a component in their curriculum. Anderson (2007) defined inquiry learning as an active, student-centered process that mirrors scientific inquiry and is characterized by: (1) active, personal construction, rather than absorption, of meaning; (2) reliance on prior conceptions that are held by each learner, and that may be changed in the learning process; (3) dependence upon the contexts in which learning takes place (the more diverse the contexts, the richer the knowledge constructed); and (4) enhancement by engagement of ideas in concert with other learners. These four characteristics of inquiry learning (or constructivist learning) constitute a metric for assessing the authenticity and effectiveness of courses such as our field-research petrology course, and we will return to them later herein.
The host institution for the field-research petrology course is a four-year, public liberal arts college in southwestern Colorado that serves ~4000 undergraduate students per year and is governed by the state university system. The geoscience department sustains 60–80 total majors, including traditional and nontraditional (e.g., returning, second-career) students. In 2002, the department changed its traditional igneous and metamorphic petrology course from a degree requirement to an elective for geology majors. We saw this as an opportunity to recast the class with a research and field focus. The redesigned course retained an additional petrology option in the curriculum and offered undergraduates a richer opportunity to learn and practice field and research skills. Several other courses in the program integrated small one- to two-week research projects, but there was no regular opportunity for students to investigate an authentic, complex geological problem over an extended period. The field-research course supplements other courses in the program that develop knowledge of scientific ideas and methods, but in a more authentic context than a verification laboratory course. Our field-research petrology courses were taught in three different localities (Fig. 1), each of which offered a unique context for research. Enrollments in the class ranged from 14 to 4. The small class sizes are attributed to the fact that the course is no longer required for graduation, and it mostly attracts students interested in igneous and metamorphic petrology. This makes for better faculty-student interaction but hinders robust quantitative assessment of the course outcomes.
A comparative study of field inquiry in an undergraduate petrology course
instructors. This provides a true sense of student ownership in the learning process and typifies inquiry learning as defined by Anderson (2007). Learning objectives of the course were conceived to provide preparation for any kind of scientific career (Carver, 1996; DiConti, 2004).
Figure 1. Locations of the field-research petrology courses taught from 2003 to 2007. SJVF—San Juan volcanic field; SJB—San Juan basin.
COURSE LEARNING OBJECTIVES Syllabi for the field-research petrology courses have varied slightly (Table 1), reflecting different settings and logistics, but the learning objectives for the course remain essentially unchanged (Table 2). The primary pedagogical strategy of the field-research petrology course is to blend field studies with inquiry to promote authentic, student-driven research. Students apply and test their prior knowledge and use observational and interpretative skills to investigate major regional rock bodies and geologic histories, as opposed to completing a set of activities with predefined outcomes. Students choose and pursue projects in a specific geologic setting (e.g., Ship Rock in 2003) or collaborate in ongoing projects led by an extramural researcher (e.g., a U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] geologist in the San Juan volcanic field in 2007). The field-research course promotes critical and creative thinking through struggles with “messy” real rocks that defy neat textbook-classification schemes, in a natural environment that poses physical and intellectual challenges. Students collaborate in research teams and are required to communicate and defend their findings before their peers and
Although the different settings and topics in each offering of the course necessitate some logistical variation, the mechanics for each course are similar (Fig. 2; Table 1). On-campus activities are mostly concentrated toward the start of the trimester and involve 10 to 30 min interactive presentations by the instructor interleaved with inquiry exercises and student-led presentations. Literature searches on pertinent geologic topics and a review of scientific citation formats are an integral part of each course. A persistent thread of the course is reflection on scientific inquiry and research methods. Discussion topics and class activities focus on practical and logistical aspects of project design, formulation and testing of hypotheses, and the collection and analysis of data. For example, students are asked to respond to the questions posed by Kurdziel and Libarkin (2002) in their study of scientific methodology, and then read the article. The students also engage in lessons designed to develop skills in posing causal questions, constructing and testing hypotheses, critiquing scientific interpretations, and considering tools and methods to solve geologic problems. These lessons are developed from published material (e.g., Carey, 1998), class discussions on geologic problems familiar to students, and geologic phenomena encountered on field trips (Table 1). Each offering of the course includes a review of solid-earth structure and plate-tectonic systems, and a thorough overview of major regional geologic events (Fig. 2; Table 1). Students read and discuss a set of journal articles on Proterozoic to Neogene evolution of the Colorado Plateau and Southern Rocky Mountains (e.g., Bally et al., 1989; Oldow et al., 1989; Burchfiel et al., 1992; Miller et al., 1992; Christiansen et al., 1992). For the 2003 course at Ship Rock, students also received preparation in Navajo knowledge relating to the landform, cultural awareness, and the tribal regulations on fieldwork there. Some laboratory sessions focus on examination of igneous and metamorphic rocks in hand specimens and thin sections, with emphasis on textural and compositional descriptions (Fig. 2; Table 1). Other laboratory activities apply petrologic data to petrogenetic problems related to magma generation and emplacement, volcanic processes, rock deformation, and metamorphic processes. Most of the students come with some prior, mostly textbook-based, knowledge of these subjects from the introductory Earth materials course. After the first few weeks, laboratory sessions shift toward discussion of field research methods, including data collection and analysis. Field sessions are scheduled on Friday afternoons to minimize time conflicts with other courses. This also allows
208
Course calendar Precourse
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Gonzales and Semken
TABLE 1. A COMPARISON OF TOPICS AND STUDENT TASKS 2003: Ship Rock 2006: Western Needle 2007: San Juan volcanic field Mountains Fall of 2002: reconnaissance field Not applicable Not applicable work. Discussed potential research problems, and did literature review. Discussed process of research; Overview of regional geologic Discussed process of research; conducted exercises conducted exercises and history and geology of the study and discussions on scientific inquiry. Reviewed discussions on scientific inquiry. reference styles, and compiled bibliography of area. Field trip to explore existing published work for portfolio. research topics. Reviewed igneous rock types and Discussed process of research; Overview of regional geologic history, and San Juan textures, and physical properties of conducted exercises and volcanic field. magma. discussions on scientific inquiry. Four-day trip to conduct field research. Participated in 2 day field conference focused on topics near research area. Reviewed International Union of Group reviewed and presented on Reviewed earth structure and tectonic settings. Geological Sciences (IUGS) reference styles. Submitted Constructed an illustrated summary of igneousclassification of igneous rocks. outline of field research for tectonic systems for portfolio. Studied rock specimens from approval, and presented it to Navajo volcanic field and other class. Started field research. local igneous masses. Reviewed earth structure and Reviewed earth structure and Reviewed origin and evolution of magmas: conducted igneous systems in tectonic exercises, class activities, and homework on partial tectonic settings. Continued settings. Constructed an illustrated melting and fractional crystallization. field research. summary of igneous-tectonic systems. Discussed petrogenesis of mafic Reviewed common igneous rock Reviewed volcanic landforms and systems. magmas. Submitted outline of fieldtypes and textures. Classified Summarized dominant tectonic-magmatic models for research for approval, and igneous rocks in study area San Juan volcanic field for portfolio. presented it to class. using IUGS scheme. Continued field research. Overview of regional Cenozoic Reviewed common metamorphic Reviewed caldera systems and deposits. Students magmatism and Navajo volcanic rocks. Studied metamorphic gave presentations on different calderas systems of field. rocks from study area. western San Juan volcanic field. Continued field research.
Week 7
Overview of geology and Navajo ethnogeologic knowledge of the study area. Planned research strategy with faculty.
Reviewed plutonic igneous environments. Constructed an illustrated summary of igneous suites and processes in tectonic systems. Continued field research. Reviewed regional metamorphic environments. Constructed an illustrated summary of metamorphic suites and processes in tectonic systems. Continued field research. Discussed how to interpret and analyze geologic structures in field area. Continued field research. Compiled, analyzed, and interpreted data. Compiled, analyzed, and interpreted data. Compiled, analyzed, and interpreted data.
Week 8
Started field research.
Week 9
Continued field research.
Week 10
Continued field research.
Week 11
Continued field research.
Week 12
Continued field research.
Week 13
Compiled data and worked on research report and presentation.
Worked on research report and presentation.
Week 14
Completed research report and presented results of research.
Finished research report and presented results of research.
Reviewed classification/nomenclature of igneous rocks; applied information to name samples from field trip.
Discussed volcanic rock textures and structures; applied information to describe samples from field trip. Compiled a summary on chronology of events in western San Juan volcanic field for portfolio. Field trip to gold deposit near Cripple Creek. Reviewed plutonic rock textures and structures; applied information to describe samples from field trip.
Summarized major units of the San Juan–Silverton calderas for portfolio. Studied rock samples in thin section. Discussed ore systems of the San Juan volcanic field. Students worked with Dr. Yager on acid-neutralizing capacity (ANC) titration analyses in Denver. Students presented on common ore mineral & associations for the San Juan–Silverton calderas. Submitted overview of deposits for portfolio. Completed research portfolio and presented results of research.
2007 Collaborative study with U.S. Geological Survey to investigate the acidneutralizing capacity (ANC) of altered igneous rocks in the western San Juan volcanic field.
2006 Studied metamorphic assemblages and fabrics in Proterozoic rock units. Conducted detailed petrologic and structural studies of ca. 1.7 Ga granitic dikes. Conducted petrochemical and field studies on Tertiary intrusive rocks to assess magma genesis and emplacement histories. Multiple stages of metamorphic mineral growth during ductile deformation of ca. 1.78 Ga rocks under upper-amphibolite-facies conditions. The grade of metamorphism, and timing relative to deformation, in ca. 1.7 Ga pelitic rocks were inconsistent with previous published results. Proterozoic dikes were syn- to postdeformational, and emplaced during N-S compression at ca. 1.7 Ga. Tertiary intrusive rocks had similar petrogenesis and emplacement histories.
Diatreme has layered-conical geometry with two different eruptive phases cut by minette dikes and late-stage tuff dikes. Subsurface magma tubes and “pillow” formed in segments of dikes enriched in volatiles. Little or no effects on the mineralogy and chemistry of dike rocks from wall-rock contamination. Foliation developed in outer margins of dike segments containing tubes; interpreted as magma-shear fabric.
Further data on mineral associations Hand-sample and thin-section and ANC capacities to assess descriptions of altered and unaltered remediation potential of acid-mine rock samples from different units exposed in the caldera systems of the drainage. western San Juan volcanic field. Measured pH, conductivity, temperature and dissolved oxygen of mine drainage. Set up a map grid to collect unaltered and altered rocks to use in ANCtitration tests and scanning electron microscope (SEM) analyses at U.S. Geological Survey facilities; measured field magnetic susceptibility of rocks.
Petrographic descriptions of metamorphic mineral assemblages and fabrics. Documented relationship between metamorphism and deformation. Geologic map of ca. 1.7 Ga dikes and trends. Outcrop and thin-section descriptions of dike rocks. Documented structural fabrics and deformational history of dikes, and constrained relationships of dike emplacement to deformation. Petrologic descriptions and geochemical data for different Tertiary intrusive rock units.
Maps of composition, distribution, and general orientation of rock units and features. Hand-sample and thin-section descriptions of rocks and textures. Geochemical data from dikes. Structural measurements of diatreme bedding, and dike fabrics and structures. Described soil horizons and their geochemical signatures. Studied types and abundances of xenoliths.
Three students from course and two in 2005 who did not take the class
Herb and Gonzales (2008) Martin and Gonzales (2008) Marsters and Hannula (2008) Shumway and Gonzales (2008)
Burgess and Gonzales (2005) Gonzales et al. (2006) Turner and Gonzales (2006)
One student in 2008 None Class research paper/presentation who did not take Continued research by the class Dr. Yager and one student Involvement of Fort Lewis College field geology class in related projects in summer of 2008 Results contributed to the ongoing U.S. Geological Survey research
Class research Five paper/presentation Continued research by faculty and student New pressure and temperature constraints from metamorphic mineral assemblages New geochemical, petrologic, and structural data for ca. 1.7 Ga dike rocks and Tertiary intrusive rocks
Class research papers/presentations Geologic maps Continued faculty research New geochemical and petrologic data Digital database
TABLE 2. SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF PROJECTS, PRODUCTS, AND CONTINUED OUTCOMES FOR FIELD-RESEARCH COURSES Types of data collected New hypotheses Class products and new Thesis projects Professional contributions contributions
2003 A detailed study of diatreme, plugs, and dikes. Focused on the different geologic units and rock structures to gain more insight into the eruptive history.
Project goal
209
210
Gonzales and Semken 2003
Precourse 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Precourse 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Precourse 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Field visits & discuss potential research problems Design and develop research project Submit project proposal for approval Discussions and exercises on scientific research Petrologic description & classification Review igneous systems in tectonic settings Key petrologic topics Regional geologic review Field research & data compilation Write report and present results
2006 Field visits & design and develop research project Submit project proposal for approval Discussions and exercises on scientific research Petrologic description & classification Review processes in tectonic systems Key petrologic topics Regional geologic review Field research & data compilation Write report and present results
200 7 Field visits & design and develop research project Wr ite project proposal for funding Discussions and exercises on scientific research Petrologic description & classification Review processes in tectonic systems Key petrologic topics Regional geologic review Field research & data compilation Compile portfolio & present results
Figure 2. Comparison of the time line of topics covered in the 2003, 2006, and 2007 field-research petrology courses.
students to stay in the field longer without pressing conflicts with other classes. The course was first offered in the winter trimester (January to April), which limited significant fieldwork until weather allowed, around the eighth week. We moved the subsequent offerings to the fall trimester, allowing students to go into the field right away, and hence develop their projects sooner. Logistical issues (e.g., travel arrangements, procurement of field supplies and tools, scheduling) are dealt with as a group, and duties are shared by faculty and students. In the field, instructors and collaborating scientists help student teams to learn and practice proper field techniques, such as structural measurements, rock description and interpretation, field mapping techniques, and sampling methods for geochemical analyses. This is critical to develop confidence in the skills of students. Instructors keep apprised of teams’ progress, both to offer timely guidance and to help students to remain focused on tasks. Our intent is to establish a learning community: a key element of effective experiential learning (Carver, 1996).
Students spend from 6 to 16 full days in the field, depending on the logistical demands of particular projects. They are responsible for identifying and justifying any data needed to complete their projects. All of the students work together to analyze and interpret the data collected. Faculty provide guidance in the process, but students are responsible for their own hypotheses, tests, and conclusions. Throughout the course, the students are encouraged to discuss their findings and problems with each other, and again during lecture periods or outside of class, to facilitate sharing of data that might contribute to other projects. Research papers and presentations were the capstone deliverables for the course in 2003 and 2006. In 2007, students were required to compile a portfolio on a set of assigned topics related directly to the project (Table 1). Various sections of the portfolio had to be submitted every several weeks. Each section of the research portfolio focused on different topics, and students used published information and any new data from their research to build a detailed compilation for each topic. For example, for
A comparative study of field inquiry in an undergraduate petrology course one section of the portfolio, students built a chronology of volcanic events for the western San Juan Mountains. The portfolio enabled the instructors to monitor the progress of the students more closely. Unlike a research paper, the portfolio was a compilation of information that included a summary report, but that also provided a more comprehensive resource the students could use in future research or coursework. Students in the 2007 class were still required to present the results of their research at the end of the course, but they were also assessed on the content and quality of their portfolios (Table 1). COURSE SETTINGS The areas selected for the 2003, 2006, and 2007 fieldresearch courses (Fig. 1; Table 2) reflected the interests of the instructors and students. Selections were influenced by logistical concerns such as proximity to campus and prevailing weather conditions. Each of the field areas chosen was characterized by a range of interesting petrologic problems sufficient to serve the class. This enabled students to identify and pursue projects that were most interesting to them, while also learning from complementary projects pursued by their peers. We selected the diatreme-dike complex at Ship Rock, Navajo Nation, New Mexico, for the first course offering in 2003 mostly because of our own research interests, and because many aspects of the petrology and structure of Ship Rock had not been studied in detail to that point. Although all of the students in the course participated in group exploration and interpretation of the diatreme and dikes, each student pursued individual projects that specifically interested them (e.g., soil geochemistry). This permitted the group to work independently on topics but allowed collaboration on a common geologic feature. These projects contributed to class discussions of the geologic history of Ship Rock in the context of the evolution of the Colorado Plateau and the cultural significance of the locality (Semken and Morgan, 1997; Semken, 2003), making this an authentically place-based course (Semken, 2005). In 2006, students studied the petrology and structure of Paleoproterozoic basement and mid-Tertiary plutonic rocks in the Western Needle Mountains, ~30 mi (~ 50 km) north of campus (Fig. 1). The study area was closer to campus and offered a greater diversity of potential projects than were available at Ship Rock (Table 2). As a consequence, students pursued regionally based projects that were not tied to a specific rock unit or feature. A few students developed projects around a common problem, allowing for productive interaction, but others worked on problems that were scientifically and logistically independent. This had the unanticipated effect of diminishing interaction and collaboration among student groups. The 2007 course took a different tactic: it was organized to complement the ongoing regional research of a USGS professional, Dr. Doug Yager. The overarching theme (Table 2) was Oligocene volcanism in the San Juan Mountains, particularly the volcanic succession of the San Juan caldera complex
211
(Fig. 1). Students developed specific projects to characterize the acid-neutralizing capacity (ANC) of igneous rocks in the vicinity of the historic mining town of Silverton, Colorado, in support of an environmental program managed by the USGS and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. This provided a unique opportunity for students to apply igneous petrology in the context of a significant regional problem dealing with acid-mine drainage. The students were able to contribute to an authentic federal research project and to interact with research scientists outside of academia. To facilitate this work, the students applied for and received a grant from the college’s Dean of Sciences, gaining skills in proposal writing. The logistics of the 2007 class were considerably different from those of the prior offerings (Table 1). Most fieldwork was condensed into an intensive four-day course during which students worked alongside Dr. Yager and two instructors. The students characterized and sampled volcanic rocks over a 100 mi (161 km) traverse, studied ANC-related mineralogical and chemical characteristics of fresh and altered rocks in situ, and mapped a sequence of Oligocene volcanic rocks near Silverton. They learned geochemical sampling techniques (including chain-of-custody procedures), statistical grid-cell sampling, field magnetic susceptibility measurement, and the “field-pace” method of mapping (Barnes, 1981). They also collected baseline data for water quality (pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and temperature), and improved their skills in the use and interpretation of geologic maps. The main four-day field excursion in 2007 was followed by two supplemental day-long field trips in the San Juan Mountains to study other volcanic rock exposures. Later in the trimester, students learned to do ANC titration and scanning electron microscope (SEM) analyses of their samples at the USGS laboratory in Denver. CONTENT EVALUATION The student learning objectives for the course, and the characteristics of inquiry learning identified by Anderson (2007), form the basis for evaluation of our field-based, inquiry-driven approach to teaching petrology. Table 3 matches the learning objectives to their corresponding means of evaluation, some of which are quantitative and some qualitative. Data included instructor observations of student behaviors and performance, representative examples of student work, summative course evaluations, and postcourse tracking of students’ academic success and career paths. Because of the small number of student participants, however, we cannot demonstrate statistical significance for the quantitative results, and they are discussed only as general indicators. Summative Student Evaluations Overall Student Rating Students in the geosciences program anonymously rate each course they complete on a five-point scale, with five signifying
212
Gonzales and Semken
TABLE 3. STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND CORRESPONDING MEANS OF EVALUATION Student learning objective s Summative Instructor Continued Instructor-rated Professional student observations postcourse quality of research contributions to evaluations research products geologic community Enhance interest in geology and petrology through Applied Not applied Applied Not applied Not applied focused study of rock masses or landforms. Enhance familiarity with the region. Applied Not applied Not applied Not applied Not applied Conduct authentic research project from planning to Applied Applied Not applied Applied Not applied interpretation and dissemination of results. Enhance skills in scientific inquiry and critical thinking. Apply petrologic and other geologic knowledge and Applied Applied Not applied Not applied Not applied skills in a field setting. Develop abilities to work productively as part of a Not applied Applied Not applied Not applied Not applied research team. Further develop skills in oral and written Not applied Not applied Not applied Applied Not applied communication. Advance knowledge of the petrology and geology of Not applied Not applied Not applied Not applied Applied the field area.
the top score. The field-research igneous and metamorphic petrology course received higher overall ratings in 2003 (4.82 ± 0.4, N = 12) and 2007 (5.0 ± 0.0, N = 4) than the average rating for two sections of the previous laboratory-based course (4.53 ± 0.7, N = 20). However, the 2006 class was rated much lower (3.9 ± 1.5, N = 8). As noted already, the 2006 course differed in that the students’ inquiry learning was far more open and unguided; projects that year did not address a common problem nor were they situated in close proximity to each other. Although several of the students in the 2006 course gave the class a comparatively low overall rating, five of the eight who completed it continued to pursue their individual projects for senior theses (Table 2). Student Surveys At the end of each offering of the course, students anonymously completed a quantitative 16-item survey developed specifically to address student attitudes and learning (Table 4). Students agreed most strongly that a research-based course is more professionally useful than one without a research component (3 yr average = 4.9), that the course increased their interest in doing research (4.8), and that it improved their knowledge of regional geology and geologic history (4.8). They also expressed strong agreement with other statements affirming the personal value of doing research and fieldwork (4.6–4.7). They were less affirmative that they fully understood how to complete their projects (4.2), gained understanding of local culture in the study area (4.0), were able to accomplish all required tasks (3.9), and that they met their project objectives (3.9). Their only disagreement, which was expected, was with the statement that they were familiar with their study site before taking the class (2.9). It is interesting that this survey shows that the students in 2006, who did not give a high rating for the course overall, were very positive about its research components and its impact on their interest. Following the 2006 and 2007 courses, we administered a qualitative summative survey with 21 short-answer questions (Table 5). The items asked students to elaborate on their positive and negative impressions of the course, and on its impact
on their knowledge, interests, and professional preparation. Students often provided more than one response to a given item. These data were analyzed using a naturalistic approach (Miles and Huberman, 1994) to identify themes in the student responses rather than matching them against prior classifications. Similar and affirmative themes emerged from our analyses of the quantitative and qualitative parts of the summative-student surveys. Scheduling and lack of prior research experience posed minor challenges, but students generally found their projects attainable, enjoyable, and worthwhile. The opportunity to practice skills in the field was particularly valued, and most students thought that the course provided the best preparation for senior theses and professional careers of any they took. Pre–Post Survey In 2006 and 2007, we also administered a quantitative survey to assess students’ own perceptions of how their interests and skills had changed from the start to the end of the class (Table 6). The difference in the values is reported as normalized gain (Hake, 1998). It is evident that in most instances, students felt that their interest and geologic knowledge increased. Quality of Student Final Papers and Presentations As a capstone exercise, all students were required to present their findings individually or in their project teams of two or three (Table 1). Each student wrote a Geological Society of America (GSA)–style research paper, which in 2007 was part of the summary portfolio. These were graded for scientific content and style using the set of rubrics in Table 7. Greater weight was given to the “science” of the paper. Oral presentations, the first for some students, were given with digital slides in 15 min GSA format. They were judged by the lead instructor (first author) using content rubrics given in Table 8. Emphasis was placed on scientific merit, quality of data and methods, validity of interpretations and supporting evidence, organization, and presentation style. Nearly all of the
A comparative study of field inquiry in an undergraduate petrology course
213
TABLE 4. MEAN STUDENT RESPONSES TO THE SURVEY ITEMS IN THE SUMMATIVE COURSE EVALUATION, BY YEAR (1—STRONG DISAGREEMENT, 2—DISAGREEMENT, 3—NEUTRALITY, 4—AGREEMENT, 5—STRONG AGREEMENT) Learning objective Relevant item(s) from summative evaluation 2003 means 2006 means 2007 means (N = 12) (N = 7) (N = 4) Enhance interest in geology and petrology My interest in geosciences increased as a result 4.6 ± 0.6 4.6 ± 0.52 5.0 ± 0.0 of taking this class. through focused study of a significant local crystalline-rock body or landform. My interest in igneous petrology increased as a 4.2 ± 1.3 4.5 ± 0.53 5.0 ± 0.0 result of taking this class. My interest in doing scientific research 4.6 ± 0.6 4.9 ± 0.35 5.0 ± 0.0 increased as a result of taking this class. Enhance familiarity with the region. My knowledge of regional geology and geologic 4.9 ± 0.5 4.5 ± 0.76 5.0 ± 0.0 history improved as a result of taking this class. Prior to taking this class, I was familiar with the 3.3 ± 1.5 2.4 ± 1.06 2.8 ± 0.96 geologic feature where I did my research work. It was more interesting to study a geologic 3.8 ± 1.4 3.1 ± 0.64 3.8 ± 1.50 feature I was familiar with, rather than one I was not familiar with. I gained understanding and appreciation of the 3.9 ± 0.9 3.9 ± 0.90 4.5 ± 0.58 local culture in my study area as a result of taking this course. Conduct an authentic research project from I understood the objectives of my research 4.2 ± 0.8 4.1 ± 0.64 5.0 ± 0.0 initial planning to interpretation and project. dissemination of results. I understood what I needed to do in order to 3.8 ± 0.8 4.4 ± 0.52 4.8 ± 0.50 complete my research project. I was able to accomplish all of the tasks needed 3.9 ± 0.8 3.8 ± 0.71 4.3 ± 0.50 to complete my research project. I feel that my work and results met the 3.8 ± 1.1 3.5 ± 0.93 4.8 ± 0.50 objectives of my research project. A course with a research component is more 4.6 ± 0.8 4.5 ± 0.53 5.0 ± 0.0 interesting than one without a research component. A course with a research component is more 4.8 ± 0.6 4.9 ± 0.35 5.0 ± 0.0 useful professionally than one without a research component. If possible, I would choose to take other 4.9 ± 0.5 4.4 ± 0.52 5.0 ± 0.0 geoscience courses that enable me to do scientific research. I better understand how scientific research is Enhance skills in scientific inquiry and critical 4.7 ± 0.6 4.6 ± 0.53 4.8 ± 0.50 done as a result of taking this class. thinking. Apply petrologic and other geologic knowledge My interest in doing field work increased as a 4.6 ± 0.6 4.6 ± 0.52 5.0 ± 0.0 and skills in a field setting. result of taking this class.
presentations were found to be good to excellent and impressed the instructor more than did the written reports, many of which had numerous stylistic errors in spite of the specifications and guidance provided by the instructor. The oral presentations also helped students prepare for similar mandatory senior thesis talks presented later to the entire department. Continued Student-Faculty Research and Contributions Table 2 summarizes the 24 research projects completed by the students from 2003 to 2007, and it also indicates the projects that were developed further as senior theses or professional contributions. Nine students continued their research for senior theses. Another student became interested in the evolution of a diatreme complex in the less-studied northeastern Navajo volcanic field near Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. This new project also included two geology majors who had not taken the field-research petrology course. Two of the 2007 students
also worked on Navajo diatremes after completing their course research in the San Juan volcanic field. In addition, at least five students who did not take the course have pursued research projects spun off from it. Although we have not yet assessed its full impact, there appears to be a trickle-down effect from the interest and passion for field research demonstrated by many of the participants in the course. Research experiences in the field-research petrology course gave some students a jump start on senior thesis projects that were subsequently presented at professional meetings to a broader geologic community (Table 2). Student findings from the course have already led to new models of diatreme emplacement (Burgess and Gonzales, 2005; Gonzales et al., 2006; Turner and Gonzales, 2006), insight into pressure and temperature histories of metamorphosed basement rocks (Martin and Gonzales, 2008; Marsters and Hannula, 2008), and mechanisms of magma generation and emplacement related to crustal evolution at ca. 1.7 Ga (Herb and Gonzales, 2008;
214
Gonzales and Semken
TABLE 5. ANALYSIS OF STUDENT RESPONSES TO A 21 ITEM QUALITATIVE SURVEY ADMINISTERED AFTER THE 2006 (n = 7) AND 2007 (n = 4) COURSES* Question Respon se s Why did you take this elective course? Learn more about igneous and metamorphic petrology: 5 Learn more about research: 4 Gain more field experience: 4 Interest in local geology and petrology: 1 For career potential: 1 What were your career interests when you took the course? Some aspect of geology: 3 Environmental geology: 2 Igneous petrology: 1 Petroleum geology: 1 Undecided: 7 What are your current career interests? Hydrogeology/environmental geology: 4 Economic (including petroleum) geology: 4 Petrology: 1 Structural geology: 1 Field geology: 1 Some aspect of geology: 1 Did the course have an influence on your career interests? Yes: 7; No: 4 What was your overall impression of the research-based focus of the Effective in teaching how research is done: 6 field-research petrology course that you took? Application to real-world situation: 1 Imparted a better understanding of igneous systems: 1 Learned by doing: 1 Project a little weak and rushed: 1 Did not improve technical writing skills as wished: 1 In what general ways did the course effect (impact) your education and Enhanced research interest and/or skills: 4 learning? Increased interest in field work: 2 Taught by application: 1 Enhanced confidence: 2 Increased independence as a learner and researcher: 1 Provided a professional contact for future collaboration: 1 What were two things that you experienced or learned in the course that Problem solving: 4 you felt were the most useful to you, or most successful in the way it Field methods: 4 was taught? Data collection and analysis: 5 Better understanding of scientific method: 2 Observational skills: 2 Presentation skills: 1 Better understanding of regional geology: 1 Use of technology: 1 What were two things that you experienced or learned in the course that Needed more time to complete project: 3 you didn’t think were successful or something you might want added, or Needed more in-depth understanding of geologic concepts: 4 Needed more opportunity to develop communication skills: 2 you thought could be better? Wanted more collaboration with peers: 1 Wanted more time with instructor: 1 No negative experiences at all: 1 No response: 6 Do you feel you had a good understanding of how to conduct scientific No real understanding: 4 research when you took the course? Some understanding: 5 Understood how, but had never really practiced it: 2 Do you feel that your understanding of how to conduct scientific research Yes, greatly: 9 improved after you took the course? Yes, somewhat: 2 How did your interests in field studies change after you completed the More interested in field studies after the course: 10 course? No change in interest: 1 How did your interests in petrology change after you completed the More interested in petrology after the course: 8 course? Slightly more interested in petrology: 3 If you had a choice, would you prefer to have research integrated in other Yes: 11; No: 0 courses? Why? Students learn better using inquiry: 3 Research links classroom to real world: 3 Good preparation for professional career: 2 Students have more direct involvement in learning: 1 Field-based research is integral to geology: 1 Good preparation for senior thesis & careers: 2 Have you taken another research-based course? Explain. Have done some research in other courses: 5 No other authentic research courses: 6 What was the most important feature or characteristic of this course to Working in the field: 6 you? The research process: 4 Literature review: 1 Hands-on learning: 2 (Continued)
A comparative study of field inquiry in an undergraduate petrology course
215
TABLE 5. ANALYSIS OF STUDENT RESPONSES TO A 21 ITEM QUALITATIVE SURVEY ADMINISTERED AFTER THE 2006 (n = 7) AND 2007 (n = 4) COURSES (Continued) Question Responses Did the course have an impact on your professional development? Yes: 10; No: 1 Explain. Initiated collaboration with professional geologists: 2 Good preparation for professional presentation: 2 Solidified geological knowledge: 2 Increased appreciation of research in geology: 1 Enhanced field skills: 1 Provided preparation for senior thesis: 1 Too academic; did not enhance skills: 1 Have you continued the research topic that you started in the course? If Yes: 10; No: 1 you have, explain how. As a senior thesis: 4 Through continued collaboration with professional geologist: 2 In other courses: 1 Through employment: 1 In community outreach activities: 1 Are you considering any topic in the field of petrology for graduate Yes: 4; Maybe: 4; No: 3 studies? Did this course influence your decision? Explain. Is there anything else you would like to write about this course? Recommend this course as good preparation for senior thesis: 2 Recommend more research-based courses like this for professional preparation: 3 This course would benefit any geology student: 2 It was fun: 1 It was a great experience: 2 When will the next one be offered? 1 Helped to show me that geology is not just lectures and labs: 1 Helped me learn proper citation form for future communication: 1 No response: 3 *Students typically included more than one explanation or reason in their responses.
Shumway and Gonzales, 2008). One of these student authors is now pursuing graduate research on maar-diatreme volcanism at Arizona State University (ASU). We attribute these diverse and positive outcomes in part to the longevity of the research projects initiated in the field-research petrology course, and the collaborative skills the course fostered. Students involved in the field-research petrology course had opportunities to collaborate with professional geologists at various levels. One of the students joined faculty and graduate students from ASU to study Navajo diatremes in the Chuska Mountains, New Mexico, and later helped lead a field trip for the Four Corners Geological Society in 2005. In 2006, several students conducted microprobe analysis with the help of research scientists at New Mexico Tech and ASU. As noted previously, students in the 2007 class conducted geochemical analyses at USGS laboratories in Denver. These collaborations enabled students to confer with experts and use analytical instruments that were not otherwise available. We have found that geoscience research in the field is a feasible way to allow undergraduate students to study and learn from authentic problems at a level more typical of graduate students or professional geoscientists. Although laboratory-based research opportunities at small undergraduate institutions can be limited by infrastructure and funding, most institutions have access to field areas where research can be conducted, and extramural professional collaboration may also be possible. Students who completed the field-research petrology course, and who have taken positions in industry or pursued graduate
studies, have noted that their experience in the course had a significant impact on their success. One student commented: “The research aspect of the class was the most valuable part. Learning how to go about a scientific investigation that includes actual field work prepared me for my senior seminar research.” Postcourse Evaluation of Students by Colleagues To track the academic progress and success of the 24 student participants in the field-research petrology course, we polled faculty colleagues who encountered these students in subsequent courses or as advisees on thesis projects. In 2003, two of the faculty who taught most of the students in following semesters noted an increased enthusiasm and motivation for geology and research (J. Collier and G. Gianniny, 2004, personal commun.). It was also noted that the research experiences that students had in the course was critical to their intellectual development, and, as a result, a research component was implemented into an existing sedimentology course (G. Gianniny, 2004, personal commun.). In 2008, we administered a survey to all departmental faculty (N = 5) to determine their impressions of the impact of the course on students in the context of the entire undergraduate program (Table 9). All of the students in the 2003 and 2006 courses had graduated, and two of the students from the 2007 course had begun senior thesis projects by the start of the 2008– 2009 academic year. We asked faculty to judge how well the course met its principal learning objectives based on their subsequent interactions with students. These data are presented in
Gonzales and Semken TABLE 6. COMPARISONS OF STUDENT RESPONSES (2006 AND 2007) TO THEIR PERCEIVED GAIN IN KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS FOR THE TOPICS LISTED Interest in Interest in Interest in Understanding of Field Research Knowledge of Professional Communication Research petrology research field studies topics in skills skills scientific development skills opportunities petrology citation 6, 8.5, 0.63 5, 8, 0.6 5.5, 8.5, 0.67 4, 8, 0.67 6, 8.5, 0.63 7.5, 9, 0.6 7, 9, 0.67 Responses 7, 9, 0.67 7, 10, 1.0 7, 10, 1.0 6, 9, 0.75 5, 8, 0.6 5, 8, 0.6 5, 8, 0.6 7, 9, 0.67 8, 9, 0.5 7, 9, 0.67 7, 9, 0.67 5, 10, 1.0 5, 10, 1.0 5, 8, 0.75 4, 8, 0.67 4, 8, 0.67 2, 9, 0.88 5, 8, 0.6 5, 7, 0.4 5, 10, 1.0 10, 10, 0 10, 10, 0 5, 8, 0.6 5, 10, 1.0 6, 9, 0.75 2, 8, 0.75 2, 10, 1.0 5, 10, 1.0 5, 10, 1.0 0, 10, 1.0 5, 9, 0.8 5, 9, 0.8 6, 10, 1.0 1, 8, 0.78 3, 10, 1.0 4, 10, 1.0 2, 9, 0.88 5, 9, 0.8 1, 8, 0.78 2, 8, 0.75 2, 6, 0.5 5, 9, 0.8 4, 8, 0.67 , 6, 9, 0.75 6, 10, 1.0 8, 10, 1.0 5, 10, 1.0 10, 10, 0 7, 9, 0.67 8, 10, 1.0 8, 10, 1.0 8, 10, 1.0 10, 10, 0 10, 10, 0 2, 6, 0.5 2, 6, 0.5 2, 6, 0.5 4, 8, 0.67 4, 6, 0.33 4, 4, 1.0 4, 8, 0.67 8, 10, 1.0 10, 10, 0 8, 10, 1.0 6, 7, 0.25 5, 6, 0.2 3, 9, 0.86 1, 9, 0.89 3, 7, 0.57 4, 8, 0.67 3, 8, 0.71 7, 9, 0.67 8, 9, 0.5 9, 9, 0.5 5, 8, 0.6 5, 8, 0.6 3, 7, 0.57 2, 6, 0.5 4, 6, 0.33 4, 8, 0.67 5, 8, 0.75 5, 7, 0.4 7, 9, 0.67 6, 9, 0.75 4, 8, 0.67 5, 7, 0.4 5, 7, 0.4 3, 6, 0.43 3, 7, 0.57 2, 5, 0.38 4, 8, 0.67 3, 7, 0.57 6, 9, 0.75 8, 10, 1.0 5, 8, 0.6 3, 7, 0.8 3, 7, 0.8 7, 8, 0.33 5, 9, 0.8 6, 9, 0.75 5, 10, 1.0 6, 9, 0.75 8, 10, 1.0 Mean change 0.64 0.59 0.77 0.66 0.56 0.71 0.71 0.57 0.67 0.81 Note: The first and second numbers in each set indicate the ranking before and after the class, respectively (10—highest). The third number is the weighted gain (difference/potential difference).
216
Table 9, embellished with additional comments on positive and negative impacts of the course. The responses were analyzed and coded by a constant-comparative method (Merriam, 1998), in which the data were categorized to correspond to the nine student outcomes. Several themes emerged from this survey. Faculty respondents felt that the greatest impact of the field-research petrology course was on student enthusiasm for geology and field research, even for middling students who may not be comparably engaged by conventional courses. Respondents thought the course had a positive impact on students’ field skills, research skills, and preparation for professional careers, but not on communication skills. Respondents suggested that substitution of research depth for topical breadth may not serve all students equally well in subsequent geoscience courses. COURSE CHALLENGES AND INSTRUCTOR OBSERVATIONS Engaging students in field-based and inquiry-driven learning is rewarding but met with challenges such as the expense and difficulty of scheduling field trips, safety and liability concerns, instructor or student unfamiliarity or discomfort with fieldwork, lack of good teaching resources, and even a view that the field is not an effective learning environment (Orion, 1993; Orion and Hofstein, 1994; Jarrett and Burnley, 2003; O’Neal, 2003; Elkins and Elkins, 2007). However, these challenges had little impact on our courses. A research course allows for less subject-matter “coverage” than a conventional course, as considerable class time must be devoted to skills development and then the student research projects. The more latitude students are given to pursue diverse topics, the more difficult it becomes for the instructor to define the set of concepts needed to prepare the students for their research and also meet course objectives. There is also more of a demand on faculty time to assist student research teams with specific issues. These time constraints were particularly acute during the 2006 course, in which the teams were the most topically and geographically independent of each other. We typically spent a total of about two full field days with each student or student team. In most cases, this was long enough to render the teams self-sufficient, but with a few students, more time was required, and they wanted more direct guidance from the instructors. Some students, however, expressed frustration with the amount of time that faculty were able to spend with them in the field. Overall, the instructor of a field-research course must expect to serve as a teacher, motivator, mentor, administrator, reviewer, and peer researcher. A minimum of 15 hours per week over the entire trimester were spent by the faculty (who were already teaching multiple classes) on logistical and advisory activities outside of the classroom and field. These activities involved communication with other scientists involved in projects, scheduling vehicles and field trips, finding and disseminating reading
A comparative study of field inquiry in an undergraduate petrology course
217
TABLE 7. GRADING RUBRIC USED TO ASSESS PORTFOLIOS IN 2007 (A FRACTIONAL POINT VALUE WAS GIVEN WHEN REQUIRED) Grade 5
4 3 2 1 0
Grade 6 5 4
3
2 1 0
Assessment criteria A superior product that goes beyond the basic requirements. An excellent compilation of information and supporting resources that is complete, organized, and presented in a professional manner. This is a compilation that is a useful tool in a job or research project. Meets requirements for assignment. Summaries are complete, thorough, and supported with additional information. Summary is a good resource. An average, solid job. Summary provides basic information that has been discussed or covered in textbook; does not add further insight into the issue. Coverage of the discussion is cursory and does not meet minimum requirements (i.e., incomplete, too general, or many inaccuracies). Summary is not well organized or developed. Summary is inadequate, and there are major flaws in explanations and organization. The information does not serve as a useful resource. No summary is turned in on the deadline date.
TABLE 8. GRADING RUBRIC USED TO ASSESS CAPSTONE ORAL PRESENTATIONS Assessment criteria Superior presentation of research and results. Goes beyond an adequate job. Presentation is excellent and well developed. Insightful and innovative information is presented. Presentation is highly effective in helping people understand the project and conclusions. Meets requirements for assignment noted for grade 3. Presentation is innovative and effective and gives the audience a clear understanding of the research topic. The presentation is well organized and easy to follow, and it is well supported with figures or other visual aids. An average, solid presentation. The subject material is presented, but does not go into much depth. Information is correct and informative. Main points are clear and instructive. The presentation is clearly developed and information is easily followed. There is a progressive development of the research project. Presentation attracts and engages the listener. All sources of data and supporting information that are not created by the student are clearly noted in the presentation or at the end of the presentation. Presentation is poorly developed and does not guide audience to an understanding of the topic. Has limited effectiveness. No written summary is turned in. Presentation is poorly developed and ineffective. Did not create a presentation or was not in attendance on day presentation was to be given. If there is any evidence of plagiarism or gross disregard for the sources of information, grade of zero is assigned.
materials, and conducting field surveys and checks with students on weekends. Reviews and critiques of student research proposals were critical to ensure that students remained on track, but these activities also demanded a major commitment of faculty time and energy, especially in larger classes. A field-research course can also be time consuming for the students. Instead of simply attending a fixed weekly laboratory session of about three hours, students must obtain and analyze whatever data are needed to answer their research questions. Some students became so interested in their projects that they spent as many as ten days in the field beyond those scheduled for the course. This sometimes caused conflict with other courses and job commitments. Travel to a field site can also take considerable time. For instance, Ship Rock is located 95 mi (154 km) from the campus, a three-hour roundtrip. Yet we received no negative comments from the students about too much work or too-long days. This may have been because students interested in fieldwork were preferentially attracted to this course. Difficulty in thinking critically and problem solving were issues common to students in all of the offerings of the course. DiConti (2004) noted that undergraduate liberal arts institutions have generally not promoted experiential inquiry-based experiences in the curriculum. The general education requirements for undergraduate degrees at many institutions hold that basic scientific knowledge should be transferred to the students, but not
necessarily by application. It should not be assumed that students entering a field-research class understand anything about scientific inquiry. Particularly during the initial stages of their projects, many of our students required considerable coaching to overcome an expectation of finding straightforward and concise answers typical of textbooks and verification laboratory exercises. However, such problems typically waned by the end of each course. Over time and through immersion in complex field settings, students became confident and comfortable with a continuous process of formulating, testing, and revising their hypotheses on the basis of data they collected. They had to engage in critical thinking and inquiry to have a successful project. On a postcourse evaluation, one student noted that this course gave “confidence to ask questions, write papers, and compile information.” Another noted that conducting research in this course “gave me a guideline to follow, which makes research easier.” Over time, students’ questions about the quality of their data and the significance of their findings became more thoughtful and professional. Open communication and sharing of ideas in peer-led collaborative activities can be complicated by personality conflicts, desire of students to work alone and not as a team member, lack of engagement in class discussions, failure of some team members to complete their fair share of the work, and a perception by high-achieving students that they are “carrying” their teammates (Shea, 1995; Apedoe, 2007). It is important for faculty to actively
218
Gonzales and Semken
TABLE 9. RESPONSES OF DEPARTMENTAL FACULTY TO A SURVEY OF IMPACTS OF THE FIELD-RESEARCH PETROLOGY COURSE ON STUDENT LEARNING, BEHAVIORS, AND ATTITUDES (INDIVIDUAL NUMERICAL FACULTY RATINGS ARE LISTED, AS WELL AS OVERALL MEANS AND RESULTS) Overall objectives and Numerical ratings* Mean Overall results Additional responses criteria ratings Enhance interest in geology and petrology Impact on enthusiasm for 5 5 5 3 4 Somewhat Most of the students who take this elective class are 4.4 ± 0.9 geology and petrology better motivated, but some of our better students have not been a part. The class has been successful in taking middle-of-the-road students and developing their excitement for geologic research. [Field-research course] students are much more enthused and excited by the notion of problem solving and research in geology. Students who completed field-research course acquired a passion and enthusiasm for their project that carried over into further research projects. Students were interested and excited about doing “research” in geology. Preparation to conduct an authentic research project (1) Impact on professional 5 5 4 3 NA 4.3 ± 1.0 Somewhat Improves the students’ basic research skills by exposing development better them to journal articles, historical background, and data collection. I…think the field-based sessions will leave students with a more cohesive set of associations to retain knowledge that they will be able to apply to new problems. Most of the students who completed the courses were better prepared to tackle the complexities and challenges of research. More...research experience is generally a good thing. The greatest impact seems to be on students who are already strong, and who are ready to make the most of a research experience. Some students just don’t have the background with their minimal petrology exposure to successfully work in this type of individual research environment. Some students struggled with the concept of research and did not develop the skills needed to tackle more complicated problems to the fullest extent. The students who took [field-research course] did not seem to gain much theoretical understanding of the subject. Students working on igneous rocks wrote research proposals that showed a lack of understanding of igneous geochemistry. Because students take [field-research course] early (junior or sophomore year), many have put off required math classes. Some students felt that the only significant research being done was related to field-research course. Some important advanced topics in petrology might not be covered in field-research course; mix some advanced petrology topics with research project. It might be good to alternate research-intensive [field-research course] with other upper-level courses in sedimentology, advanced structural geology, etc. As is typically the case, [field-research course students] will probably not have been exposed to the breadth they would have in a traditional approach. (2) Impact on quality and 4 4 4 3 4 3.8 ± 0.4 Somewhat Continued work on a single topic during [field-research success of senior better course] and then as a senior thesis topic strengthens their theses understanding…some students broaden their research through time. For some, the field-research course gave them a jump start on their senior thesis. Other students recognized that senior thesis projects were also an actual contribution to...geology. (Continued)
A comparative study of field inquiry in an undergraduate petrology course
219
TABLE 9. RESPONSES OF DEPARTMENTAL FACULTY TO A SURVEY OF IMPACTS OF THE FIELD-RESEARCH PETROLOGY COURSE ON STUDENT LEARNING, BEHAVIORS, AND ATTITUDES (INDIVIDUAL NUMERICAL FACULTY RATINGS ARE LISTED, AS WELL AS OVERALL MEANS AND RESULTS) (Continued) Overall objectives and Numerical ratings* Mean Overall results Additional responses criteria ratings (3) Impact on research 3 5 4 3 NA 3.8 ± 1.0 Somewhat Interaction with professionals outside of the department [was opportunities beyond better beneficial]. this college Some students had an opportunity…to collaborate with other students and professional scientists. Enhance skills in scientific inquiry and critical thinking (1) Impact on scientific 4 4 4 3 4 3.8 ± 0.4 Somewhat Some students had an opportunity to learn new skills that research skills better otherwise they would not have. (2) Impact on critical4 4 4 3 4 3.8 ± 0.4 Somewhat None thinking skills better Apply petrologic and other geologic knowledge and skills in a field setting (1) Impact on field skills 5 4 4 3 4 4.0 ± 0.7 Somewhat Field work always seems to bring out the best in students; better i.e., they have a better understanding of geologic processes after observing field relationships. Also improves their performance in field camp; they start with strong field skills (map reading, compass skills, field notes, etc.). More field...experience is generally a good thing. (2) Impact on interest in 5 5 5 3 5 4.6 ± 0.9 Somewhat to None field studies and much better research Further development of skills in oral and written communication Impact on 3 4 4 3 NA 3.5 ± 0.6 Little or no The majority of students had a better idea of how to write a communications skills improvement report, cite resources, and present their results. The oral and written products, however, were not significantly advanced over students who did not take the course. The written and oral presentations were not of equal quality, with oral presentations tending to be better.... The change to a portfolio seemed to cure some of this problem, but better writing skills need to be expected or developed in a research class. From what I’ve observed, the writing skills and research preparation haven’t been significantly different between the students who did and did not take the field-research course. *1—much worse in most students; 2—somewhat worse in most students; 3—no improvement in any student; 4—somewhat better in most students; 5—much better in most students.
promote communication within and among student research teams in order to foster the teamwork skills that are required for most modern scientific research. Overall, in our course, the students worked well together in teams and developed a strong sense of community. Information sharing was typically full and prompt. On occasion, some students avoided communications or encounters with other students because of personality clashes. These problems were solved with instructor intervention. Other challenges included weather, a major issue each year as with most field courses. At Ship Rock in winter 2003, windblown dust made it difficult to work on some days. In 2006, our field studies were interrupted by a major snowstorm in late September that left outcrops covered for several weeks. Students continued their field studies as best they could, but cold temperatures and lack of outcrop access posed a formidable challenge. In 2007, weather was less of an issue since students did most of their field studies and sample collection over a four-day field trip. For this, however, we had to rent four-wheel drive vehicles rather than use college vans to get to the study areas. Students also had to spend exceptionally long (10–14 h) days in the field.
However, as noted above, they did not complain and instead accepted the conditions as a learning experience. Finally, class size is always a concern at a small institution. Research courses with small enrollments benefit from greater student-faculty interaction with faculty, but they may not be allowed by administrators. The 2007 research course was considered for cancellation because of its low enrollment. Lower enrollments also make it difficult to compile enough information for full and authentic assessment. In order to develop meaningful models and interpretations for projects, the students had to integrate what they had learned from the interactive lectures and laboratory sessions held early in the course. For instance, students involved in mapping of rock units not only used class discussions as a starting point for unit designations and divisions, but as the project developed, they expanded and revised the criteria and provided new information into the types of rocks in the area and their relationships. When necessary, the instructors would review key concepts and information in the field with students to ensure an accurate level of understanding. The use of a portfolio with staged deadlines for
220
Gonzales and Semken
different sections in 2007 made it easier for faculty to formatively monitor student progress and provide advice on the structure and content as the project developed. It was our perception that in all of the field-research petrology courses, the students evolved from a group of individuals into a team of collaborative learners and teachers. Although it is not possible to quantitatively assess which of the course formats was the most robust, we think that research projects linked by a well-defined theme (as at Ship Rock in 2003 and in the San Juan volcanic field in 2007) are the most effective for undergraduates. This format allows for greater communication amongst faculty and students, more time available for faculty to assist students, and a reduction in logistical issues. CONCLUSIONS The three different field-based, inquiry-driven formats described in this paper illustrate the flexibility and dynamics that this type of course and their impacts on undergraduate education. We illustrate an alternative that emphasizes direct engagement and student responsibility for learning: traits valuable in transforming undergraduates into experienced and competent professionals. Field-inquiry courses imparted valuable scientific research skills, incited interest and enthusiasm for research in general, and petrology and regional geology specifically, promoted interest in certain topics in student peers beyond the course, and enhanced students’ sense of place. The student-faculty research initiated in these courses continues to seed undergraduate interest in field research on geosciences topics and is making contributions to the broader scientific community. These courses are not without pitfalls, however, and they can be taxing for both faculty and students. The most significant outcome of a research-based petrologic course is the opportunity afforded geoscience students to design, conduct, and present authentic research as a complement to their classroom learning. Such a course serves both academic and pre-professional purposes. After most conventional undergraduate courses, students are not compelled to reengage with learning outcomes until graduate studies or employment. The field-research petrology course encouraged students to continue to integrate scientific inquiry and field studies directly into their undergraduate studies. The field-intensive course that we designed and implemented fits the blueprint for undergraduate liberal arts education recommended by DiConti (2004), where course work is supplemented by intensive activities outside the class. This combination has the benefits of providing the required knowledge base of topics need for educational advancement, while at the same time providing opportunities to gain experience and insight into activities that are essential to career development and professional outreach (Carver, 1996). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Fieldwork at Ship Rock was conducted with the permission of the Navajo Nation Minerals Department. We thank the faculty
in the Department of Geosciences and the administration at Fort Lewis College for supporting our efforts. We also wish to express our deep appreciation to Dr. Doug Yager of the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver, Colorado, for the time, energy, and resources that he provided to the 2007 class. All of the Fort Lewis College geosciences students who participated in the three courses are recognized for their enthusiasm and contributions. Finally, we appreciate the insightful reviews of Allen Glazner and Chris Condit. REFERENCES CITED Ambers, R.K.R., 2005, The value of reservoir bottom field trips for undergraduate geology courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, p. 508–512. Anderson, R.D., 2007, Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula, in Abell, S.K., and Lederman, N.G., eds., Handbook of Research on Science Education: Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 807–830. Apedoe, X.S., 2007, Engaging students in inquiry: Tales from an undergraduate geology laboratory-based course: Science Education, v. 92, p. 631–663. Apedoe, X.S., Walker, S.E., and Reeves, T.C., 2006, Integrating inquiry-based learning into undergraduate geology: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 414–421. Bally, A.W., Scotese, C.R., and Ross, M.I., 1989, North America: Plate-tectonic setting and tectonic elements, in Bally, A.W., and Palmer, A.R., eds., The Geology of North America: An Overview: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, v. A p. 1–15. Barnes, J.W., 1981, Basic Geological Mapping: Milton Keynes, UK, Open University Press, Geological Society of London Handbook Series, 48 p. Best, M.G., 2003, Igneous and Metamorphic Petrology (2nd edition): Malden, Massachusetts, Blackwell Publishing, 729 p. Bluth, G.J.S., and Huntoon, J.E., 2001, Introductory field work: Geotimes, v. 46, p. 13. Boyle, A., Maguire, S., Martin, A., Milsom, C., Nash, R., Rawlinson, S., Turner, A., Wurthmann, S., and Conchie, S., 2007, Fieldwork is good: The student perception and the affective domain: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 31, no. 2, p. 299–317, doi: 10.1080/03098260601063628. Burchfiel, B.C., Cowan, D.S., and Davis, G.A., 1992, Tectonic overview of the Cordilleran orogen in the western United States, in Burchfiel, B.C., Lipman, P.W., and Zoback, M.L., eds., The Cordilleran Orogen, Conterminous U.S.: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, v. G-3, p. 407–479. Burgess, R.T., and Gonzales, D.A., 2005, New insight into the formation of diatremes in the northern Navajo volcanic field, Weber Mountain, southwestern Colorado: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 6, p. 11. Carey, S.S., 1998, A Beginner’s Guide to Scientific Method: Boston, Wadsworth Publishing Company, 152 p. Carver, R., 1996, Theory for Practice: A Framework for Thinking about Experiential Education: Journal of Experiential Education, v. 19, no. 1, p. 8–13. Christiansen, R.L., Yeats, R.S., Graham, S.A., Niem, W.A., Niem, A.R., and Snavely, P.D., Jr., 1992, Post-Laramide geology of the U.S. Cordilleran region, in Burchfiel, B.C., Lipman, P.W., and Zoback, M.L., eds., The Cordilleran Orogen, Conterminous U.S.: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, v. G-3, p. 261–406. DiConti, V.D., 2004, Experiential education in a knowledge-based economy: Is it time to reexamine the liberal arts?: The Journal of General Education, v. 53, no. 3–4, p. 167–183, doi: 10.1353/jge.2005.0003. Dutrow, B.L., 2004, Teaching mineralogy from the core to the crust: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 52, p. 81–86. Elkins, J.T., and Elkins, N.M.L., 2007, Teaching geology in the field: Significant geosciences concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geology courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, no. 2, p. 126–132. Frodeman, R., 2003, Geo-logic: Breaking Ground between Philosophy and the Earth Sciences: Albany, New York, State University of New York Press, 184 p. Garvey, D., 2002, The future role of experiential education in higher education, Zip lines: The Voice of Adventure Education, v. 44, p. 22–25.
A comparative study of field inquiry in an undergraduate petrology course Gonzales, D.A., and Semken, S., 2006, Integrating undergraduate education and scientific discovery and scientific research in igneous petrology: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, no. 2, p. 133–142. Gonzales, D.A., Burgess, R.T., Critchley, M.R., and Turner, B.E., 2006, New perspectives on the emplacement mechanisms involved in diatreme formation in the northeastern Navajo volcanic field, southwestern Colorado: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 6, abstract 2-2, p. 4. Goodell, P.C., 2001, Learning activities for an undergraduate mineralogy/ petrology course—“I AM/WE ARE”: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, no. 4, p. 370–377. Guertin, L.A., 2005, An indoor shopping mall building stone investigation with handheld technology for introductory geosciences students: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, p. 253–256. Hake, R., 1998, Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses: American Journal of Physics, v. 66, p. 64–74, doi: 10.1119/1.18809. Harnik, P.G., and Ross, R.M., 2003, Developing effective K–16 geoscience research partnerships: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 51, p. 5–8. Haury, D.L., 1993, Teaching science through inquiry: Educational Resources Information Center Digest, EDO-SE-93-4, 2 p. Herb, B.D., and Gonzales, D.A., 2008, A comparison of the petrochemical signature of ~1.7 Ga granitic rocks in the Needle Mountains, southwestern Colorado: Implications for genesis and crustal evolution: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 1, p. 68. Hoskins, D.M., and Price, J.G., 2001, Mentoring future mappers: Geotimes, v. 46, p. 11. Hunter, A.B., Laursen, S.L., and Seymour, A., 2007, Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development: Science Education, v. 91, p. 36–74, doi: 10.1002/ sce.20173. Huntoon, J.E., Bluth, G.J.S., and Kennedy, W.A., 2001, Measuring the effects of a research-based field experience on undergraduates and K–12 teachers: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, p. 235–248. Jarrett, O.S., and Burnley, P.C., 2003, Engagement in authentic geoscience research: Effects on undergraduates and secondary teachers: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 51, p. 85–90. Kern, E.L., and Carpenter, J.R., 1984, Enhancement of student values, interests, and attitudes in earth science through a field-oriented approach: Journal of Geological Education, v. 32, p. 299–305. Kern, E.L., and Carpenter, J.R., 1986, Effect of field activities on student learning: Journal of Geological Education, v. 34, p. 180–183. Kirchner, J.G., 1994, Results of an alumni survey on professional and personal growth at field camp: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 42, p. 125–128. Kurdziel, J.P., and Libarkin, J.C., 2002, Research methodologies in science education—Students’ ideas about the nature of science: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 50, p. 322–329. MacDonald, R.H., Manduca, C.A., Mogk, D.W., and Tewksbury, B.J., 2005, Teaching methods in undergraduate geosciences courses: Results of the 2004 “On the Cutting Edge” survey of the U.S. faculty: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, no. 3, p. 237–252. Marsters, M.A., and Hannula, K.A., 2008, Proterozoic metamorphism of the Vallecito Conglomerate, Needle Mountains, southwestern Colorado: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 1, p. 64. Martin, D.E., and Gonzales, D.A., 2008, Constraining the metamorphic and structural history of crystalline basement rocks, Needle Mountains, Colorado: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Program, v. 40, no. 1, p. 68. Mattox, S.R., and Babb, J.L., 2004, A field-oriented volcanology course to improve earth science teaching: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 52, no. 2, p. 122–127. Merriam, S.B., 1998, Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education (second edition): San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 275 p. Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M., 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd edition): Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications, 338 p.
221
Miller, D.M., Nilsen, T.H., and Bilodeau, W.L., 1992, Late Cretaceous to early Eocene geologic evolution of the U.S. Cordillera, in Burchfiel, B.C., Lipman, P.W., and Zoback, M.L., eds., The Cordilleran Orogen, Conterminous U.S.: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North American, v. G-3, p. 205–260. Mogk, D., Manduca, C., Brady, J., Davidson, C., and workshop participants, 2003, Teaching petrology in the 21st century, discussion session II: Relationship of petrology to earth system science and the larger curriculum: http:// serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/petrology03/Discussion1.summary .doc (accessed 1 September 2004). National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, 1997, Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 88 p. National Research Council (NRC), 1996, National Science Education Standards: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 262 p. Oldow, J.S., Bally, A.W., Avé Lallemant, H.G., and Leeman, W.P., 1989, Phanerozoic evolution of the North American Cordillera, United States and Canada, in Bally, A.W., and Palmer, A.R., eds., The Geology of North America: An Overview: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, v. A, p. 139–232. O’Neal, M.L., 2003, Field-based research experience in earth science teacher education: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 51, p. 64–70. Orion, N., 1993, A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the science curriculum: School Science and Mathematics, v. 93, p. 325–331. Orion, N., and Hofstein, A., 1994, Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 31, p. 1097–1119, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660311005. Plymate, T.G., Evans, K.R., Gutierrez, M., and Mantei, E.J., 2005, Alumni of geology B.S. program express strong support for field geology and related field and laboratory experiences: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, no. 2, p. 215–216. Project Kaleidoscope, 1991, What Works: Building Natural Science Communities: A Plan for Strengthening Undergraduate Science and Mathematics, Volume One: Washington, D.C., Project Kaleidoscope, 100 p. Rossbacher, L., 2002, Geologic column: Knowing a place: Geotimes, v. 47, p. 48. Schwab, F., 2001, Field work—A nostalgic look back and a skeptical look forward: Geotimes, v. 46, p. 52. Semken, S., 2003, Black rocks protruding up: The Navajo volcanic field, in Lucas, S.G., Semken, S.C., Berglof, W.R., and Ulmer-Scholle, D.S., eds., Geology of the Zuni Plateau: Albuquerque, New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook 54, p. 133–138. Semken, S., 2005, Sense of place and place-based introductory geoscience teaching for American Indian and Alaska Native undergraduates: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, p. 149–157. Semken, S.C., and Morgan, F., 1997, Navajo pedagogy and earth systems: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 45, p. 109–112. Seymour, E., Hunter, A.B., Laursen, S.L., and Deantoni, T., 2004, Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study: Science Education, v. 88, p. 493– 534, doi: 10.1002/sce.10131. Shea, J.H., 1995, Problems with collaborative learning: Journal of Geological Education, v. 43, p. 306–308. Shumway, P.J., and Gonzales, D.A., 2008, A test of competing hypotheses on the deformational history of ~1.7 Ga granitic dikes in the Coalbank Pass area, western Needle Mountains, Colorado: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 1, p. 68, paper no. 16-25. Tobias, S., 1992, Revitalizing Undergraduate Science: Why Some Things Work and Most Don’t: Tucson, Arizona, Research Corporation, 192 p. Turner, B.E., and Gonzales, D.A., 2006, An investigation of the geology and emplacement history of the Wetherill Mesa diatreme, southwestern Colorado: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 6, p 37. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors at Georgia Southern University: Historical perspectives and modern approaches Gale A. Bishop GeoTrec LLC, P.O. Box 247, Fayette, Iowa 52142, USA R. Kelly Vance Fredrick J. Rich Department of Geology and Geography, P.O. Box 8149, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia 30460, USA Brian K. Meyer Weston Solutions, Inc., 5430 Metric Place, Suite 100, Norcross, Georgia 30092, USA E.J. Davis Georgia Higher Education Program for Improving Teacher Quality and the Department of Mathematics Education, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30460, USA R.H. Hayes St. Catherines Island Foundation, Inc., Box 182, Midway, Georgia 31342, USA N.B. Marsh Department of Science, Jenkins County Middle School, Millen, Georgia 30442, USA
Bishop et al. turtles and incorporates modeling and practice of field science and pedagogy through teacher-centered activities. Fourteen teacher-interns per summer investigate loggerhead ecology, the human history, and geologic evolution of St. Catherines Island, and create natural history, collections for their classrooms. New skills, knowledge, and collections enhance teaching units on sea turtles and other endangered species that are developed in a spring follow-up course. Field and instructional technologies are integrated for regular use, including global positioning system (GPS), thermal data loggers, temperature and moisture probes, ground radar, photography, web and pod casts, plus note taking and field sketching. Geology and education professors, experienced teacher mentors, and local experts collaborate to produce one of the most successful teacher education programs in Georgia with respect to continuity of funding and positive teacher and program review feedback.
INTRODUCTION The Department of Geology and Geography at Georgia Southern University (GSU) maintains an emphasis on field skills and requires geology majors seeking the B.S. degree to complete a field methods course (internal) and a summer field camp course (external, but department approved). The department has long supported regional trips tied to courses as well as extended fieldtrip offerings, including week-long spring break trips and longer summer trips to regions including California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, the Big Bend area of Texas, and Hawaii, and geography study abroad trips to foreign countries including Ecuador, India, and Nepal. The commitment to field-based education for geology majors has been pervasive throughout the geology curriculum at Georgia Southern University, and virtually all classes in the geology majors have incorporated field components for 40 yr. Many of the field locations and activities used in geology classes have been modified and used in education of K–12 teachers (Table 1). In addition, the B.S. geology degree program has required a senior thesis involving significant field research for some 40 yr. This commitment to field education in the geology program is exemplified herein by many of the text figures showing geology majors in the field (i.e., Figs. 1– 3) and others showing K–12 teacher-interns immersed in field education (e.g., Figs. 9, 13, 14, 17C, and 19).
With this strong emphasis on field-based geology within a university that evolved from a teachers college (1929–1958), the extension of various field-based science programs for teachers was a natural step to be taken for geology faculty involved in teacher education. In the 1980s, GSU operated the Teachers, Environment, and Technology Institute (TETI), which was sponsored first by Union Camp and then by International Paper. Marti Schriver of the College of Education changed the identity of the grant to TESSI (Teachers, Environmental Science, Society and Industry) and was responsible for organizing field trips to what is now the International Paper mill in Savannah, Georgia, and a plant operated by Arizona Chemical. Teachers also visited a tree plantation, a logging site, a lumber mill at Meldrum, Georgia, wetlands sites such as Webb Wildlife Center in South Carolina, and a host of other localities. This class/workshop more formally combined classroom teaching by faculty members with lectures by external experts (including some of us) to produce a knowledge base upon which K–12 teachers could build as they visited commercial operations in the field. This provided a model that was later capitalized upon in the department’s Sea Turtle Program and in a series of courses for K–12 teachers that welded classroom learning to outdoor experience in summer institutes sponsored by a series of federally funded teacher education programs. These began with the Georgia Plan for Mathematics and Science Education, a component of the Education for Economic
TABLE 1. GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY (GSU) GEOSCIENCE TEACHER COURSES WITH STRONG FIELD COMPONENT Years Courses % field Target audience Funding source (4 credit hours each) component 1989–1995 Principles of Geology, Field 65–74 Preservice and Federal funds distributed through state agency: Eisenhower Higher Education–Improving Geology of the Southeast, Geology in-service teachers of Georgia, Introduction to of grades 6–8, but Secondary Math and Science Instruction in Industrial Minerals, Georgia’s K–12 accepted Georgia Mineral Resources, Mineral Resources of the Southern Appalachians 1992– Sea Turtle Natural History, Sea 83 In-service teachers Federal funds distributed through state agency: present Turtle Conservation, Sea Turtle (for sea turtle of grades K–12 have Eisenhower Higher Education–Improving Conservation II natural history) priority Secondary Math and Science Instruction in Georgia; Improving Teacher Quality Professional Development Higher Education Program
Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors Security Program that was initiated under the Reagan administration. This evolved into the Higher Education Eisenhower Program for Professional Development of Teachers under the first Bush administration, and it was sustained throughout the Clinton years. The current Improving Teacher Quality Program, which is part of the No Child Left Behind Act, has continued to be a source of funding for our efforts to educate teachers in field techniques in geology. Ca. 1978, the state of Georgia’s Quality Basic Education (QBE) program mandated change to an eighth-grade earth science requirement in Georgia schools, and this change revealed an immediate deficiency of middle school teachers qualified to teach earth science. This change also brought attention to a teacher education system that emphasized teaching methodology to the deficit of science content knowledge and science methodology. The struggle to reform the science education system continues today, particularly as earth science was moved to the sixth grade with the advent of the Georgia Performance Standards in 2003; sixth-grade teachers have found themselves in a similar position as their eighth-grade counterparts of several years ago. In the words of Brown et al. (2001, p. 450), The many reform efforts in science education at the K–12 level over the past 40 years have met with varying degrees of success. Scientific literacy for all Americans continues to be elusive [sic], however, and the number of students pursuing advanced studies in science does not meet industry or teaching demands. A number of conferences to study the problems in science education and to suggest reforms (e.g., AAAS, 1993; AGU, 1994; NRC, 1996; NSF, 1996) concluded that elementary teachers are under-prepared in both science content and pedagogical strategies. Science faculty must actively model appropriate pedagogy for those students preparing to become K–12 teachers (NSF, 1996).
It is this problem that so many of us have spent so much time trying to correct for four decades, including the geosciences faculty at Georgia Southern University. FIELD GEOLOGY FOR TEACHERS Authors Bishop, Rich, and Vance began intensive teacher education programs in 1989, when, as mentioned above, the Eisenhower Higher Education Program provided a source of funds that supported summer programs for Georgia teachers. These programs were in great demand since the shift of earth science curriculum to the eighth grade had left many teachers and their regional school systems unprepared. The Department of Geology and Geography offered concurrent summer courses such as “Principles of Geology ” and “Field Geology of the Southeast U.S.” to provide teachers with maximum graduate credit for degree programs or teacher certification credits for nondegree work. Field trips used in various courses are summarized in Table 2. The courses were month-long and intensive (~130 contact hours); a typical week consisted of 4 h of lecture or laboratory instruction per day for 2 or 3 d, and these were followed by field trips of 2 to 3 d duration. The lecture and laboratory course component
225
instructed teachers in basic mineral, rock and fossil identification, essential earth processes and systems, and the fundamental principles used to interpret geologic features and events. The field-based component provided a chance to employ the new knowledge and skills immediately within the regional geologic framework. Field trips and field-based education were considered a priority with respect to time, effort, and program budget. Field trips were organized using the Atlantic Coastal Plain (Clayton et al., 1992), Piedmont, Blue Ridge, Valley and Ridge and Appalachian Plateau physiographic provinces of the southeastern United States as a framework to emphasize the geologic control over landscape development, land use, and availability of natural resources. Teachers were provided with the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Geological Highway Maps for the southeastern and Mid-Atlantic regions as needed for regional geologic reference, plus excerpts on specific site geology as part of the “in-house” trip guidebook generated for each field excursion. Field-trip sites used in these courses are listed in Table 2, along with basic site geology and some teaching applications of each site. The Geological Society of America Decade of North American Geology (DNAG) series Centennial Field Guides were extremely useful as concise site references for many of the stops. The references listed for each site in Table 2 should be considered a starting point for basic site geologic information, but they are not necessarily the most recent work or newest interpretation. Many Atlantic Coastal Plain field trips employed a uniformitarian approach, exploring fundamental geologic processes and depositional environments at the current coast before working inland through older coastal-plain strata. For example, observing the interaction of tides, waves, and wind on the active beach and dunes of Georgia’s barrier islands provided a chance to see and understand the concentration of heavy mineral sands (HMS) as beach placers. The teachers were then taken to older, but geologically similar deposits being exploited for titanium at Du Pont’s Trail Ridge facility in Florida. Teachers observed active ghost shrimp burrows on modern Georgia beaches (Fig. 1A) and applied this environmental marker (Bishop and Brannen, 1993) as the trace fossil Ophiomorpha to identify ancient shorelines in 25,000 yr B.P. to 40,000 yr B.P. sediment at Reids Bluff (Pirkle and Pirkle, 2007) on the St. Marys River and to the Eocene Tobacco Road Sand (Huddleston and Hetrick, 1979) near the Savannah River (Fig. 1B). The stacking of distinct depositional environments in relatively young sediments such as those exposed along the St. Marys River bluffs (Pirkle et al., 2007) is a dramatic illustration of Steno’s laws and Walther’s law operating on familiar depositional environments that can be observed along the current coast. Consequently, the field trips provided an opportunity for immediate practice and reinforcement of the fundamental principles introduced in the classroom and laboratory. Field excursions laid foundations for a deeper understanding of geologic processes and the origin of resources, and gradually built an appreciation for the concept of “geologic time.” Visits to Martin Marietta’s Berkeley Quarry in South Carolina showcased a relatively young Santee Limestone and
226
Bishop et al. TABLE 2. FIELD STOP SITES USED IN TEACHER COURSES General site geology Site teaching applications and/or features
Physiographic province: Location: Coastal Plain: Tybee Island, GA
Developed barrier island
Cumberland Island, GA
Undeveloped barrier island
Reids Bluff, FL
Cutbank on St. Marys River
Starke, FL
Trail Ridge Ore Body
Okefenokee Swamp, GA Sandersville and Wrens, GA River Road and Griffins, GA Eutaw Springs and Berkeley Quarry, SC Providence Canyon State Park, GA Highway 27, Frog Bottom Creek, GA Ohoopee Dunes at Camp Boyd, GA Highways 80 and 78 road cuts, AL Blue Springs, MS Highways 301 and 601, SC
Freshwater swamp Cretaceous-Tertiary strata in open-pit kaolinite mines Eocene Barnwell Group
Piedmont: Strom Thurmond Reservoir, GA Burks Mountain, GA Graves Mountain, GA
Alexander and Henry (2007) Henry et al. (1993) Pirkle et al. (2007) Pirkle and Pirkle (2007) Rich (2007a) Pickering et al. (1997)
Santee Limestone and associated strata Cretaceous sediments
Huddleston and Hetrick (1979) Ward and Blackwelder (1980) Donovan and Reinhardt (1986) Marsalis and Fridell (1975) Vaughan (1992)
Cretaceous Tuscaloosa Fm.
Cretaceous paleogeography; fluvial deposits
Reinhardt et al. (1986)
Cretaceous sed. rocks Orangeburg scarp
Cretaceous paleogeography; fossil crabs and bivalves Coastal plain geomorphology and sea-level fluctuation
Bishop (1983) Colquhoun (1986)
Carolina terrane; metamorphic rocks Kiokee belt ultramafic rocks
Metamorphic grade, shear zones, terranes, “growing” continents Origin of serpentinite, tectonic significance, mineral collecting Industrial minerals, geologic history, tectonic setting, environmental geology, mineral collecting Volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits, Carolina slate belt geology, ore samples Carolina slate belt economic geology, ore mining and processing Vein deposits, multiple episodes of mineralization, mining methods Spectacular continuous exposure of amphibolite-facies metamorphic rocks and Mesozoic diabase dikes Igneous petrology, geomorphology, rare plants on granite balds Granite, pegmatite-aplite dikes, Mesozoic diabase dikes Granite phases, host rock, monument industry, Granite Museum Weathering of granitic pegmatite, muscovite mining and processing Amphibolite with relict pillow structure, protolith
Dennis and Secor (2007) Sacks et al. (1989)
Ridgeway, SC
Kyanite resource in a fossil hydrothermal system Small volcanic massive sulfide deposit Disseminated Au deposit
Dorn Mine, SC
Au-bearing vein
Lake Murray, SC Heggies Rock, GA
Kiokee belt; metamorphic rocks Granite pluton
Sparta, GA
Granite pluton
Elberton, GA
Granite batholith
Hartwell, GA
Mica mine
I-75 road cuts north of Lake Allatoona, GA
Pumpkinvine Creek Fm.
Barite Hill, SC
Coastal geology and engineering; heavy mineral sand concentration Coastal geology and ecology; depositional environments Stacked facies, Walther’s law; depositional environments Heavy mineral sand deposit; mining and concentrating
Reference
Blue Ridge:* Rosman, NC
Brevard zone
Toxaway Falls, NC
Toxaway gneiss
Woodall Shoals, GA-SC
Tallulah Falls Formation
Winding Stair Gap road cuts, NC Chunky Gal Mountain road cuts, NC Ducktown, TN, and Copper Hill, GA
Piedmont–Blue Ridge fault contact, ductile vs. brittle deformation Grenville basement, continental growth, radiometric dating Migmatitic gneiss, granitic pegmatite amphibolite, complex deformation Granulite-facies metamorphic rocks, depth represented, uplift Protolith and metamorphic rock, tectonic discrimination of amphibolite Mining history, environmental geology, origin of mineralization
Hartley (1976) Clark (1999) Gillon et al. (1998) Whitney and Allard (1990) Carr (1978) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1991) Whitney and Wenner (1980) Whitney and Wenner (1980) Grant (1958) Abrams and McConnell (1986)
Horton and Butler (1986) Hopson et al. (1989) Hopson et al. (1989) Absher and McSween (1986) Hatcher (1986) Abrams (1986) (Continued)
Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors
Physiographic province: Location: Blue Ridge (Continued ): Spruce Pine, NC Boone to Linville Falls, NC Fort Mountain, GA Marble Hill, GA Dahlonega, GA
TABLE 2. FIELD STOP SITES USED IN TEACHER COURSES (Continued) General site geology Site teaching applications and/or features Granitic pegmatites Ashe Metamorphic Suite, Grandfather Mtn. Formation Fort Mountain gneiss basement massif Murphy Marble
Ocoee Gorge road cuts, U.S. 64, TN Carters Dam, GA
New Georgia Group, metamorphic rocks Precambrian–Lower Cambrian strata Fault zone
Valley and Ridge: Cartersville, GA
Barite and ocher mine
Ballard Mine, TN
Barite mine
Red Mountain Expressway Birmingham, AL Idol Mine, TN
Red Mountain Formation
Short Mountain Silica, TN
Silica mine
Thorn Hill road cuts, Hwy 25 E, TN Durham, GA Ringold Gap I-75 road cuts, GA Floyd Springs Road, northwest GA Spout Springs Gap, GA
Pegmatite petrology, feldspar and mica mines, industrial application Thrust faults, windows, petrotectonic associations Blue Ridge–Valley and Ridge boundary, talc deposits, industrial applications Underground marble mine, protolith, industrial applications of calcite Au host rocks, economic geology and history, Gold Museum, mines Low-grade metasedimentary rocks of the Blue Ridge–Valley and Ridge transition Blue Ridge–Valley and Ridge boundary; deformation in fault zones
Harben and Bates (1990)
Origin of residual ores, ore samples, industrial mineral application Mississippi Valley Type (MVT) ore deposits, mineral collecting Iron formations, economic development, museum, paleogeography Room and pillar mining, MVT deposits, Zn ore samples and applications Industrial resources and applications, origin of high-purity quartz sandstones Geomorphology, collecting fossils and trace fossils, structures Collecting coal and plant fossils Depositional environments, paleogeography, fossil collecting Collecting Mississippian fossils
Reade et al. (1980)
Fault, primary sedimentary structures in Shady and Rome Formations
Chowns (1986)
Trupe et al. (2003) McConnell and Costello (1984) Fairley (1988) German (1986) Hatcher and Milici (1986) McConnell (1986)
Maher (1970) Thomas and Bearce (1986) McCormick et al. (1971) www.shortmtnsilica.com Byerly et al. (1986) Cramer (1986) Rindsberg and Chowns (1986) Waters (1983)
Appalachian Plateau and Interior Basins: Highway 27 road cuts, Camp Middle Ordovician strata, faults Paleogeography, depositional environments, Kuhnheun and Haney Nelson, KY normal faults (1986) Highway 64 and B, Combs Devonian to Pennsylvanian Paleogeography, depositional environments, Ettensohn (1980) Mountain Parkway, KY strata fossil collecting Natural Bridge State, KY Mississippian to Pennsylvanian Geomorphology, depositional environments Dever and Barron (1986) strata, arches Highway 80 and Hindman Pennsylvanian deltaic strata Distributary bars and coal Chestnut and Cobb (1986) access, KY Lost Creek Mine, AL Pennsylvanian coals in Black Economic geology, coal samples and W.A. Thomas (1988) Warrior Basin paleoenvironment Note: GA—Georgia, SC—South Carolina, NC—North Carolina, FL—Florida, AL—Alabama, TN—Tennessee, KY—Kentucky. *“Traditional” geologic Blue Ridge province between Brevard zone and Great Smoky–Cartersville fault systems.
overburden (Ward and Blackwelder, 1980) characterized by a rich assemblage of fossils, including many close relatives of extant species known to the teachers. This trip reinforced the use of fossils to identify ancient depositional environments and introduced limestone as one of the most essential industrial resources on Earth. Field trips to the Okefenokee Swamp provided the background to understand the essential geologic and biochemical requirements that preserved the lignite observed in the Cretaceous-Tertiary strata exposed in the Avant-Ennis kaolinite pit near Sandersville, Georgia, and the coal and plant fossils collected in Pennsylvanian rocks of northwest Georgia, Alabama, and eastern Kentucky.
Economic geology (see Table 1) was an important component of the field trips. Georgia is a major producer of industrial minerals, and these mineral resources were tied to the state economy, regional geology, and physiographic provinces through the field excursions and the collection of teaching samples. The application of essential mineral resources in construction materials and various goods used everyday also provides teachers with another route for connecting their students to geology; this is an approach emphasized at Georgia Southern University (Vance et al., 2006a, 2006b, 2007). The visits to active and inactive mines and quarries generated multiple benefits to the teachers and program. For example, the
228
Bishop et al.
Figure 1. The “present is the key to the past” is a great learning concept for geologists and teachers. (A) Modern ghost shrimp burrows standing in relief at ebb tide on Cumberland Island beach, Georgia; and (B) a fossil ghost shrimp burrow excavated in Eocene Tobacco Road Sand near Savannah River in Burke County, Georgia. (Burrows are ~2.5 cm in diameter.)
field trips to Cretaceous and Tertiary kaolinite mines offered rare, outstanding exposures of coastal-plain strata. With guidance from mine geologists or mine managers, the teachers collected ore samples in the mines and discussed mine stratigraphy and possible depositional environments of the kaolinite deposits. Mineral processing plants are a tour de force for applied chemistry and physics. The guided tours were excellent ways to stimulate teaching skills and build a practical foundation for those devoted to such courses. Visits to research and application laboratories tied the physical properties of the mineral to the specific use—in the case of kaolinite, the micaceous habit, basal cleavage, color, brightness, and surface properties are manipulated to produce high-quality paper coating. The interaction between the mine staff and teaching staff also forged long-term mutually beneficial alliances to promote mineral resource education at all levels. The distribution of mineral, rock, and ore samples, literature, and videos to teachers at regional and national science teacher meetings is a classic example of the positive results of this alliance and is
due to a collaborative effort among mine company staff, members of the Society of Mining Engineers, K–12 teachers, college professors, and geology majors staffing distribution booths. The study of economic mineral resources also provided some interesting links and transitions from one physiographic province to another. For example, teachers explored the alteration of feldspar to clay in the saprolite (Fig. 2A) developed on Piedmont granite and gneiss and linked this weathering process to the geologic events that led to development of Georgia’s highgrade kaolinite deposits (Fig. 2B) and accumulation of heavy mineral deposits in the Atlantic Coastal Plain (Alexander and Henry, 2007). Weathering profiles exposed in granite quarries at Elberton, Georgia, provide a rare, complete view of the transition from solid bedrock to saprolite. Teachers explored additional weathering features such as the karst “lime sinks” (Fig. 3A) in the Atlantic Coastal Plain at Tennile, Georgia, and finally related the chemical weathering process of dissolution to the extremely irregular bedrock surface (Fig. 3B) exposed in the residual barite deposits in the Valley and Ridge at Cartersville, Georgia, and the Ballard barite deposits in Tennessee. The elevated gold prices in the 1980s provided additional field-trip opportunities because of active gold mining at Ridgeway and Barite Hill, South Carolina. These modern, highly mechanized operations that leach microscopic gold out of ancient volcanic rocks provided a sharp contrast to the relatively unregulated, shovel and pick, placer and high-grade vein mining operations of the 1800s. Visits to the historic Dorn Mine, South Carolina, and the Dahlonega district of Georgia emphasized both the economic and cultural impacts of gold mining. The Dahlonega gold rush of 1828 brought a surge of prospectors and eventual settlers, a temporary economic boom, and a regional mint. Unfortunately, it also produced a landscape ravaged by hydraulic mining and the eventual tragedy of the Trail of Tears as the Cherokee were displaced from their native lands to allow access to the gold fields of north Georgia. A visit to the Dahlonega Gold Museum provided an historical perspective on the gold rush, and teachers learned the typical district evolution of gold mining from initial placer operations, to hydraulic mining with large-scale sluice box recovery, to eventual underground hard-rock lode mining as the gold was tracked upstream and deeper underground to its source. The experience was enhanced with hands-on activity when the teachers panned for gold in “salted” sand and gravel of a “tourist mine,” visited Findley Ridge and walked in the ravines and gullies made by hydraulic mining, and finally took a tour of the Consolidated Mine (also in Dahlonega) to learn about underground lode mining. Dahlonega was just one of the districts visited during our hard-rock field excursions in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont. Other Georgia sites showcased industrial minerals with trips to the underground marble mining operation at Marble Hill (owned and operated by Georgia Marble at that time), the talc deposits at Fort Mountain, and the mica pits operated by Engelhard near Hartwell. Longer excursions included visits to old feldspar and mica mines in the Spruce Pine District of North Carolina, coupled
Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors
Figure 2. (A) Fred Rich (lower right) leads teachers in examination of saprolite and soil horizons developed on Kiokee belt gneiss to learn about weathering near Burks Mountain, Georgia. (B) Georgia owes much of its economy to weathering, as the clay business dominates the industrial mineral resources. Track hoes stripping overburden in Avant-Ennis open-pit kaolinite mine operated by Thiele Kaolin Company near Sandersville, Georgia.
with discussions of changing resource applications. For example, quartz was once a waste by-product of processing feldspar for the glass and ceramics industry. Now, quartz is valued as a high-purity resource for production of the quartz crucibles used in the manufacture of the silicon used in computer chips (Glover, 2006). Field excursions are an important and relevant means of introducing fundamental tectonic concepts such as the general structure and significance of orogenic belts, features of passive versus active continental margins, and the growth of continents to those students who do not have extensive geologic training. Most of our summer field courses worked across the southern Appalachian orogen through a series of three to four field trips of increasing length. The familiar, undeformed, passive-margin sediments of the Atlantic Coastal Plain contrast sharply with the deformed and metamorphosed Piedmont rocks. Piedmont trips to fossil hydrothermal systems in Carolina terrane Neoproterozoic volcanic rocks at Graves Mountain, Georgia, and Barite Hill, South Carolina, emphasized the exotic nature of the rocks and the concept of growing continents by terrane accretion. The Blue Ridge traverse often included trips along Highway 64 with stops
229
Figure 3. (A) Teacher exploring the effects of dissolution in the karst features of the Tennile “lime sinks” near Sandersville, Georgia; and (B) extreme dissolution of mineralized pinnacles of Paleozoic dolostone bedrock exposed in bottom of open pit operated by New Riverside Ocher Company for extraction of residual barite and ocher near Cartersville, Georgia.
at Toxaway Dome and Winding Stair Gap (Table 2). Discussions at Toxaway Falls emphasized the 1 b.y. old Grenville continental core of eastern North America (Toxaway Gneiss) and postGrenville continental accretion. The spectacular Winding Stair Gap road-cut stop dramatized the temperature-pressure conditions required to form sillimanite-bearing migmatitic gneiss and focused attention on the amount of uplift and erosion required to expose granulite-facies metamorphic rocks associated with the core of the orogenic belt. Woodall Shoals on the Chattooga River at the Georgia–South Carolina border served as another superb Blue Ridge site used to illustrate the complex characteristics of rocks formed in the high-grade core of orogenic belts. Georgia excursions along the Blue Ridge–Valley and Ridge border included the tours of Cartersville barite mines and a journey up Highway 411 with stops along the Cartersville fault at Carters Dam and the more spectacular western scarp of the Fort Mountain basement massif east of Chatsworth, Georgia. These stops and previous Brevard zone stops at Rosman, North
230
Bishop et al.
Carolina, illustrated and emphasized the fault-bounded nature of the Piedmont and Blue Ridge rocks. The longest field trips extended studies from the Valley and Ridge into the Cumberland Plateau and interior basins. The extended trips (Table 2) provided a view of the Appalachian orogen, where the topographic expression of the geologic features is dramatic in contrast to the subdued topography observed near the southern end of the exposed orogen. The extended trips produced a greater appreciation for the role of geologic structure in landforms plus opportunities for expanding teaching collections of images, minerals, fossils, rocks, and ore samples with visits to classic Valley and Ridge sites such as Ringold Gap, Georgia, and Clinch Mountain, Tennessee. Highlights included a tour of the Idol Mine (underground zinc mine) and the Thorn Hill road cuts in eastern Tennessee. One extended trip ventured across the eastern Kentucky coalfields and sandstone cliffs of the Natural Bridge State Park in the Cumberland Plateau and continued with an east-west traverse across the Cincinnati Arch in Kentucky, with stops in representative Paleozoic strata and local structural features such as the Kentucky River fault system. The field trips connected the teachers to the regional geology as they collected minerals, fossils, rocks, sand, ores, and images from road cuts, stream banks, mines, and quarries across Georgia and other southeastern states for use in their classrooms. During the last day or two of the courses, time was allotted to assist teachers with sample curation and to ensure correct identification of minerals, rocks, and fossils. The acquisition of a personal teaching collection satisfied an essential need for free teaching materials and tied the teaching materials to the local geology, the physiographic province, and to personal experience. The personal experience dramatically intensifies the level of ownership, confidence, and enthusiasm when the teacher incorporates these materials in laboratory or lecture presentations (Rich, 2007b). The field-oriented geology summer courses for teachers were very successful, and postcourse evaluations were always very positive with respect to building content knowledge and teaching collections of minerals, rocks, fossils, and ores and basic reference materials. Teachers participating in the courses accumulated regional geologic road maps, Georgia Mineral Resource Maps (Georgia Department of Mines, Mining, and Geology, 1969), in-house road logs, and local reference materials for the field trips, in addition to using copies of introductory geology texts and laboratory manuals (donated by department faculty) for their personal use. Basic mineral and rock kits were also purchased for the teachers from commercial sources to support their individual collections. Postcourse feedback from teachers emphasized the lack of science content in previous teacher training and education. The courses we describe operated from 1989 through 1995, providing enhanced teaching capability, essential laboratory materials, confidence, and summer graduate credit or certification credit for many teachers. The proportion of field hours in the courses ranged from ~62% to 71%. The Georgia Plan–Eisenhower–Teacher Quality–funded programs have supported ~450 science programs for teachers over the past 25 yr, and ~67% of
the courses included some field component. Programs that have a majority of hours in the field constituted ~44% of the group; however, these programs were the longest running and received the highest ratings from teachers and proposal reviewers. These summer geology courses excelled at building teaching capability through enhanced content knowledge and acquisition of teaching collections. Co-author Bishop, and former teacherparticipant and co-author Marsh took the many lessons learned as a result of the field experiences we have just described and devised a program that integrates formal classroom and field lectures, field demonstrations, and student-centered, inquiry-based exercises and activities done as the teacher-interns perform as sea turtle conservationists in a total immersion program. This highly successful effort has developed concurrently with a teaching system that immerses teachers in work that builds science methodology and process skills into a model program, the St. Catherines Island Sea Turtle Program (SCISTP). Modern learning theory is replicated by critical thinking in the field as teacher-interns, using imparted knowledge, continue their learning process by reading sea turtle nests, performing field triage, taking consistent field notes, and validating that a clutch of eggs is present, after which they make a decision whether or not the nest’s location dictates a decision to relocate them, and, if it does, they relocate and conserve the nest. This learning process is supported by a content knowledge base imparted through teacher-centered teaching, a Web site, a sea turtle handbook, and numerous PowerPointTM presentations. This program is enhanced by inquiry-based learning techniques modeled for replication by the teacher-interns in their classrooms. This pedagogy replicates how we learn best, by formal teaching followed by actually doing. It lends credibility to so many of those buzzwords we use in papers and proposals—realworld, hand-on, field-based, self and life-long learning. ST. CATHERINES ISLAND SEA TURTLE PROGRAM Program Origin, Evolution, and Operational Models In 1989, co-author Bishop was finishing a project modeling heavy mineral sand accumulation on St. Catherines Island (Figs. 4A and 4B), a project that was sponsored by a Chancellor’s Special Funding Initiative (Bishop, 1990). During that study, he and Ms. Marsh observed a Georgia Department of Natural Resources intern, Tyronne Reagans, conserving a loggerhead sea turtle nest on St. Catherines Island. The plight of sea turtles, their engaging behavior and appearance (Figs. 5A and 5B), and their presence on an island with a physically challenging nesting environment seemed to lead to their being the perfect icon for a new teaching effort. Ms. Marsh suggested that conservation of sea turtle nests would be a great way to teach teachers about science and conservation, and a new program, the St. Catherines Island Sea Turtle Program (SCISTP) was proposed to Island Superintendent, Royce Hayes. With his approval, a grant proposal was submitted to the Georgia Higher Education Eisenhower Program in 1990. The initial proposal was funded in 1991
Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors
231
Figure 4. St. Catherines Island, Georgia. (A) Aerial photograph mosaic (courtesy of Oglethorpe Electric) showing maritime forest (dark green), salt marshes (light green), and Atlantic beaches (yellowish) utilized for nesting by loggerhead sea turtles; and (B) geomorphic map of St. Catherines Island showing bounding scarps, accretionary terrains, and hypothesized ancient doublet island, Guale Island. Shaded area (Pleistocene island core) is surrounded by lower-lying Holocene accretionary terrains and Guale Island. Upper bar scale = ~1 km; lower bar scale = ~1 mi. North is toward top of page.
A
B
Figure 5. (A) Adult female loggerhead returning to the Atlantic Ocean in the dawn light after depositing a clutch of eggs (4 June 2008; nest 08-020) on South Beach, St. Catherines Island. Bar scale = ~10 cm. (B) Albino hatchling recovered from nest 08-076a on South Beach, St. Catherines Island, 24 August 2008. Scale = ~1 cm.
232
Bishop et al.
and seven K–12 teacher-interns were accepted for the summer of 1992 (Marsh and Bishop, 1998). Interns were trained in two or three pre-intern class meetings and then served in intern pairs throughout the summer. A Handbook for Sea Turtle Interns on St. Catherines Island was written (Brannen et al., 1993), revised once, and subsequently rewritten (Bishop, 2003) to present a compilation of living conditions and conservation protocols in the SCISTP. This manual is now available as a pdf download from the SCISTP Web site at www.scistp.org (Bishop, 2007). In 1996, the program was modified to place the teacher-interns onto the island as a single cohort that resulted in peer mentoring and networking, which previously were missing from the SCISTP. Training of participants in the program includes both face-to-face and videoconference (distance learning) meetings. The capabilities of the SCISTP expanded in 1995 with the establishment of additional teaching bases funded by the Information Policy Council (Marsh and Bishop, 1998), including the St. Catherines Island Sea Turtle Web Site (Bishop and Marsh, 1995) and the Earth Science Computer Applications Laboratory (ESCAL). A new course (GEOL 5741: Sea Turtle Conservation) was created to be taken the semester following the summer internship to ensure sustained contact; it was first offered in 1999. With impetus from the Improving Teacher Quality Program in 2001, networked groups (professional learning communities) were established, and learning communities from single schools, school districts, or geographic areas in Georgia began to appear. An extension of the concept occurred when previous interns would recruit one to three colleague teachers and then return with their learning group as a mentor. This mentoring concept was further enhanced in 2005 with appointment of two senior mentors, who were two highly motivated teacher-interns interested in continuing participation for a third year and on a continuing basis. The mentors assist the science and education professors in the training of 14 teachers per year. Evolving Models of Field-Based Learning Teaching and learning in the SCISTP evolved along three conceptual tracks. We considered the modes by which people learn, the design of a sustainable program, and a plan for synergistic learning and program sustainability. We believe what we have learned can be emulated across the nation, and it can be based upon many potential projects (e.g., the conservation of endangered species such as the Alligator Snapping Turtle, Freshwater Mussels, Diamondback Terrapin, or mammals such as the American Bison, Florida Panther, or Sea Otter, the restoration of lost habitats such as the Tall Grass Prairie or Mississippi River, or restoration of mines, superfund sites, or local wetlands). This educational process, as perceived by the St. Catherines Island Scientific Research Advisory Committee (SCISRAC) on St. Catherines Island, involves training by formal instruction and supervised practice, especially in a skill, trade, or profession. St. Catherines Island is a sentinel island for demonstrating the preservation and management of dynamic barrier-island habi-
tats around the world. The dissemination of knowledge involves schooling in what has been learned so that we can shorten the learning process by involving formal and informal education, and self-learning (SCISRAC Guidelines, 2008, personal commun.). The concept of field education linking “conservation, research, and education” on St. Catherines Island is supported by numerous examples linking research to education (Bishop and Bishop, 1992; Bishop and Williams, 2005; Bishop et al., 2007a, 2007b), and linking students with their mentoring scientists (Booth et al., 1998; Booth and Rich, 1999; Booth et al., 1999). Examples from a number of other programs are also available (Huntoon et al., 2001; Hemler and Repine, 2006; Manduca and Carpenter, 2006; Gonzales and Semken, 2006). The sea turtle program embraces the sound methods promoted by Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003), including professional development through mentoring, total immersion experiences, action research projects, teacherdirected study groups, and lesson study. Elkins and Elkins (2007) demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in geosciences concept knowledge, as assessed through use of a scaled geosciences concept inventory (GCI), as a result of the students’ field-based experience. Reynolds (2004, p. 218), in discussing field experiences in oceanography, points out that a field experience needs “to provide hands-on instruction with field equipment and adequate time in the field to collect data,…students need to be taught how to design and carry out a scientific study,…and how to process data and make meaningful interpretations.” He found that, “Assessments compiled over three years indicate that the benefits to students include improved critical thinking skills, an increase in oceanographic knowledge, greater confidence in the use of instrumentation, high interest in field-based projects and positive experiences with the process of scientific inquiry.” Developments in science education have been closely paralleled by the evolution of field-based learning at GSU. Information exchange at professional meetings and the natural process of fine-tuning field-based teaching have led many people at many institutions down similar pathways. These pathways converge in the SCISTP and are represented by three models that we use to conceptualize our program. The Scientific Method Learning Model Marsh and Bishop (1994) and Bishop and Marsh (1999a) published a simplified version of the scientific method as a learning model for how we construct our world-view. This model, although an old one, is robust in the sense that it explains how we actually learn and ties us directly into the scientific enterprise of knowledge building. Recent research on the way we learn has suggested that the learning process does not follow the linear pathway suggested by the scientific methodologies (Gould, 1989; Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1990; AAAS, 1995; Lederman, 1992; Bauer, 1994; Frodeman, 1995, 2003; Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2008). We recognize that the entry to the scientific process is as variable as the scientific enterprise itself, as is suggested in Figure 6 by various mismatches to reality in the “bodies of knowledge” represented by the knowledge reservoirs (boxes) below each “scientific
Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors
define
background
hypothesis
test observation experiment modeling
accept
define
background
hypothesis
233
test observation experiment modeling
accept modify reject
anomaly modify
missing data
reject the continually increasing body of new knowledge
anomaly
define
background
hypothesis
test observation experiment modeling
accept
define
background
hypothesis
test observation experiment modeling
accept
missing data lack of precision
modify the increasing body of new knowledge reject a paradigm shift
the new body of knowledge modify
lack of precision new & better technology
new connections
new & better technology
reject
Figure 6. The two-dimensional or stair-step model of the scientific learning process, a learning model based on the U.S. Geological Survey “spiral of geologic time.” The model emphasizes the way science really works: by building on foundations of previous investigation and knowledge through the scientific methodologies.
method stairway” to knowledge. These mismatches to reality, whether anomaly, new observations, new technology allowing new ways of investigation, missing data, new connections previously not recognized, paradigm shifts, or some other mismatch in data, lead directly into the “scientific methodology model,” i.e., they begin with a definition of a problem, gather background information, and formulate a hypothesis or multiple hypotheses (Chamberlin, 1890), and test by observation, experimentation, or modeling, and conclude with acceptance, modification, or rejection of the working hypotheses. We also have expanded the scientific method to include various ways that we test reality in the scientific methodologies, by direct observation, by experimentation, and by modeling. We have visualized that model (Fig. 6) as consisting of the “traditional” five steps of the scientific method (problem definition, gathering background information, formulating hypotheses, testing hypotheses, and rejecting, accepting, or modifying hypotheses) in a “scientific learning stairway” based upon the U.S. Geological Survey’s “spiral of geologic time”; the endless nature of the stairway depicts the scientific enterprise as an ongoing process that constantly and repetitively builds upon, and modifies, current knowledge. Natural History Sustainability Model In order to be truly effective, a program must be sustainable over an interval of time and have an impact beyond its placebased operation. The SCISTP has been sustained for 19 yr with collaborative funding spearheaded by the Georgia Higher Education Eisenhower–Improving Teacher Quality Program (~60% of funding), as described earlier. The St. Catherines Island Foundation, Inc., the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GaDNR, Non-Game Division), Georgia Southern University, and GeoTrec LLC of Fayette, Iowa, have provided essential, inkind, field support for the program. There have been occasional grants from the Edward John Noble Foundation (administered through the American Museum of Natural History) and the St. Catherines Island Scientific Research Advisory Committee, The Turner Foundation, The JST Foundation, and the M.K. Pentecost Ecology Fund. Recently, additional teacher support has also been provided by the Partnership for Reform in Science and Mathematics (PRISM), a National Science Foundation (NSF)–
sponsored initiative designed to improve teachers’ science and math content knowledge. The salient features of the natural history sustainability model (Fig. 7) have been previously cited (Bishop and Marsh, 1999a) and are enhanced herein. The variables that feed into a successful, sustainable project (exemplified here by the SCISTP) include, but may not be limited to, those depicted by arrows in Figure 7. Projects are built upon a charismatic focus (depicted by the dynamic, spinning “project focus” in the center of Fig. 7) and have high interest or particularly relevant foci that will be favored
Figure 7. The natural history sustainability model relies on a charismatic and significant foundation problem as a learning core for scientists and teachers. The program is energized or propelled by a collaborative approach to funding and staffing within a field-based program that embraces a cross-disciplinary, hands-on, inquirybased mode of learning and application of emerging technology. Participant feedback and experienced multidisciplinary staff guide the evolution of the program, which is sustained and advertised by growing learning communities of satisfied teacher participants. “Charismatic Focus” is blurred to indicate dynamics.
234
Bishop et al.
by promoters, funders, and participants. In educational endeavors, those based upon experiential field learning using collaborative, inquiry-based, hands-on, real-world, cross-disciplinary collaborative learning methods will be most successful. Successful projects should be able to compound the learning (e.g., with teachers teaching multiple annual cohorts), react to changing conditions, changing funding opportunities, and other changes in inputs, and be capable of responding to vagrancies of funding based upon the program’s productivity. Those features that lead to sustainable programs based on natural history education seem to be especially relevant (Hemler and Repine, 2006), especially those based upon a charismatic problem using the scientific learning stairway model, programs exemplified by the synergistic CPU (central processing unit) project model (Bishop and Marsh, 1999a). Synergistic CPU Program Model The synergistic CPU project model (Bishop and Marsh, 1999a) was proposed to present a metaphor for the St. Catherines Island Sea Turtle Program. Because of the emerging power of the personal computer (PC) in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) endeavors during the 1990s, a computer metaphor was chosen to visualize the strengths of the SCISTP, a model that was thought to be exportable and could be emulated by many natural history projects across the nation and world. The evolution of the PC as a scientific tool has since advanced to the point that many newer users are unaware of the inner workings of these remarkable devices. However, the metaphor still seems pertinent to us (although a PC metaphor with digital plug-ins might be better understood today), and we herein upgrade the synergistic CPU project model as a representation for the SCISTP. The SCISTP is synergistic in the sense of having a robust central work generator and numerous substantial, peripheral plugin projects, and it is incredibly reactive to small funding opportunities or research opportunities that pop-up in the course of a normal nesting season and can be rapidly plugged into the other programs as if they were pcmia cards or thumb drives (Bishop and Marsh, 1999a) (Fig. 8). The major inputs to the system are effort (analogous to energy in a PC), and funding, collaboration, and knowledge (analogous to keyboards, digital cameras, or other peripherals in a PC). The outputs of the system are learning (educational components), service (conservation components), and knowledge (research components). Sustainability of the model is increased if the program is collaborative, cross-disciplinary, and reactive to participant input on an annual basis, and this is compounded if content and the pedagogical techniques the program promotes are utilized throughout a teacher’s career (i.e., by successive or multiple cohorts of students) after being involved with the class. Emerging electronic technologies are constantly being integrated into the model as information technology continues to evolve, exemplified by the addition of thumb drives as one type of pcmia-like plug-in into the peripheral plug-ins, bringing smaller projects and capabilities into the synergism (Bishop and Marsh, 1996, 1998), building on evolving individual technical capabilities, and thereby expanding program impacts.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Introduction The St. Catherines Island Sea Turtle Program provides Georgia teachers with the opportunity to participate in conservation of the endangered and threatened loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta Linnaeus, 1758) (Spotila, 2004). Loggerhead sea turtles (Figs. 5A and 5B) make up one of seven species of extant marine turtles, all of which are endangered and protected by international, national, and state statutes. Loggerhead sea turtles nest on the southeastern Atlantic coast including sandy beaches of Georgia’s Sea Islands. At first examination, it may seem more appropriate for a biologist to direct such a program; however, the beach is the critical component of the nesting, and geologists possess the necessary background and skills to understand the nesting medium of the loggerhead sea turtle in the context of a dynamic barrier-island environment and rising sea level. This conservation program provides for the integration of preservice and in-service teachers, as well as undergraduate and graduate science students, into an ongoing scientific research program and learning community. Six science and education faculty members and two Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GaDNR) interns provide instruction to 14 teacher-interns (island housing limits) per year on topics such as the conservation of turtle nests, barrier-island evolution, and island ecology. The observational scientific method is continually practiced, and science and cognate fields are integrated as teacher-interns investigate loggerhead sea turtle nesting ecology, the history of St. Catherines Island, coastal physical processes, and as they create natural history collections for use in their classrooms. Instructional technologies used and demonstrated in the SCISTP include synchronous and asynchronous distance learning, digital photography used in PowerPointTM slide presentations, modular video learning in the field, and integrated note taking and field sketching (Leslie and Roth, 2003). Over the years, we have put 126,907 hatchlings into the Atlantic Ocean, and we have overseen field-based education of 207 teacher-interns who have impacted over 244,776 students ranging from kindergartners through college seniors. The fourteen participants for teacher-internships are selected from an applicant pool of preservice and in-service schoolteachers, with preference for groups of up to four teachers from a school, system, or region (Mooney, 2006). Teacher-interns monitor beaches, record nesting data, and protect nests for a 7 d interval on St. Catherines Island during the summer nesting season. Residential Core Course—GEOL 5740: Sea Turtle Natural History Participants are trained (see Table 3) in two meetings prior to initiation of internships on the island. They are taught the fundamentals of sea turtle biology and the field and classroom techniques that will be used during the internship. The first meeting is normally a face-to-face meeting; the second usually is presented
Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors
235
Figure 8. The synergistic CPU program model inputs knowledge, effort, funding, and collaboration through the central processing unit (CPU) with output of learning, service, and research. The core program (CPU) supports multiple peripheral project units (PPU) that synergize the central core and peripheral units. Smaller project plug-ins (PPIs) synergize with the PPUs, reacting to evolving research and funding opportunities.
TABLE 3. STRUCTURE OF THE ST. CATHERINES ISLAND SEA TURTLE PROGRAM (SCISTP) Event Activities GEOL 5740 G: Sea turtle conservation internship Sea Turtle Natural History course May Pre-internship meeting 1 at G.S.U. Cover safety & basic operational protocols, island living conditions; meet colleagues June Pre-internship meeting 2 at G.S.U. Cover sea turtle conservation protocols, basic loggerhead biology and ethogram; or via distance learning introduce field methods; discuss course expectations Mid-July 7–8 d St. Catherines Island Day 1—Transport to island, room and work assignments, GPS & map training, internship group nest study on beach Day 2—Nest validation & relocation as a group, beach monitoring as a group, evening presentation and beach monitoring team assignments Day 3 to 7—monitoring beaches as teams, building natural history sample collections, evening note reading and presentations Day 8—transport off island September or October 2 d meeting on St. Catherines Island Dig remaining nests; acquire complete season nesting database and image library; “wrap up” group discussion of nesting season GEOL 5741 G: Sustained contact with teachers to ensure integration of SCISTP experience into Following spring: Sea Turtle Conservation course teacher’s classroom or laboratory exercises January–May Series of face-to-face and distance- Guiding development of endangered species teaching unit incorporating SCISTP (spring semester) learning meetings experience and promoting growth of a sea turtle conservation learning community Note: GPS—global positioning system; G.S.U.—Georgia State University. Date Summer:
236
Bishop et al.
by distance-learning technology from classrooms at Georgia Southern University, with remote sites dependent upon the geographic distribution of faculty, students, and other participants. Pre-Internship Meeting 1 In meeting 1, we present information on living conditions and routines on St. Catherines Island, and this is followed by a lecture on island geography. Safety issues are a major focus of this meeting and are reinforced on the island. Basic survival skills for being on the beach at any hour, day or night, and under any weather conditions are addressed. It is especially important for teachers to understand tidal charts because we travel on the beaches to do our daily monitoring and conservation. Limited beach access roads coupled with the presence of major scarps and “boneyards” (beach covered with fallen trees) will trap or isolate students and their ATV (all terrain vehicle) during flood tides. Techniques of radio communication between the turtle interns and the island base station are discussed and demonstrated. Safety, emergency actions, and field triage under extreme circumstances or emergency conditions are discussed. Interactions with St. Catherines Island Foundation staff members, other visiting scientists from around the world (D.H. Thomas, 2008), and with personnel of the St. Catherines Island Wildlife Survival Center for Endangered Species are described and discussed. Potential encounters with St. Catherines Island wildlife (indigenous and exotic) are also discussed with respect to safety, both human and wild animal. The building of a resource notebook and the conceptual model and specific guidelines for a teaching unit on endangered species are introduced and explained. Pre-Internship Meeting 2 In meeting 2, we briefly describe the geology, history, and scientific activities on St. Catherines Island. The videotapes, “St. Catherines; An Island in Time” (based upon the book by the same name; D.H. Thomas, 1988) and “The St. Catherines Story,” are used to place the island within a historical context. Sea turtle conservation protocols and techniques are taught, including recognition and interpretation of turtle crawlways, validation of nesting sites by careful excavation (Bishop and Marsh, 1994), and protection of nests from predation by conservation screening (Hayes et al., 1996). Techniques of scientific documentation of nest sites and strandings of live or dead sea turtles and/or marine mammals are presented using a daily field notebook kept by each student. Note-taking techniques and methods are refined during the internship by reading notes to one another in the evening. Computer-generated data forms used to document and summarize data are introduced in a series of templates so each participant knows what information to record, thus rapidly enhancing scientific processing skills (Bishop and Marsh, 1995). When working in the field, students are taught to constantly analyze conditions affecting their anticipated schedule. When unusual circumstances occur, the students must perform a field triage, constantly resorting priorities and daily objectives. Critical analysis of problematic situations
is parallel to what teachers encounter in the classroom—as conditions change, so must their teaching objectives, strategies, and methodologies. There is no better place to reinforce this concept than in the field. Fieldwork in a dynamic setting such as a barrier-island beach constantly presents new “teaching moments” and “opportunities.” The ability to take advantage of these opportunities is another aspect of field triage, and experienced field geologists are comfortable with “opportunistic teaching”; however, this approach contrasts sharply with the regimented atmosphere of most classrooms, and the narrowly focused teaching goals required by public school systems. These two pre-internship meetings adhere to Orion and Hofstein’s (1994) thesis that the educational value of a field trip is enhanced by its structure, learning materials, and teaching methods, as well as the instructor’s ability to direct learning in an early interaction with the environment. Furthermore, it should occur early in the curriculum, and it should be preceded by a relatively short preparatory unit that focuses on increasing familiarity with the learning setting of the field trip. Residential Internship The island residency is scheduled in mid-July, usually about 13–22 July, a period of overlap between the last of the nesting season and the beginning of the hatching season. Participants spend 7 to 8 d on the island monitoring nests on a daily basis. This activity involves driving all-terrain vehicles daily along three widely separated beaches (Darrell et al., 1993) with 18.1 km (11.3 mi) of sea turtle nesting habitat, looking for “crawlways” made by female turtles that crawled across the beach to nest the previous night. Probable nests are validated to confirm that a turtle did deposit a clutch of eggs. Each nest site is evaluated with respect to the position of spring tide and storm high-water lines, erosional scarps, and local hydrologic conditions to determine if the eggs can survive the required incubation period. Nests deposited in locations not likely to allow hatching are relocated within 12 h of deposition to predetermined sites that offer maximum chances of survival (Bishop and Marsh, 1999b); note that 63% nests had to be relocated in 2004. Relocated and in situ nests are protected from predatory feral hogs and raccoons by covering them with plastic screen held in place with four stakes as mandated by our DNR Cooperators Permit. (Prior to 2006, we used steel screen and rebar for stakes, a method that perturbs the magnetic field around the developing eggs and hatchlings, perhaps negatively affecting their future navigational systems [Lohmann, 1991]. This historical information allows us to demonstrate how the scientific process is self-correcting.) We place wooden stakes on the shoreward side of each nest behind or through the screen and mark the nest number on the stake to identify it. Each nest is documented, sketched, and/or photographed, located by global positioning system (GPS), and monitored on a daily basis throughout its 60 d development. Clutches hatch after ~52 d. Three to five days later, the hatchlings emerge, and hatching success is finally determined by excavating each nest and counting unhatched and
Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors hatched eggs 3 d after emergence. Each observation, activity, or nest event is sequentially documented for each nest by teacherintern participants (and faculty) in a daily notebook journal kept in the field (Stanesco, 1991; Bishop and Marsh, 1998b). These data are transcribed daily onto the turtle nesting forms and entered in a spreadsheet, and a computer map is kept on computers in the Island Ecology Laboratory (Bishop et al., 2007b). Sea turtle updates are sent out on a daily basis (e-mail updates until 2007, then a daily blog on www.scistp.org thereafter) after teacher-interns leave the island to maintain their ownership of the program. Beginning in 2009, documentation of sea turtle nests was supplemented by a Web-based database served from www .seaturtle.org throughout the nesting season. Formal and informal presentations in the afternoon and evening allow content specialists to discuss natural history, human history, and pedagogy in this enriching field environment. At the first meeting, students are welcomed to the island by Superintendent Royce Hayes, who reinforces some of the introductory information and safety protocols for working on the island, as well as addressing initial questions about St. Catherines Island and the origin of the St. Catherines Foundation. The presentations and general experience on the island introduce participants to a wide range of scientific investigations and subject matter, promoting a “big picture” perspective on science and additional ways to use the experience in the classroom. Many of the meetings are followed by teacher “brainstorming” sessions on ways to use the information and experience in classes or laboratory exercises. Presentations normally include: (1) coastal geology and heavy mineral sand deposits, and ground-penetrating radar demonstrations and applications by Dr. Kelly Vance; (2) physical processes active on Georgia beaches, geologic evolution of St. Catherines Island, and sea turtles in the fossil record by Dr. Gale Bishop; (3) history of St. Catherines Island by Mr. Royce H. Hayes; (4) collecting natural history specimens for the classroom, and integration of the St. Catherines experience with the classroom by Ms. Nancy Marsh, Ms. Lynne Burkhalter, and Dr. Marti Schriver; (5) the geologic and climatic evolution of North America, and sedimentary structures and processes by Dr. F. Rich; (6) technology integration into the classroom by all staff members; (7) technology as a conservation tool by Dr. Ken Clark; and (8) sea turtle health assessments and necropsy by Dr. Terry Norton. The teachers also use the evening sessions to share images collected during the day, and they accumulate a substantial image library by the end of the internship. Each participant is photographed in the field as she/he performs daily duties. These images are integrated into a master PowerPointTM presentation and into a downloadable bulletin board (posted at http://www .scistp.org/resources/presentations.php) describing loggerhead sea turtle ecology, sea turtle nesting and hatching, and field
237
techniques. Each participant is normally provided with this presentation on CD-ROM/DVD, to be individualized for their own classroom, thus enhancing each teacher’s self-image and their credibility in the eyes of his/her students and colleagues. A DVD, Journey of the Loggerhead, is available by purchase for use by teachers wishing to teach a unit on endangered species, sea turtles, or scientific methodology in field research. Additional supporting materials include State of the World’s Sea Turtles reports, Gulko and Eckert’s Sea Turtles; An Ecological Guide (2004), and the 2007 Guide to Fieldtrips: 56th Annual Meeting, Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America, which was published by the Geological Society of America (Rich, 2007b), which includes a substantial component on St. Catherines Island and Georgia coastal geology. Follow-Up Meeting A face-to-face meeting is held on St. Catherines Island on a weekend in September or October to distribute CD/DVDs containing images, slide shows, and spreadsheets of the data accumulated during the summer. This meeting allows each participant the opportunity to follow up their summer course with the acquisition of new hard data, to reestablish networking with their cohort, and to revisit St. Catherines Island to see hatchling sea turtles again (McCaffrey et al., 2004). We also collect reflective evaluations and document input to improve the succeeding summer’s internships, and, in some cases, schedule follow-up evaluations in classrooms. Selected classrooms have been visited during fall and spring semesters and observed to determine how effectively the teachers are passing on the knowledge they acquired during the preceding summer. Follow-Up Sustained Contact Course—GEOL 5741: Sea Turtle Conservation A required four-semester-hour follow-up course (Table 3) is offered in the spring semester to assist the interns in the integration of course content into their curricula. This course utilizes limited distance-learning components and computer-based learning (McCaffrey et al., 2004; Bishop et al., 2007b) to guide development of conservation-oriented teaching units on sea turtles or other endangered species A traveling classroom exhibit was designed and executed around the theme of Georgia’s loggerhead sea turtles ca. 1998. This exhibit was modified for delivery to classrooms in the Atlanta region and used to guide the design of exhibits at The Georgia Sea Turtle Jekyll Island Center in 2006. It is available to Georgia schools for integration into school curricula, providing instructional ideas in science and mathematics for use in a wide range of related discipline activities as a downloadable bulletin board presentation (see http://www.scistp.org). These teaching aids are combined by the teachers to produce a powerful teaching unit developed around the themes of field research, environmental action, and endangered species.
238
Bishop et al.
Follow-up and evaluation of the effective integration of content, methodology, and pedagogy into the classrooms of interns are accomplished through a series of questionnaires (and in 2009 by a formal evaluation). Selected former interns are asked to participate in the training meetings for the new intern group. This further integrates them into a network and into distance-learning technology, and leads to an effective transfer of knowledge through mentoring (Mooney, 2006). Geological Principles Taught in the Sea Turtle Program Geology taught in GEOL 5740 and 5741 in the St. Catherines Island Sea Turtle Program includes the physical geological processes observed daily on the beaches, tidal channels, and marshes of St. Catherines Island, plus a host of geological principles and investigative techniques that are specifically integrated into the context of nesting by sea turtles. These principles include crosscutting relationships (crawlways, covering pits, and egg chamber discontinuities), superposition (beach microstratigraphy and heavy mineral accumulation), Steno’s laws of stratigraphy (cross sections and correlations originating during vibracoring and documentation of geological and archaeological sites), and, of course, uniformitarianism (modern processes applied to interpreting past history of island evolution and sea turtle nesting). Investigative techniques include the use of three-dimensional sedimentary peels of sea turtle egg chambers, interpretation of modern traces and tracks (sea turtles, mammals, birds, reptiles, and invertebrates) and ichnology (applied to ancient sea turtles), taphonomy (studies of decomposition and disintegration of sea turtles on the beach, in lagoons, and buried in the sand), and even mining technology (hatchlings mine their way out of the egg chamber in a process analogous to stoping). Loggerhead Nesting Ethogram—Linking Geologic Features to the Real World Sea turtles have inhabited the world ocean for ~110 m.y. (Kear and Lee, 2006). Loggerhead sea turtles live their entire lives in the ocean as marine swimmers, except for periodic nesting on sandy beaches of the subtropical to temperate regions of the world. Female sea turtles mature at ~20–30 yr of age, mate with one or more males in the ocean, and crawl onto sandy beaches to deposit their eggs. Each female deposits multiple clutches (avg. ~5.2/yr), but they do not nest every summer. This gives rise to a strongly fluctuating pattern of sea turtle nesting in any given year. On the Georgia coast, sea turtles, mostly loggerheads, deposit eggs from mid-May through August; eggs incubate for ~50–60 d, resulting in an annual nesting season spanning the interval from mid-May until mid- to late October. Each clutch of eggs consists of ~113 eggs, which are the size, shape, and color of ping-pong balls. The process of nesting in loggerhead sea turtles is a hardwired behavior that exhibits little variation. The sequence of activities (Fig. 9) involved in nesting is termed a “nesting ethogram.”
Figure 9. Teachers document and interpret tracks and traces left by a nesting loggerhead sea turtle on 21 July 2000. The nest lies between the meter bar scale and the sea oats in the foreground. Teachers predict the location of egg chamber within the covering pit using the entrance crawlway orientation (left) on the nest site. 1 m scale visible in front of humped-up sand.
The nesting ethogram of loggerheads was described and exquisitely documented by Hailman and Elowson (1992) in Florida (Table 4). When a turtle comes ashore, her flippers, so beautifully adapted to swimming in the ocean, are used as legs in crawling across the beach in a cumbersome manner. The sea turtle senses the change of temperature of the sand surface (Stoneburner and Richardson, 1981) as she crawls from the cooler sand below the high-tide line onto the warmer, solar-heated sand above the hightide line. This change of temperature (2.9 °C/0.5 m) triggers a nesting attempt by the turtle. In Georgia, some beaches are so erosional and obstructed that turtles often have difficulty finding the thermal gradient and soft, dry sand required to trigger initiation of the next step, and wander (Fig. 10) for great distances (up to 559.3 m [1835 ft] has been documented) until they nest. Triggered by crossing from cool, firm sand to warm loose sand, the turtle wallows and digs downward, forming a body pit, roughly the size and shape of her body and sloping backward, until she hits the damp sand capable of holding a nearly vertical face. The loggerhead then digs an urn-shaped egg chamber with her rear flippers and deposits her clutch of eggs in it, backfills the neck of the egg chamber, and tamps it down. Some turtles excavate multiple egg chambers (up to four have been documented), aborting egg chambers when their flippers encounter very wet sand, a soil horizon and/or peat, or buried logs. After egg deposition, the backfilled egg chamber is packed with bioturbated sand, giving rise to an egg chamber discontinuity appearing in plan view as a bull’s-eye in the laminated sand that underlies the bioturbated sand of the covering pit. Once eggs are deposited and the egg chamber neck is backfilled, the turtle enters a covering behavior, throwing sand back over
Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors
239
TABLE 4. LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE NESTING ETHOGRAM OF HAILMAN AND ELOWSON (1992) MODIFIED TO REFLECT EXPECTED TRACE FOSSILS AND KNOWN TRACE FOSSILS AS OF 2008 Ethogram Expected traces Fossil record? 1. Copulation in the ocean None No 2. Approach to the beach None No 3. Ascent of the beach 3. Entrance crawlway Possible 4. Wander to find nest site 4. Wandering crawlway Yes* 5. Wallow a body pit 5. Body pit Yes 6. Excava te the egg cham ber 6 . E g g c h a m be r Yes 7. Depo sit the eg gs 7. Egg cham ber Yes 8. Backfill the egg chamber 8. Egg chamber discontinuity Yes 9. Covering activity 9. Covering pit Yes 10. Return to the ocean 10. Exit crawlway Possible *The one known crawlway is attributed to being a wandering crawlway due to its position relative to the egg chambers and body pit.
Crosscutting Relationships
Figure 10. Extensive wandering pattern of a single loggerhead sea turtle searching for a nesting site on North Beach, St. Catherines Island (nest 06-108; deposited 24 July 2006). Students read this sign and follow the trail of the turtle to locate and orient to the nest to validate and/ or relocate the clutch of eggs. You may be able to follow the crawlway after the turtle entered the beach along the downed trees to the left, then, using crosscutting relationships, follow her pathway to locate the nest (at the head of her exit crawlway). This “doomed” nest was relocated on 24 July to ensure hatching 107 of 113 eggs on 20 September. Crawlway width is approximately 1 m wide as scale.
Crosscutting relationships are used in validating sea turtle nests and locating the clutches of eggs buried in the beach by the nesting sea turtle. When the turtle crawls out of the ocean to nest, she leaves behind a suite of traces including the entrance and exit (relative to the beach) crawlways, a body pit, an egg chamber, and the covering pit. This sequence of traces (Figs. 9, 10, and 11), dictated by the hard wiring of the nesting ethogram, is read like the words, images, and sentences in this paper. The exit crawlways often cross or cut across the entrance crawlway (Fig. 9) and, of course, being the last impression made on the beach (the youngest event in the ethogram), allow easy distinction between entrance and exit crawlways. The truncation (or lack of truncation) of crawlways by the high-tide line also provides some framing of the event with respect to rising or falling tides. Other dichotomous sedimentary structures are produced, including the body and covering pits that crosscut the horizontal laminations of the backbeach facies, as does the egg chamber neck (Figs. 11A, 11B, and 11C). The egg chamber neck, in fact, often forms a beautiful bull’s-eye target (Figs. 12A and 12B) as nest validation is done in archaeological style by carefully scraping off the upper bioturbated sediment of the body and covering pit, layer by layer, until the laminated backbeach facies is encountered, which bears the bioturbated backfilling of the egg chamber neck discontinuity. Laws of Steno and Walther
the body pit as she scoots forward and rotates. This action forms a covering pit or nest and disguises the exact position of the egg chamber. Flipper scarps are often produced as the turtle rotates, forming the outside of the covering pit. When she is finished covering the pit, the female crawls back to the sea, leaving an exit crawlway. The end result of the behavior of nesting is a suite of traces and structures that can be synthesized as a generalized sketch (Fig. 11). This nesting process is repeated an average of ~5.2 times every 2–4 yr by each nesting loggerhead, with a range of 1–8 nests per nesting season (Spotila, 2004). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Research Web site has video clips illustrating the nesting of sea turtles.
Geological cross sections are presented to the teacherinterns as a way of introducing them to Steno’s laws of lateral continuity, original horizontality, and superposition. These diagrams appear in various sections of the pre-internship meetings, during the total-immersion segments of the residency, and on web materials that we provide for teachers to use in their curricula. Stratigraphic relationships are presented in cross sections and correlations as we discuss the evolution of barrier islands (Bishop et al., 2007a; Linsley et al., 2008; Reitz et al., 2008), and they are reinforced during field lectures on the beach as we describe the modern transgression that is occurring as sea level
240
Bishop et al.
Figure 11. Typical morphology of loggerhead sea turtle nest illustrated in plan view (top) with two cross sections (north-south and x-y) oriented at right angles. Scales for map and cross sections are indicated to right. The egg chamber and body pit would be masked by the covering pit and not visible at the surface.
Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors
241
Figure 12. Excavation and back-filling of the egg chamber neck by the female loggerhead sea turtle produces bioturbation analogous to that of a large burrow, locally truncating horizontal laminations. During excavation of the covering pit, this feature shows up as a “bull’seye” guiding the student to the egg chamber. This “bull’s-eye” may be (A) prominent when heavy mineral sands (HMS) are prominent or (B) subtle when HMS are not prominent. Scale is 10 cm.
rises. These fundamental stratigraphic concepts are reiterated as we discuss interfacing geology with the American Museum of Natural History Field Archaeology Program (Thomas et al., 2008) by extending vibracore transects out of the marsh or beach to tie into active archaeological sites on the island. Two field lectures are presented to accomplish these objectives, one of which is at Flag Lagoon (Fig. 13), which was breached by the sea in winter 1992–1993, causing marine inundation of Flag Pond and depositing a beautiful record of transgressive sediment.
Figure 13. Fred Rich lecturing to K–12 teacher-interns in 2007 on the current transgression in the St. Catherines natural “classroom.” This site (Flag Lagoon) was a freshwater pond (Flag Pond) prior to 1992–1993 winter, when two nor’easters cut through a narrow isthmus forming Flag Inlet in the foreground. Note dead live oaks and palms in background, inundated by the Atlantic Ocean. Fred is 183 cm high for scale.
Superimposition of formerly adjacent depositional environments that has happened there presents a classic illustration of Walther’s law. The second lecture is delivered at Yellow Banks Bluff (Fig. 14), where we discuss trace fossils and stratigraphy of the only demonstrable Pleistocene unit currently being eroded on an island on the Georgia Coast. Three-Dimensional Visualization To teach three-dimensional visualization, we utilize both natural exposures and trenching across nests. Natural cross sections form during storm events, particularly after the storms of September, nor’easters that remove 50–100 vertical cm (19.7– 39.4 in.) of active beach and form pervasive scarps at the storm high-tide line. These scarps may intersect active or inactive sea turtle nests, exposing the egg chambers to view (Fig. 15) in vertical cross section. Nests that are especially interesting from a developmental or stratigraphic point of view are often trenched to present a reference cross section for study or comparison with ancient sedimentary structures (Figs. 16A and 16B). This perspective, unusual for most nongeologists, is presented to the K–12 teacher-interns to enhance their three-dimensional visualization skills. This also has been done using “mock nest” exercises, in which the students excavate a meter square “unit” on the beach and cut terraces down one side to a 50–60 cm (19.7–23.6 in) depth to help visualize horizontal and vertical aspects of the backbeach and forebeach facies. They then level their lowest step in the laminated backbeach facies and excavate a mock egg chamber (sometimes with ping pong balls for eggs), 20 cm in diameter and 30 cm deep; they backfill the egg chamber neck and “cover the egg chamber,” simulating a sea turtle nest. These mock nests are then “exchanged” with another group or person to be “validated,” just as a real sea turtle nest would be.
242
Bishop et al.
Figure 14. Erosion of the Pleistocene core of St. Catherines Island at Yellow Banks Bluff, North Beach, St. Catherines Island. Participants of the March 2007 Southeast Section Meeting of the Geological Society of America field trip to St. Catherines Island are examining and discussing burrowed horizons exposed in the bluff. Bluff is 5 m high.
Three-dimensional sedimentary peels are another technique used to develop skills in three-dimensional visualization. Past attempts at making casts of sea turtle nesting structures (Billes and Fretey, 2001) were modified in 2007 with the introduction of the use of Dow Chemical Company’s Polyurethane insulating foam sealant (Great StuffTM and Gaps and CracksTM expanding foam) as the peel medium (Raymond R. Carthy, personal visual communication at http://www.wec.ufl.edu/coop/faculty.htm). That year, an open egg chamber (Fig. 17A) abandoned before deposition of eggs (Bishop et al., 2007b) was filled with expanding foam, and, when extracted after setting, adhering sand grains and buried beach debris provided a record (Fig. 17B) of the microstratigraphy of the backbeach at the nest site. Four additional egg chambers were replicated by this method in 2007 after removal of their clutches of eggs for relocation, and nine were poured in 2008. These three-dimensional peels record backbeach stratigraphy and heavy mineral distribution, and they provide highly interesting manipulatives for the classroom (Figs. 17B and 17C). Traces and Trace Fossils A variety of traces are made as nesting a female turtle works through her nesting ethogram. The crawl from the ocean onto the backbeach leaves the distinctive trace on the beach surface called an entrance crawlway. The crawlway consists of a track-like medial plastron drag flanked by a pair of alternating lateral flipper marks. The flipper marks exhibit distinct asymmetry across the loggerhead crawlway, with a steep-walled depression on the posterior due to the pushing of the flipper against the sand. V-shaped scratches are made in the sand by claws on the front flippers as the turtle crawls and the V’s open (get wider) in the direction the turtle was crawling, thus providing entrance and exit crawlways indicators.
Figure 15. A storm scarp produced by erosion during a nor’easter on 9 September 2006 exposes a cross section of the egg chamber of nest 06-119a beneath a partly exposed plastic screen just below surface. Note sea turtle eggs exposed in scarp face, festoon cross-bedding at the surface, buried wrack mat in scarp to right, horizontal heavy mineral laminations at base, and freshly eroded vegetation as wrack below nest. This clutch of eggs was relocated a second time after this erosional event and hatched on 3 October 2006, 57 of 80 eggs hatched. Plastic screen for scale is ~91 cm wide.
We teach “trace reading” in the pre-internship meetings and reinforce the “vocabulary” when teacher-interns observe faculty validating the first sea turtle nest. Differential lengths of the entrance and exit crawlways (relative to tidal ranges of ~2.0 m [6.6 ft] found on St. Catherines Island), crosscutting relationships of the crawlways, and distinctive V-shaped marking made by the front flippers are used to establish direction of movement of the turtle. Clues left on the covering pit include thrown sand and the proximal part of the exit crawlway. These clues allow the teacher-intern to “walk through” the nesting ethogram as if they were the turtle. This process establishes the probable site of the egg chamber along the axis of the turtle and ~40–50 cm inside the rim of the body pit. Teacher-interns sketch each suite of nesting structures in their notebooks (Bishop and Marsh, 1995; Leslie and Roth, 2003), photograph the nest morphology, and measure its features. The teachers are often asked to predict the position of the egg chamber based on
Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors
Figure 16. Application of uniformitarianism to sea turtle tracks and traces interpreting Cretaceous Fox Hills sea turtle nesting structures (column on left) using recent nesting analogs produced by loggerhead sea turtles (column on right): (A–B) cross-sectional view of Fox Hills crawlway and oblique view of recent crawlway, (C–D) cross-sectional view of Fox Hills covering pit and recent covering pit, (E–F) cross-sectional view of Fox Hills egg chamber and recent egg chamber structures associated with fluidization of wet sand, and (G–H) cross-sectional view of Fox Hills egg molds and recent eggs exposed in storm scarp. Bar scale is 10 cm.
243
244
Bishop et al.
Figure 17. Aborted nesting attempt leaves open egg chamber (A), which was filled with polyurethane foam, allowed to set for a day, and excavated, providing a cast (B) of the egg chamber. (C) A St. Catherines teacher-intern with an egg chamber cast excavated from the sand (nest 07-044). Casts preserve beach microstratigraphy, grooves made by rear flippers, and the general egg chamber morphology, providing a fascinating true to scale laboratory and class display or manipulative. 10 cm scale is indicated.
the nesting evidence (Fig. 9), which is then immediately validated by careful archaeological style excavation. In 2007, GaDNR intern Alyse Eddy extended the use of these nest interpretation techniques, measuring crawlway parameters in an attempt to correlate multiple nesting attempts by single turtles, and return nesting by the nesting turtles, a direct application of ichnology, to the modern realm. A University of Georgia Ph.D. student, Brian Shamblin, collaborated with us in this study, using a permitted take of one egg per nest to match mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) from nest to nest. In 2008, Eddy and Shamblin’s research were combined with crawlway sketching techniques of Lockley (1991) and production of foam casts of crawlways to document the application of multiple methods to determine crawlway attribution. Nests are covered with screens and sand to thwart predation by raccoons (Procyon lotor Linnaeus, 1758) (Anderson, 1981) and feral hogs (Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758) (Hayes et al., 1996). Each nest is visited daily, and sedimentological or biological events are documented on a monitoring list and in notebooks. Tracks of raccoon, hogs, lizards, birds, mice, snakes, and ghost crabs have been documented crossing the screens of conserved nests. Tunnels of voles (Scalopus aquaticus Linnaeus, 1758) have occasionally been encountered crossing nests, and burrows of ghost crabs (Ocypode quadrata Fabricius, 1787) are common around and in sea turtle nests. These tracks provide many teachable moments (Figs. 18A and 18B) in which to discuss predation, trace fossils, and critical thinking. Offending vertebrate predators (primarily hogs and raccoons) are eliminated (but not with students around) or trapped using HaveahartTM Traps, enabling
discussion of antagonistic interactions between species within an island ecosystem and the relative value of indigenous and exotic species and endangered and nonendangered species. Traces on the beach made by numerous invertebrates are studied when time allows and are often related directly to the trace maker. The ichnological connection between traces and trace maker is clearly established in terms of behavioral activity. Teachers observe the burrowing of crabs in the marshes and on the beach and note the characteristic disruption of strata during excavations of nests or during field lectures, reinforcing their understanding of the bioturbation “bull’s-eye” (Figs. 12A and 12B) used daily to locate turtle egg chambers. The geologic utility of trace structures is extended with use of ghost shrimp burrows as classic beach markers (Figs. 1A and 1B). Teachers are also shown true fossil burrows in several horizons exposed at Yellow Banks Bluff (Bishop et al., 2007a; Martin and Rindsberg, 2008) and participate in on-site discussions of the significance of these structures with respect to the evolution of St. Catherines Island. Taphonomy Nearly every sea turtle cohort observes dead, stranded sea turtles, turtles killed by human activities, or natural causes. These animals are measured, documented, and reported (as mandated by federal statute) to the GaDNR. Island veterinarian, Dr. Terry Norton, as a demonstration for the teacher-interns, often returns fresh dead animals to the laboratory and performs necropsies. Badly decomposed animals are documented and removed from the beach to avoid counting a second time (should they wash
Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors
245
Figure 18. “CSI Sea Turtles”—a murder mystery on North Beach—evidence from tracks and trails (modern trace “fossils”). (A) The crawlways of many emerging hatchling sea turtles (moving from lower right to upper left) show three anomalous loggerhead crawlways abruptly changing directions, changing into drag-trails, and terminating near a ghost crab burrow (trails leading from points 1 and 2), showing evidence of a scuffle and capture (point 2), or having a dead sea turtle hatchling near its end (trail leading from point 3). (B) The battle scene from a different angle showing the dead hatchling dragged away from the mouth of the ghost crab burrow and numerous crab tracks. Scales = 10 cm.
out of burial sites). These animals have been used to study turtle taphonomy and the decomposition and disintegration of sea turtles on the beach and in marine lagoons (Knell, 2004) (Fig. 19). They are sometimes buried to produce osteological specimens for use in comparative anatomy. Uniformitarianism The general concept of uniformity of physical and chemical laws as applied to geologic processes (actualism) persists as a potent teaching device, not only for geologists, but for K–12 teachers. The “present is the key to the past” is applied extensively across the SCISTP activities. In terms of geologic education in the field, uniformitarianism is most evident as we learn and teach about the evolution of St. Catherines Island and the modern transgression caused by global warming. The formation and application of trace fossils, including the application of modern knowledge to the discovery of a fossilized suite of nesting structures (Figs. 16A–16H) in the Cretaceous Fox Hills Sandstone near Limon, Colorado (Brannen and Bishop, 1993, 1994; Bishop, et al., 2000; Bishop and Pirkle, 2008), and the meaning of extinction as it pertains to all extant sea turtles and Earth are also discussed. Uniformitarianism is also used in the SCISTP to envision the future based upon what we see happening today. Additional Field Lessons—Turtles and Mining Engineering Sea turtle eggs are incubated by solar heating in beach sand. The embryonic turtles develop within the eggs and hatch after ~52
Figure 19. Studies in taphonomy. Graduate student Mike Knell documents progressive bone scatter of decomposing and disarticulated loggerhead and Kemps Ridley sea turtle carcasses in South Lagoon, South Beach, St. Catherines Island, for comparison to Cretaceous Western Interior fossil sea turtles.
d, exiting the egg by cutting its flexible membrane with an egg tooth (carbuncle). Upon hatching, the enrolled hatchling straightens, and its carapace and plastron “harden,” forming a fully functional turtle capable of crawling and swimming upon emergence at the surface. Because the eggs are deposited in an egg chamber at some depth beneath the surface, the newly hatched turtles must mine their way
246
Bishop et al.
to the surface. This process involves complex, cooperative group behavior within a mass of hatchlings that are crawling over one another as they rub and bump against the bottom, top, and sides of the egg chamber. This causes sand to loosen from above them and fall into the mass of wiggling hatchlings, ultimately falling through them to be trampled onto the egg shells from which the hatchlings emerged. This forms a more or less level floor of sand. This mechanism is analogous to shrinkage stoping used to mine competent ore bodies. Shrinkage stoping is a technique used in the upward (overhand) mining of steeply dipping to vertical ore bodies. The miners work upward through the ore, standing on broken ore that supports the walls of the stope. The excess volume or swell factor produced by broken ore is reduced by periodic withdrawal (shrinking) of broken ore (Peters, 1978). In the analogy to sea turtle hatchlings, under normal conditions, the bottom and roof of the escape or stope chamber both move upward through the sand as the mass of hatchlings mine their way upward. Under certain conditions, usually involving the wetting of the surface sand, the stope or escape chamber roof becomes strengthened while the floor continues to be compacted by trampling, causing an enlarged stope or air chamber (Fig. 20) in which the hatchlings no longer bump against the roof, delaying or stopping the stoping process and trapping the hatchlings in the enlarged stope. These conditions, called air-dammed stopes in the SCISTP, place the hatchlings at risk of dying by desiccation or subsequent flooding. Other Research Programs and Teachers St. Catherines Island is host to a variety of research, including archaeological and anthropological studies, wildlife and conservation research, including exotic endangered species breeding programs and native species counts, conservation, and research, as well as geologic investigations. Master’s degree students have occasionally served as GaDNR interns to gain knowledge of sea turtles (Knell, 2004; Hart, 2004; McCurdy, 2009) or the coastal environment. Teachers are introduced to these programs, expanding their understanding of field science techniques and methodology. As programs evolve, teachers sometimes have an opportunity to participate or assist in ongoing research. In 2007, GaDNR intern Catherine McCurdy inserted four HoboTM Data Loggers into each loggerhead nest to measure temperature regimes of incubating eggs and their response to environmental conditions. This research activity was conducted to determine if nest relocation was producing sex biasing in hatchlings. The sex of hatchlings is dependent on incubation temperature; consequently, this research is essential to the ultimate goal of achieving a recovering population. Teacher-interns helped in this process during their stay on the island and saw the results of these measurements in September. Teachers also receive periodic updates on the ongoing mDNA research program. Recent research activities also include ground-penetrating radar (GPR) investigations of island structure and stratigraphy, led by Vance. Demonstrations of the equipment have been conducted to expose the teachers to this application of geophysics
Figure 20. Engineering problem: moist cohesive, compact sand may form a natural arched roof above the egg chamber as the hatchlings attempt to stope their way to the surface. This “air-dammed stope” was exposed by careful excavation from the side when emergence was overdue for nest 07-042a, 138 of 142 eggs had hatched, hatchlings were all alive, and they tumbled out as the chamber was opened. Trowel blade is 5.1 cm wide. (Photo by Ken Clark.)
and to better understand the extensive use of geophysics in the island archaeological investigations. Program Effectiveness The effectiveness of this field-based program has been measured by direct and indirect feedback from the previous 216 interns, 193 of whom have been teacher-interns. This feedback consists of quantitative assessments, anecdotal comments, and qualitative assessments solicited at the end of the island residency at a return closure meeting 2–3 mo after the experience, and occasionally years after the experience at professional meetings, by e-mail, or, occasionally, in other informal feedback modes. Quantitative assessments of GEOL 5740: Sea Turtle Natural History at the end of the internship, and after a reflective interval, attest to the continuing perceived significance of the course. Annual data consistently indicate that this course is meeting its educational goals and objectives based on the overall score of
Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors ~4.93 on a scale of 5.0. Evidence of the success of the course is provided as the teachers respond to the summative question: “Considering all of the above (52) qualities that are applicable, how would you rate this course?” A resulting average of 4.63 out of 5.0 in rating all 53 attributes of the instructors and the course has been achieved. The interns’ feelings about this course are further summarized by open-ended reflective comments taken from various annual assessments, including the following:
There are no words to describe the enrichment and fulfillment of this class. There was so much information to learn, apply, and then use in the classroom. More teachers need this class.
Incredibly useful, concrete, data-based science covers so many areas, from scientific methods, geology, biology, (and) ecology…It (was) personally enjoyable!
WOW! What a fabulous course…I think I learned more on St. Catherines than all my high school and college years combined.…[and had] positive female role models.
These open-ended comments, selected from the evaluations, indicate that the educational goals and objectives of the projects are being well served; interns are leaving the internship feeling that they participated in, and learned in a real-world, hands-on conservation effort supported by content competency, strong pedagogy, and a model that integrates technology into the classroom. CONCLUSIONS Field-based courses are the most challenging to deliver, considering the logistical difficulties of transporting, housing, and feeding students, reducing risk factors, the need for insurance and protection from liability, the local and regional legal environment, and rapidly rising fuel costs. However, we believe the benefits of the field learning environment continue to outweigh the difficulties (Novak, 1976; McKenzie et al., 1986; Manner, 1995; Nyer, 2001). The efficacy of field education at GSU has been one of the key reasons why geology majors have been successful in completing graduate school programs and competing in the workplace over the past four decades. Anecdotal evidence and alumni surveys support this conclusion, but we have never formally attempted to measure this effect. We have been satisfied with the result of our classic geology curriculum and the input (proven or not) of education in the field, which is strengthened by independent student research in a program of senior theses. These effects have been transferred to the education of K–12 teachers in numerous classroom field trips and in field courses designed specifically to enhance content knowledge, provide for
247
the use of free (collected) natural history specimens as manipulatives in their classrooms, and encourage “risk-taking” pedagogical techniques in their classrooms (i.e., highly effective but unconventional teaching styles). The efficacy of SCISTP is considerable; it is built on the foundations of classroom field education and course-centered field excursions designed specifically for educators. Our informal impressions of how a professional development course ought to be designed and executed are also central to success (Gibson, et al., 1992; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003). The robust feedback system (a 53 question annual course assessment) is used as a formative tool to rapidly and effectively respond to teacher-interns’ suggestions and concerns. The effectiveness of the SCISTP has been repeatedly substantiated by annual assessment, resulting in an overwhelming consensus that the program is effectively serving the students’ needs. Unsolicited and solicited anecdotal evidence confirms this contention as indicated in the previous section. We believe the strengths that have led to the effectiveness of the SCISTP include the following: (1) selection, and self-selection by mentors, of cohorts of effective teacher-interns; (2) application of real-world research on charismatic sea turtles and coastal habitat by a cadre of scientists; (3) development of an inquiry-based teaching model in which the teacher-interns develop self-esteem and accept risk-taking as a normal part of their repertoire; and (4) use of robust electronic technologies and manipulatives. Interns carry the information back into their classrooms, where it compounds as it is taught to cohort after cohort of students. These K–12 students are confronted by an enthusiastic proponent of stewardship of the coastal habitat and organisms, one they see in presentations actually doing fieldwork, learning, getting dirty, and perspiring, and…loving it! By linking strong science, science education, and technology (McCaffrey et al., 2005), we can support robust learning into the future. If any of these components are lacking, the efficacy of strong science education is drastically diminished. We yearn for the return of strong cross-curricular discipline-based teacher education programs, but until that happens, programs like the SCISTP, and other programs described in this volume, will have to bear the load and fill the gaps in content as well as they can. Our philosophy (Marsh and Bishop, 1998) for science education in K–12 classrooms can be summarized here as: “The best way to learn is by doing; the best way of teaching is by modeling [learning].” As colleagues and teachers see successful integration of content, pedagogy, and technology into the classroom and laboratory, they respond by concluding, “Hey!…I can do that, too!… and they do!” ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many organizations have supported the St. Catherines Island Sea Turtle Program over the last 19 yr, including our major sponsors, the Georgia Higher Education Eisenhower–Improving Teacher Quality Program (~60% of funding) and the St. Catherines Island Foundation, Inc. Essential support of the
248
Bishop et al.
teachers programs has also been received from Georgia Southern University, GeoTrec LLC of Fayette, Iowa, and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Non-Game Division). Occasional grants have been received from the Edward John Noble Foundation (administered through the American Museum of Natural History), the St. Catherines Island Scientific Research Advisory Committee, The Turner Foundation, The JST Foundation, the M.K. Pentecost Ecology Fund, and the Partnership for Reform in Science and Mathematics (PRISM), a National Science Foundation (NSF)–sponsored initiative designed to improve teachers’ science and math content knowledge. So many individuals have contributed to our program that we hesitate to name them for fear of leaving somebody out who deserves to be acknowledged, if we have done so, please accept our apology! We thank the St. Catherines Island staff for their day-to-day support for 18 yr, especially Jeff Woods, Spyder Crews, Alan Dean, Richard Bew, Fred Harden, Lee Thompson, Ian Dutton, Kerry Peavler, Veronica Greco, Dr. Terry Norton, Jen Hilburn, and Mary-Margaret Pauley Macgill. Co-authors Royce Hayes, Ed Davis (along with Doris Davis), Kelly Vance, Fred Rich, Brian Meyer, and Nancy Marsh provided service far above and beyond the line of duty in helping in so many ways over so many years. Georgia Department of Natural Resources personnel who have helped with the program include Charles Maley, Mike Harris, Brad Winn, Mark Dodd, and Adam Mackinnon. The board members of the St. Catherines Island Foundation, Inc., are collectively thanked for their continuing support of the St. Catherines Island Sea Turtle Program. REFERENCES CITED Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., and Le, A.P., 2008, Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 45, no. 7, p. 835–855, doi: 10.1002/tea.20226. Abrams, C.E., 1986, Base metal mines and prospects of the southwest Ducktown District, Georgia, in Misra, K.C., ed., Volcanogenic Sulfide–Precious Metal Mineralization in the Southern Appalachians: University of Tennessee Department of Geological Sciences, Studies in Geology 16, p. 78–96. Abrams, C.E., and McConnell, K.I., 1986, The Pumpkinvine Creek Formation at the type locality, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America p. 275–276. Absher, B.S., and McSween, H.Y., Jr., 1986, Winding Stair Gap granulites: The thermal peak of Paleozoic metamorphism, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 257–260. Alexander, C.R., and Henry, V.J., 2007, Wassaw and Tybee Islands—Comparing undeveloped and developed barrier islands, in Rich, F.J., ed., Guide to Fieldtrips: 56th Annual Meeting, Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America: Statesboro, Georgia, Geological Society of America, p. 187–198. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1993, Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Project 2061: Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 448 p. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1995, Project 2061: Science Literacy for a Changing Future…A Decade of Reform: New York, Oxford University Press, 448 p. American Geophysical Union Chapman Conference, 1994, Scrutiny of undergraduate geoscience education: Is the viability of the geosciences in jeopardy?: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, p. 3–55.
Anderson, S., 1981, The raccoon (Procyon lotor) on St. Catherines Island, Georgia, U.S.A.: Nesting sea turtles and foraging raccoon: The American Museum of Natural History Novitates, no. 2713, p. 1–9. Bauer, H.H., 1994, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method: Champaign, Illinois, University of Illinois Press, 192 p. Billes, A., and Fretey, J., 2001, Nest morphology in the leatherback turtle: Marine Turtle Newsletter, v. 92, p. 7–9. Bishop, G.A., 1983, Fossil decapod crustaceans from the Late Cretaceous Coon Creek Formation, Union County, Mississippi: Journal of Crustacean Biology, v. 3, no. 3, p. 417–430, doi: 10.2307/1548142. Bishop, G.A., 1990, Modeling heavy mineral accumulation on an evolving barrier island on the southeastern coast: University System of Georgia, Chancellor’s Special Funding Initiative, p. 1–12. Bishop, G.A., 2003, Handbook for Sea Turtle Interns (second editon): Statesboro, Georgia, Georgia Southern University, p. 1–49 (revised, illustrated, and posted as pdf document at http://www.scistp.org; accessed 6 January 2009). Bishop, G.A., 2007, The St. Catherines Island Sea Turtle Program: www.scistp .org (accessed 20 April 2008, revised December 2008, accessed 9 January 2009). Bishop, G.A., and Bishop, E.C., 1992, Distribution of ghost shrimp, North Beach, St. Catherines Island, Georgia: American Museum of Natural History Novitates, no. 3042, p. 1–17. Bishop, G.A., and Brannen, N.A., 1993, Ecology and paleoecology of Georgia ghost shrimp, in Farrell, K.M., Hoffman, C.W., and Henry, V.J., Jr., eds., Geomorphology and Facies Relationships of Quaternary Barrier Island Complexes near St. Marys, Georgia: Atlanta, Georgia Geological Society, p. 19–29. Bishop, G.A., and Marsh, N.B., 1994, The 1992 St. Catherines Sea Turtle Program: Nest validation by beach stratigraphy, in Schroeder, B.A., and Witherington, B.E., compilers, Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum MNFS-SEFSC 341, p. 22–24. Bishop, G.A., and Marsh, N.B., 1995, Computer utilization in the St. Catherines Sea Turtle Conservation Program, in Rock Eagle Annual Computing Conference Proceedings: Athens, Georgia, University System of Georgia, p. 2–11. Bishop, G.A., and Marsh, N.B., 1996, Pushing the envelope—Technology integration into the classroom, in Rock Eagle Annual Computing Conference Proceedings: Athens, Georgia, University System of Georgia, p. 5–12. Bishop, G.A., and Marsh, N.B., 1998a, The St. Catherines Natural History Science Education Model: Georgia Southern University Academic Innovation On-Line Conference: http://cost.georgiasouthern.edu/geo/webconf .html (accessed 8 January 2009). Bishop, G.A., and Marsh, N.B., 1998b, Electronic earth science education: An integrated, holistic approach, in Rock Eagle Annual Computing Conference Proceedings: Athens, Georgia, University System of Georgia, p. 13–20 (http://WWW.PeachNet.EDU:80/OIIT/re/re98/; accessed 6 January 2009). Bishop, G.A., and Marsh, N.B., 1999a, The St. Catherines–Eisenhower natural history science education model, in 1999 Sigma Xi Forum Proceedings: Reshaping Undergraduate Science and Engineering Education: Tools for Better Learning: Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, p. 143–144. Bishop, G.A., and Marsh, N.B., 1999b, Sea turtle nesting habitat assessment: A rapid, integrated, technological approach, in Ahead of the Curve: Proceedings of the Rock Eagle Conference: Athens, Office of Information and Instructional Technology, University System of Georgia, 10 p. Bishop, G.A., and Pirkle, F.L., 2008, Modern Meaning in a 70 Million-YearOld Sea Turtle Nest: State of the World’s Sea Turtles (SWoT), Volume 3: Arlington, Virginia, Hawksbills, 20 p. Bishop, G.A., and Williams, A.B., 2005, Taphonomy and preservation of burrowing Thalassinidean shrimps: Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, v. 118, no. 1, p. 218–236, doi: 10.2988/0006-324X(2005)118 [218:TAPOBT]2.0.CO;2. Bishop, G.A., Marsh, N.A.B., and Pirkle, F.L., 2000, Fossilized Cretaceous sea turtle nest from Colorado, in Kalb, H.J., and Wibbles, T., compilers, Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443, p. 101–103. Bishop, G.A., Hayes, R.H., Meyer, B.K., Rollins, H.E., Rich, F.J., Thomas, D.H., and Vance, R.K., 2007a, Transgressive barrier island features of St. Catherines Island, Georgia, in Rich, F.J., ed., Guide to Fieldtrips:
Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors 56th Annual Meeting, Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America: Statesboro, Georgia, Geological Society of America, p. 39–85. Bishop, G.A., Vance, R.K., and Meyer, B.K., 2007b, Evolution of emerging electronic technologies; St. Catherines Island Sea Turtle conservation program, in University System of Georgia Rock Eagle Technology Conference: Atlanta, p. 1–11 (http://www.usg.edu/oiit/re/re07/proceedings/ evolution_emerging.pdf; accessed 8 January 2009). Booth, R.K., and Rich, F.J., 1999, Identification and paleoecological implications of a late Pleistocene pteridophyte-dominated assemblage preserved in brown peat from St. Catherines Island, Georgia: Castanea, v. 64, no. 2, p. 120–129. Booth, R.K., Rich, F.J., and Bishop, G.A., 1998, Palynology and depositional history of late Pleistocene and Holocene coastal sediments from St. Catherines Island, Georgia, USA: Palynology, v. 23, p. 67–86. Booth, R.K., Rich, F.J., Bishop, G.A., and Brannen, N.A., 1999, Evolution of a freshwater barrier-island marsh in coastal Georgia: U.S.A.: Wetlands, v. 19, p. 570–577. Brannen, N.A., and Bishop, G.A., 1993, Nesting traces of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta Linne), St. Catherines Island, Georgia: Implications for the fossil record, in Farrell, K.M., Hoffman, C.W., and Henry, V.J., Jr., eds., Geomorphology and Facies Relationships of Quaternary Barrier Island Complexes near St. Marys, Georgia: Atlanta, Georgia Geological Society, p. 30–36. Brannen, N.A., and Bishop, G.A., 1994, Nesting traces of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta Linne), St. Catherines Island, Georgia, in Bjorndal, K.A., Bolten, A.B., Johnson, D.A., and Eliazar, P.J., compilers, Proceedings of the 14th Annual Symposium of Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351, p. 195–197. Brannen, N.A., Carter, J., Harris, M., Maley, C., Hayes, R.H., Winn, B., and Bishop, G.A., 1993, Handbook for Sea Turtle Interns: Statesboro, Georgia, Georgia Southern University, p. 1–78. Brown, L.M., Kelso, P.R., and Rexroad, C.B., 2001, Introductory geology for elementary education majors utilizing a constructivist approach: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, no. 5, p. 450–453. Byerly, D.W., Walker, K.R., Diehl, W.W., Ghazizadeh, M., Johnson, R.E., Lutz, C.T., Schoner, A.K., Simmons, W.A., Somonson, J.C.B., Weber, L.J., and Wedekind, J.E., 1986, Thorn Hill: A classic Paleozoic stratigraphic section in Tennessee, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geology of North America, Geological Society of America, p. 131–136. Carr, M., 1978, Structural chronology of the Lake Murray spillway, central South Carolina, in Snoke, A.W., ed., Geological Investigations of the Eastern Piedmont, Southern Appalachians: Carolina Geological Society 1978 Guidebook: West Columbia, Division of Geology, South Carolina State Development Board, p. 21–24. Chamberlin, T.C., 1890, The method of multiple working hypotheses: Science (old series), v. 15, p. 92–96; reprinted 1965, v. 148, p. 754–759. Chestnut, D.R., and Cobb, J.C., 1986 Pennsylvanian-age distributary-mouth bar in the Breathitt Formation of eastern Kentucky, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 51–53. Chowns, T.M., 1986, Spout Springs Gap, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 63–64. Clark, S.H.B., 1999, Geologic Maps and Block Diagrams of the Barite Hill Gold-Silver Deposit and Vicinity, South Carolina: U.S. Geological Society Open-File Report 99-148A, 7 p. Clayton, T.D., Taylor, L.A., Jr., Cleary, W.J., Hosier, P.E., Graber, P.H.F., Neal, W.J., and Pilkey, O.H., Sr., 1992, Living with the Georgia Shore: Durham, North Carolina, Duke University Press, 188 p. Colquhoun, D.J., 1986, The geology and physiography of the Orangeburg Scarp, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 51–53. Cramer, H.R., 1986, Geology of Lookout Mountain, Georgia, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 153–157. Darrell, J.H., II, Brannen, N.A., and Bishop, G.A., 1993, The beach, in Farrell, K.M., Hoffman, C.W., and Henry, V.J., Jr., eds., Geomorphology and Facies Relationships of Quaternary Barrier Island Complexes near St.
249
Marys, Georgia: Atlanta, Georgia Geological Society Guidebook, v. 13, no. 1, p. 16–18. Dennis, A.J., and Secor, D.T., Jr., 2007, Neoproterozoic arc terranes of the eastern Piedmont of South Carolina and Georgia and their Alleghanian tectonothermal overprint, in Rich, F.J., ed., Guide to Fieldtrips: 56th Annual Meeting, Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America: Statesboro, Georgia, Geological Society of America, p. 111–128. Dever, G.R., Jr., and Barron, L.S., 1986, Red River Gorge Geological Area (Daniel Boone National Forest) and Natural Bridge State Park, eastcentral Kentucky-Georgia, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 47–50. Donovan, A.D., and Reinhardt, J., 1986, Providence Canyons: The Grand Canyon of southwest Georgia, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 359–362. Elkins, J.T., and Elkins, M.L., 2007, Teaching geology in the field: Significant geoscience concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geology courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, p. 126–132. Ettensohn, F.R., 1980, An alternative to the barrier-shoreline model for deposition of Mississippian and Pennsylvanian rocks in northeastern Kentucky: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 91, no. 3, pt. I, p. 130–135: pt. II, p. 934–1056. Fairley, W.M., 1988, The Murphy syncline in the Tate Quadrangle: Reflections and speculations in Fritz, W.J., and La Tour, T.E., eds., Geology of the Murphy Belt and Related Rocks, Georgia and North Carolina: Georgia Geological Society Guidebook, v. 8, no. 1, 23rd Annual Field Trip, p. 23–34. Frodeman, R., 1995, Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 107, no. 8, p. 960– 968, doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1995)107<0960:GRGAAI>2.3.CO;2. Frodeman, R., 2003, Geo-Logic: Breaking Ground between Philosophy and the Earth Sciences: Albany, State University of New York Press, 184 p. German, J.M., 1986, The geology of the northwestern portion of the Dahlonega Gold Belt, in McConnell, K.I., German, J.M., and Abrams, C.E., eds., Gold and Base Metal Mineralization Host Rocks in the Dahlonega and Carroll County Gold Belts: Atlanta, Georgia Geological Society, 21st Annual Field Trip, p. 41–64. Gibson, G.G., Gibson, B.O., Ortiz, A., and Teeter, S.A., 1992, In-service fieldoriented earth science programs for the pre-college teacher that make a difference: Journal Geoscience Education, v. 40, p. 228–232. Gillon, K.A., Mitchell, T.L., Dinkowitz, S.R., and Barnett, R.L., 1998, The Ridgeway gold deposits: A window to the evolution of a Neoproterozoic intra-arc basin in the Carolina terrane, South Carolina: South Carolina Geology, v. 40, p. 29–70. Glover, A., 2006, The Spruce Pine Mining District—A brief review of the history, geology, and modern uses of the minerals mined in the Spruce Pine Mining District, Mitchell, Avery and Yancey Counties, North Carolina, in Reid, J., ed., Proceedings of the 42nd Forum on the Geology of Industrial Minerals: North Carolina Geological Survey Information Circular 34, p. 269–272. Gonzales, D., and Semken, S., 2006, Integrating undergraduate education and scientific discovery through field research in igneous petrology: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, no. 2, p. 133–142. Gould, S.J., 1989, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History: New York, W.W. Norton, 352 p. Grant, W.H., 1958, The Geology of Hart County, Georgia: Georgia State Division of Conservation and Geological Survey Bulletin 67, 75 p. Gulko, D.A., and Eckert, K.L., 2004, Sea Turtles: An Ecological Guide: Honolulu, Hawaii, Mutual Publishing, 128 p. Hailman, J.P., and Elowson, A.M., 1992, Ethogram of the nesting female loggerhead (Caretta caretta): Herpetologica, v. 48, no. 1, p. 1–30. Harben, P.W., and Bates, R.L., 1990, Industrial Minerals: Geology and World Deposits: London, Metal Bulletin, Industrial Minerals Division, 212 p. Hart, M.M., 2004. Toxochelys: Taxonomic Comparison and Stratigraphic Distribution during the Campanian Lower Pierre Shale of South Dakota [Master’s thesis]: Rapid City, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 109 p. Hartley, M.E., 1976, Graves Mountain, in Chowns, T.M., ed., Stratigraphy, Structure and Seismicity in Slate Belt Rocks along the Savannah River: Georgia Geological Society Guidebook 16, p. 42–52. Hatcher, R.D., Jr., 1986, Chunky Gal Mountain and Glade Gap, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section:
250
Bishop et al.
Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 261–263. Hatcher, R.D., Jr., and Milici, R.C., 1986, Ocoee Gorge: Appalachian Valley and Ridge to Blue Ridge transition, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 265–270. Hayes, R.H., Marsh, N.B., and Bishop, G.A., 1996, Sea turtle nest depredation by a feral hog; A learned behavior, in Keinath, J.A., Barnard, D.E., Musick, J.A., and Bell, B.A., compilers, Proceedings of the 15th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum MNFS-SEFSC 387, p. 129–134. Hemler, D., and Repine, T., 2006, Teachers doing science: An authentic geology research experience for teachers: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, no. 2, p. 93–102. Henry, V.J., Jr., Farrell, K.M., and Cofer-Shabica, S.V., 1993, A regional overview of the geology of barrier island complexes near Cumberland Island, Georgia, in Farrell, K.M., Hoffman, C.W., and Henry, V.J., Jr., eds., Geomorphology and Facies Relationships of Quaternary Barrier Island Complexes near St. Marys, Georgia: Georgia Geological Society Guidebook, v. 13, no. 1, p. 2–15. Hopson, J.L., Hatcher, R.D., Jr., and Stevie, A.L., 1989, Geology of the eastern Blue Ridge, northeastern Georgia and the adjacent Carolinas, in Fritz, W.J., Hatcher, R.D., Jr., and Hopson, J.L., eds., 24th Annual Field Trip: Georgia Geological Society Guidebook, v. 9, no. 3, p. 1–40. Horton, J.W., Jr., and Butler, J.R., 1986, The Brevard fault zone at Rosman, Transylvania County, North Carolina, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 251–256. Huddleston, P.F., and Hetrick, J.H., 1979, The Stratigraphy of the Barnwell Group of Georgia: Georgia Geological Survey Report 80-1, 89 p. Huntoon, J.E., Bluth, G.J.S., and Kennedy, W.A., 2001, Measuring the effects of a research-based field experience on undergraduates and K–12 teachers: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, no. 3, p. 235–248. Kear, B.P., and Lee, M.S.Y., 2006, A primitive protostegid from Australia and early sea turtle evolution: Biology Letters, v. 2, p. 116–119, doi: 10.1098/ rsbl.2005.0406. Knell, M.J., 2004, Taphonomy and ichnology of sea turtles from the Cretaceous Interior Seaway of South Dakota [Master’s thesis]: Rapid City, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 100 p. Kuhnheun, G.L., and Haney, D.C., 1986, Middle Ordovician High Bridge Group and Kentucky River fault system in central Kentucky, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 25–29. Lederman, N.G., 1992, Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 29, no. 4, p. 331–359, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660290404. Leslie, C.W., and Roth, C.E., 2003, Keeping a Nature Journal: Discover a Whole New Way of Seeing the World around You: North Adams, Massachusetts, Storey Publishing, 224 p. Linsley, D., Bishop, G.A., and Rollins, H.B., 2008, Chapter 3: Stratigraphy and geologic history of St. Catherines Island, in Thomas, D.E., ed., Native American Landscapes of St. Catherines Island, Georgia: 1. The Theoretical Framework: American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers 88, p. 26–41. Lockley, M.G., 1991, Tracking Dinosaurs: A New Look at an Ancient World: Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 238 p. Lohmann, K.J., 1991, Magnetic orientation by hatchling loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta): The Journal of Experimental Biology, v. 155, p. 37–49. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., and Stiles, K.E., 2003, Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics: Thousand Oaks, California, Corwin Press, 408 p. Maher, S.W., 1970, Barite Resources of Tennessee: Tennessee Division of Geology Report of Investigations 28, 40 p. Manduca, C., and Carpenter, J.R., 2006, Teaching in the field: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, no. 2, p. 91–92. Manner, B.M., 1995, Field studies benefit students and teachers: Journal of Geological Education, v. 43, p. 128–131. Marsalis, W.E., and Fridell, M.S., 1975, A Guide to Selected Upper Cretaceous and Lower Tertiary Outcrops in the Lower Chattahoochee River Valley of Georgia: Atlanta, Georgia Geological Survey Guidebook, v. 15, 85 p.
Marsh, N.B., and Bishop, G.A., 1994, The St. Catherines Sea Turtle Program: Modeling effective science education through conservation and research partnerships, in Sigma Xi Proceedings of the Forum on Scientists, Educators, and National Standards: Action at the Local Level: Atlanta, Sigma Xi, The Research Society, p. 214–215. Marsh, N.B., and Bishop, G.A., 1998, The St. Catherines/Eisenhower natural history education model: Georgia Journal of Science, v. 56, no. 4, p. 212–223. Martin, A.J., and Rindsberg, A.K., 2008, Ichnological signatures of storm-washover fan deposits: Yellow Banks Bluff, St. Catherines Island, Georgia: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 4, p. 15. McCaffrey, D.F., Lockwood, J.R., Koretz, D., Louis, T.A., and Hamilton, L., 2004, Models for value-added modeling of teacher effects: Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, v. 29, no. 1, p. 67–101, doi: 10.3102/10769986029001067. McCaffrey, K.J.W., Jones, R.R., Holdsworth, R.E., Wilson, R.W., Clegg, P., Imber, J., and McConnell, K.I., 1986, The Cartersville fault at Carters Dam, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 271–273. McCaffrey, K.J.W., Jones, R.R., Holdsworth, R.E., Wilson, R.W., Clegg, P., Imber, J., Hollman, N., and Trinks, I., 2005, Unlocking the spatial dimension: Digital technologies and the future of geoscience fieldwork: Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 162, p. 927–938, doi: 10.1144/0016-764905-017. McConnell, K.I., 1986, The Brevard fault zone west of Atlanta, Georgia, in Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 281– 283, doi: 10.1130/0-8137-5406-2.281. McConnell, K.I., and Costello, J.O., 1984, Basement-cover rock relationships along the western edge of the Blue Ridge thrust sheet in Georgia, in Bartholomew, M.J., ed., The Grenville Event in the Appalachians and Related Topics: Geological Society of America Special Paper 194, p. 263–279. McCormick, J.E., Evans, L.L., Palmer, R.A., and Rasnick, F.D., 1971, Environment of the zinc deposits of the Mascot–Jefferson City District, Tennessee: Economic Geology and the Bulletin of the Society of Economic Geologists, v. 66, p. 757–762. McCurdy, C., 2009, Potential Biasing of Hatchling Sex Ratios of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle, Caretta caretta, on St. Catherines Island, Georgia, 2007: A Pilot Study [Master’s thesis]: Milledgeville, Georgia College and Sate University, 100 p. McKenzie, G.D., Utgard, R.O., and Lisowski, M., 1986, The importance of field trips: Journal of College Science Teaching, v. 16, p. 17–20. Mooney, S.J., 2006, A simple group work approach for effective field work: A soil sciences case study: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 74–79. National Research Council, 1996, From analysis to action: Undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: Report of a convocation: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, p. 13–36. National Science Foundation Advisory Board, 1996, Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science mathematics, engineering, and technology: A report on its review of undergraduate education: National Science Foundation Report NSF 96-139, p. 1–76. Novak, J.D., 1976, Understanding the learning process and effectiveness of teaching methods in the classroom, laboratory, and field: Science Education, v. 60, p. 493–512, doi: 10.1002/sce.3730600410. Nyer, E.K., 2001, Fieldwork makes great training ground: Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, v. 21, p. 28, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2001 .tb00639.x. Orion, N., and Hofstein, A., 1994, Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 31, no. 10, p. 1097–1119, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660311005. Peters, W.C., 1978, Exploration and Mining Geology: Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley and Sons, 696 p. Pickering, S.M., Jr., Hurst, V.J., and Elzea, J.M., 1997, Mineralogy, Stratigraphy and Origin of Georgia Kaolins: Field Excursion F4, 11th International Clay Conference, 69 p. Pirkle, F.L., Rich, F.J., Reynolds, J.G., Zayac, T.A., Pirkle, W.A., and Portell, R.W., 2007, The geology, stratigraphy and paleontology of Reids, Bells and Roses Bluffs in northeastern Florida, in Rich, F.J., ed., Guide to Fieldtrips: 56th Annual Meeting, Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America: Statesboro, Georgia, Geological Society of America, p. 137–155. Pirkle, W.A., and Pirkle, F.L., 2007, Introduction to heavy-mineral sand deposits of the Florida and Georgia Atlantic Coastal Plain, in Rich, F.J., ed.,
Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors Guide to Fieldtrips: 56th Annual Meeting, Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America: Statesboro, Georgia, Geological Society of America, p. 129–151. Reade, E.H., Power, W.R., Keeners, M.J., and White, D.H., 1980, Barite deposits in the Cartersville District, Bartow County, Georgia: Geological Society of America, Atlanta, Field Trip 19, p. 379–384. Reinhardt, J., Smith, L.W., and King, D.T., Jr., 1986, Sedimentary facies of the Upper Cretaceous Tuscaloosa Group in eastern Alabama, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 363–367. Reitz, E.J., Linsley, D., Bishop, G.A., Rollins, H.B., and Thomas, D.H. (with a contribution by Hayes, R.H., and Thomas, D.H.), 2008, Chapter 5: A brief natural history of St. Catherines Island, in Thomas, D.E., ed., Native American Landscapes of St. Catherines Island, Georgia: 1. The Theoretical Framework: American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers 88, p. 48–61. Reynolds, R.W., 2004, On the practical aspects of incorporating field-based projects into introductory oceanography: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 52, no. 3, p. 218–223. Rich, F.J., 2007a, Biological and sedimentological dynamics of the Okefenokee Swamp Florida, in Rich, F.J., ed., Guide to Fieldtrips: 56th Annual Meeting, Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America: Statesboro, Georgia, Geological Society of America, p. 163–176. Rich, F.J., ed., 2007b, Guide to Fieldtrips: 56th Annual Meeting, Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America: Statesboro, Georgia, Geological Society of America, 198 p. Rich, F.J., Bishop, G.A., Marsh, N., and Vance, R.K., 2006, Earth science teacher development at Georgia Southern University: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 7, p. 191. Rindsberg, A.K., and Chowns, T.M., 1986, Ringgold Gap: Progradational sequences in the Ordovician and Silurian of northwest Georgia, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 159–162. Rutherford, F.J., and Ahlgren, A., 1990, Science for All Americans: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): New York, Oxford University Press, 272 p. Sacks, P.E., Maher, H.D., Jr., Secor, D.T., Jr., and Shervais, J.W., 1989, The Burks Mountain Complex, Kiokee Belt, southern Appalachian Piedmont of South Carolina and Georgia, in Mittwede, S.K., and Stoddard, E.F., eds., Ultramafic Rocks of the Appalachian Piedmont: Geological Society of America Special Paper 231, p. 75–86. Spotila, J.R., 2004, Sea Turtles: A Complete Guide to Their Biology, Behavior, and Conservation: Baltimore, Maryland, Johns Hopkins University Press, 240 p. Stanesco, J.D., 1991, The personal journal as a learning and evaluation tool in geology field-trip courses: Journal of Geological Education, v. 39, no. 3, p. 204–205. Stoneburner, D.L., and Richardson, J.I., 1981, Observations on the role of temperature in loggerhead nest site selection: Copeia, p. 238–241, doi: 10.2307/1444068. Thomas, D.H., 1988, St. Catherines: An Island in Time: Georgia History and Culture Series: Atlanta, Georgia Endowment for the Humanities, 83 p.
251
Thomas, D.H., Andrus, C.F.T., Bishop, G.A., Blair, E., Blanton, D.B., Crowe, D.E., DePratter, C.B., Dukes, J., Francis, P., Jr., Guerrero, D., Hayes, R.H., Kick, M., Larsen, C.S., Licate, C., Linsley, D.M., May, J.A., McNeil, J., O’Brien, D.M., Paulk, G., Pendleton, L.S.A., Reitz, E.J., Rollins, H.B., Russo, M., Sanger, M., Saunders, R., and Semon, A., 2008, Native American Landscapes of St. Catherines Island, Georgia: American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers 88, 1136 p. Thomas, W.A., 1988, the Black Warrior Basin, in Sloss, L.L., ed., Sedimentary Cover–North American Craton: United States: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, v. D2, p. 471–488. Thomas, W.A., and Bearce, D.N., 1986, Birmingham anticlinorium in the Appalachian fold-thrust belt, basement fault system, synsedimentary structure, and thrust ramp, in Neathery, T.L., ed., Centennial Field Guide Volume 6: Southeastern Section: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 191–200. Trupe, C.H., Stewart, K.G., Adams, M.G., Waters, C.L., Miller, B.V., and Hewitt, L.K., 2003, The Burnsville fault: Evidence for the timing and kinematics of southern Appalachian Acadian dextral transform tectonics: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 115, no. 11, p. 1365–1376, doi: 10.1130/B25256.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991, Technical Draft Recovery Plan for Three Granite Outcrop Plant Species: Jackson, Mississippi, 51 p. Vance, R.K., Rich, F.J., Bishop, G.A., and Asher, P.M., 2006a, Mineral resource education at Georgia Southern University: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 7, p. 191. Vance, R.K., Rich, F.J., and Asher, P.A., 2006b, Geology and mineral resource education at Georgia Southern University: A seventeen year retrospective and a bright outlook, in Reid, J.C., ed., Proceedings of the 42nd Forum on the Geology of Industrial Minerals: North Carolina Geological Survey Information Circular 34, p. 255–268. Vance, R.K., Rich, F.J., Asher, P.M., and Bishop, G.A., 2007, Mineral resource education at Georgia Southern University: Filling the void: Northwestern Mining Association 113th Annual Meeting Final Program: Spokane, Washington, Mining for Today and Tomorrow, p. 27. Vaughan, M., 1992, The Sands of the Ohoopee: Nature Conservancy, March/ April, p. 33. Ward, L.W., and Blackwelder, B.W., 1980, Stratigraphy of Eocene, Oligocene and Lower Miocene Formations, in Coastal Plain of the Carolinas, Excursions in Southeastern Geology, Volume 1: Geological Society of America, Atlanta, Field Trip, v. 9, p. 190–198. Waters, J.A., 1983, Floyd Shale, north of Floyd Springs, in Chowns, T.M., ed., Geology of Paleozoic Rocks in the Vicinity of Rome, Georgia: Georgia Geological Society, 18th Annual Field Trip Guidebook, p. 82–84. Whitney, J.A., and Allard, G.O., 1990, Structure, Tectonics and Ore Potential along a Transect across the Inner Piedmont, Charlotte Belt and Slate Belt of Eastern Georgia: 25th annual Field Trip: Georgia Geological Society Guidebooks, v. 10, no. 1, 166 p. Whitney, J.A., and Wenner, D.B., 1980, Petrology and structural setting of post-metamorphic granites of Georgia, in Frey, R.W., ed., Excursions in Southeastern Geology, Volume 2: Geological Society of America Fieldtrips Guidebook: Falls Church, Virginia, American Geological Institute, p. 351–378. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Water education (WET) for Alabama’s black belt: A hands-on field experience for middle school students and teachers Ming-Kuo Lee* Lorraine Wolf Kelli Hardesty Lee Beasley Department of Geology and Geography, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA Jena Smith Lara Adams Department of Curriculum and Teaching, College of Education, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA Kay Stone Dennis Block Environmental Institute, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA
ABSTRACT Water education (WET) for Alabama’s black belt is an outreach project that provides off-campus environmental and water-education activities to middle school teachers and children from predominantly African-American families in some of Alabama’s poorest counties. Its main goal is to help students and teachers from resourcepoor schools become knowledgeable about surface water and groundwater so they can identify and sustain “safe” aquifer zones, where clean water resources are available for long-term use and economic development. Activities are conducted at two field sites, Auburn University’s E.V. Smith Center in Macon County and the Robert G. Wehle Nature Center in Bullock County. Children from rural schools that lack scientific facilities and equipment are introduced to standard methods for assessing water quality and instrumentation for testing water quality at the field sites. Both hosting centers have easy access to surface water (ponds, wetlands, streams) for data collection. The E.V. Smith site also has access to groundwater through nested wells. Educational activities focus on determining groundwater flow, the interaction of groundwater and surface water, and the hydrologic properties (porosity and permeability) of different aquifer materials (sands, gravels, and clays). The project also incorporates simple laboratory exercises that reinforce learning objectives specified by the state of Alabama science curriculum for grades 6–8. Results of the project suggest that by partnering with local universities, low-resource rural school systems
Lee et al. can provide their students with access to state-of-the-art equipment and to scientific expertise. However, schools may be less likely to participate if they must bear the costs of transportation and materials for the field experience themselves.
INTRODUCTION The availability of clean, fresh water is of increasing concern throughout the world (e.g., Alley, 1999; Shat, 2005; Moench, 2005; Foster, 2006). Youth, as future citizens, play an important role in obtaining and maintaining water resources. Project WET (water education) addresses the need to provide enriching and stimulating water-related educational activities for middle school children in Alabama’s “black belt” region, an area that originally derived its name from characteristic dark soils. The region now hosts some of Alabama’s poorest communities. Although successful examples of stimulating laboratory and field exercises exist for college-level hydrology courses
(e.g., Gates et al., 1996; Hudak, 1996; Lee, 1998; Rimal and Ronald, 2000; Salvage et al., 2004; Tedesco and Salazar, 2006), implementation of hands-on water education for middle school students has been extremely limited. Our educational project involves field activities at Auburn University’s E.V. Smith Center, located in Macon County, and the Robert G. Wehle Nature Center in Bullock County, Alabama (Fig. 1). Coastal-plain aquifers in the counties surrounding the field sites are heavily exploited for drinking and irrigation (e.g., Cook, 1993; Penny et al., 2003; Lee et al., 2007). As demand increases, overuse may severely deplete groundwater supplies, and pollution from wastes disposal, oil spills, and agricultural activities may make some groundwater sources unusable.
85.92° W
85.86° W
32.45° N
32.45° N
To Tallassee
Elmore County iver
osa R
Macon County
po Talla
Railroad
Milstead EVS1 County
EVS2-3
Rd. 40
AL-229
EVS4-5
E.V. Smith Center Experiment Fields
Figure 1. Location map of E.V. Smith Center in east-central Alabama and locations (solid circles) of five groundwater monitoring wells used in WET (water education) field-day activities.
To Auburn
I-85 To Montgomery
1 km
0
32.42° N
32.42° N 85.92° W
85.86° W
E.V. Smith Center (Macon County) Robert G. Wehle Nature Center (Bullock County)
Water education (WET) for Alabama’s black belt Groundwater at some local sites is contaminated with trace elements, including Fe and Mn (>300 µg/kg), from natural sources, and its chloride content increases dramatically (>100,000 mg/ kg) downdip along its flow path (Penny et al., 2003). Our project brings students and their teachers from resource-poor schools to the field sites to participate in water-related environmental activities led by university faculty and students. The project’s overarching goal is to help students and teachers from these rural communities become knowledgeable about surface water and groundwater so they can identify and sustain “safe” aquifer zones, where clean water resources are available for long-term use and economic development. The project addresses a need for collaborative approaches to water-related environmental education (i.e., a marriage of educational institutions and local communities), a need to help youth to develop and initiate ideas (i.e., learn and apply technical skills), and a need to make waterresources issues relevant to youth (i.e., stimulate interest in maintaining water resources). THE WET PROGRAM Project WET Alabama promotes water-resource education by offering hands-on activities to middle school children to stimulate interest in science and concern for water resources. These activities keep youth actively engaged while boosting their awareness of practical environmental issues that can affect the supply of clean water in their communities. The WET activities are specifically designed to address three learning objectives of the Alabama Course of Study (COS), which promotes student
Modules Aquifer in a tank
Aquifer materials
255
understanding of (1) the scientific method, (2) water and carbon biogeochemical cycles and their effects on Earth, and (3) factors that cause changes to Earth’s surface over time (e.g., climate change, droughts, water flow, etc.). This paper focuses on WET field events held in 2007 and 2008. These events involved over 100 rising fifth- and six-grade students and their teachers from D.C. Wolfe Elementary and Merritt Elementary, both of which are located in rural counties. Details of the WET activities and learning objectives are described next. Indoor Laboratory Activities Prior to beginning the field activities, students participate in preparatory laboratory exercises at the site. The objectives of these exercises are to introduce students to key terms and concepts and to provide a context in which they can assimilate information from the field component. The WET indoor activities involve four laboratory exercises: (1) aquifer in a tank, (2) aquifer materials, (3) Darcy’s experiment, and (4) testing for water quality (Table 1). The aquifer in a tank module introduces students to the basic vocabulary used to describe an aquifer and groundwater characteristics. Key terms include water table, unsaturated zone, and saturated zone. Using a tank model (Fig. 2), students perform a series of experiments designed to illustrate fundamentals of Earth’s hydrologic cycle, such as recharge, discharge, and the effects of drought and pumping on the water table. A small well in the tank is used to illustrate how a cased well with a well screen allows water (fresh or contaminated) to flow into the well from the saturated zone of an aquifer and how the water-table position
TABLE 1. OVERVIEW OF INDOOR EXPERIMENTS AND LIST OF REQUIRED MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT Activity Materials/Equipment 1. Marking the position of water table; identifying saturation and unsaturated zones; adding 10 gallon aquarium water, and then observing the new position of water table; learning concept of recharge. Gravel and sand PVC pipe and plug 2. Observing connection of groundwater to a lake; learning the concept of groundwater Liquid soap pump discharge to surface-water body; learning the structure of well screens and well casing Empty yogurt cup and their uses; visualizing contaminant transfer. Plastic tubing 3. Removing water from the tank using a handheld pump; observing how the position of the Squirt bottle water table changes in response to pumping; describing the effects of drought on water 1 gallon tub table. Erasable markers Fruit juice 1. Measuring the amount of water ponding above different sediments (gravel, sand, clay) after water infiltrates downward and fills up open pore spaces between solid sediment grains (porosity assessment). 2. Comparing the rate at which water flows through syringe filled with gravel, sand, and clay (permeability assessment).
Three 500 mL glass beaker Gravel, sand, clay
Darcy’s experiment
Conducting the classic Darcy’s experiment to visualize flow and contaminant transport through a sand layer under varying hydraulic gradient.
Constant-head permeameter (HM-3891, Humboldt Inc.) Fruit juice Sand 5 gallon bucket 50 mL graduated cylinder
Water-quality acquisition
Use titration method to measure dissolved oxygen (DO) on a surface-water sample.
HACH surface-water test kit (model 25598-33)
Three 60 mL syringe Three millipore (0.45 µm) filter Gravel, sand, clay
256
Lee et al. and contaminant transport (fruit juice provides a colored tracer) through a sand layer under a given hydraulic gradient. In the testing water quality module, students use the HACH surface-water test kit and employ a titration method to measure dissolved oxygen (DO) in a surface-water sample collected from the field site. Laboratory exercises are described in detail at the WET Web site http://www.auburn.edu/~leeming/outreach.htm. Well Drilling and Installation
Figure 2. An aquifer tank model was built to demonstrate groundwater and surface-water interaction and groundwater contamination.
might affect production from a well. This exercise prepares students for outdoor field activities in which they will purge a well and test water quality. In the aquifer materials module, students are introduced to the concepts of permeability and porosity. They compare differences in porosity and permeability of three common aquifer materials—gravels, sands, and clays (Fig. 3). Samples of sediments collected from wells drilled at the E.V. Smith field site are compared in this activity. For the Darcy’s experiment activity, students use a constant-head permeameter (HM3891, Humboldt Inc.) to simulate the classic Darcy’s experiment. The objective of this activity is to help students visualize flow
Figure 3. Students compare how fast water can flow through gravels, sands, and clays under the same hydraulic gradient as the plug (filter stop) at the bottom of syringes is removed simultaneously.
At the E.V. Smith field site, five groundwater monitoring wells (EVS 1–5) were drilled and installed for use in the WET program (Fig. 1). These wells provide a unique opportunity for students to gain hands-on experience with water sampling and water-quality testing. The wells penetrate unconsolidated coastalplain sediments that belong to the Upper Cretaceous Tuscaloosa Group. The Tuscaloosa Group is present in central-south Alabama and crops out along the northern limit of the coastal plain (Horton et al., 1984). The Tuscaloosa Group consists mainly of nonmarine deposits along the outcrops to marine clastics in the southern subsurface. West of the Tallapoosa River, the Tuscaloosa is divided into the Coker and Gordo Formations (Raymond et al., 1988). The Tuscaloosa is not differentiated in eastern Alabama because of the absence of distinct marine deposits and fossils. The undifferentiated Tuscaloosa Group consists mainly of clay, fine to very coarse sand, and gravel (King, 1990). Well EVS 1 was installed near the center’s administration office, where shallow groundwater has been locally contaminated by gasoline spills from a storage tank. Three wells (EVS 1, 2, 4) were screened at approximately the same depth intervals (2.4–6 m) to allow students to map the water-table surface of a shallow unconfined alluvial aquifer. The water-table surface shows the spatial variations in hydraulic head within a single aquifer and provides the information needed to determine groundwater flow directions. Two deeper wells (EVS 3 and 5) were drilled into the confined portion of Tuscaloosa aquifer, with screen intervals reaching 10–12 m. Wells EVS 2 and 3 and EVS 4 and 5 constitute two sets of nested wells, or well pairs. Each well pair is screened at different depths near groundwater discharge areas. If the water levels differ with depth at nested wells close to one another, then a vertical gradient exists within the aquifer. The existence of vertical gradients reveals significant interaction between surface water and groundwater near the groundwater discharge area. During the well installation, continuous sediment core samples were collected by a split-spoon sampler with a rotary coredrilling system. The recovered core samples of gravels, sands, and clays are displayed in the laboratory of the E.V. Smith Center and are used for educational activities. The uppermost portion of sediment contains an ~2.5-m-thick layer of red-orange–colored sands, gravels, and silts, indicating oxidizing subsurface conditions. A sand-rich layer from ~3 to 5 m consists mainly of interbedded fine to silty sand. The color of this sand-rich layer changes from orange to gray, indicating a change from oxidizing to reducing geochemical environment. Red clay and organic-rich
Water education (WET) for Alabama’s black belt
257
sandy clay are present at the depth interval between 5 and 6 m. Interbedded micaceous clay, red clay, and minor sandy silts and gravels dominate the strata at depths of 6–12 m below the surface. Well-Testing Activities The outdoor educational activities for the students focus on methods of well drilling and installation, groundwater purging and sampling, and assessing water quality and flow direction in the field. A poster is brought to the well site to explain the basic design of a typical groundwater monitoring well. Students learn that the main purpose of installing monitoring wells is to test water quality to determine if the groundwater has become contaminated. A book titled, “Well…What’s All That Drilling About?” (American Ground Water Trust, 2007) is distributed to participating students and their schools. The book, with its color illustrations, centers on two young children watching the drilling and installation of a home’s water well. Through the story, students learn about the process of well drilling and installation and how groundwater is brought from the ground to the surface. Water-Table Depth Measurement The objective of this activity is to teach students how watertable depths are determined and how variations in water-table depths can be used to determine groundwater flow directions. In this activity, students measure the static water depths in the wells using a water-level indicator. They combine this information with surface elevation data to calculate the groundwatertable elevation with respect to sea level. Accurate geographic locations and elevations of wells were previously determined using a high-resolution global positioning system (GPS) unit at the time of drilling. EVS wells 4 and 5 are proximal to one another near a wetland area, where groundwater discharges to the surface. The measured water-table elevation (relative to sea level) in the deeper EVS well 5 (45.9 m) is higher than that in the shallow EVS well 4 (41.6 m) closer to the wetland, indicating a vertical, upward hydraulic gradient between the underlying and overlying sediments. The existence of vertical gradients indicates the groundwater flow and upward discharge to the wetland. Well Purging and Groundwater Sampling This exercise teaches students how wells are purged in order to collect representative groundwater samples for testing water quality (Fig. 4). Students use different sampling devices, including bailers and submersible pumps, to remove (withdraw) water from the well. Bailers are easy to operate, and students lower the bailer into the well on a cord to extract water. To collect a representative water sample, students first purge the well by removing about two to five well volumes of water standing in the well casing. We demonstrate the use of submersible pumps that push or squeeze air to push groundwater to the surface; such a device, though superior in purging performance, costs more than the bailer.
Figure 4. Students obtain a representative water sample by purging the well. They withdraw the water sample from well EVS 1 using a bailer.
Water-Quality Assessment In this activity, students learn the quantities that are important for assessing groundwater quality and how they can test for these quantities. We begin by defining the concept of pH and explain that normal atmospheric precipitation is slightly acidic. Students are asked to give examples of common acidic (orange juice, coke) and basic (lime, alkaline salt) solutions. We remind students of the importance of DO, as covered in the indoor preparatory exercise. Students then use handheld water-quality meters to compare pH and DO values of water withdrawn from wells EVS 1, 2, and 3. The pH value of groundwater at EVS 3 is slightly acidic (5.8–6.2), which is very close to that of local rainfall. Students are led to conclude that the source of shallow groundwater is from direct atmospheric precipitation and recharge due to the similarity in pH. Groundwater from EVS 2 is extracted from the shallow alluvial aquifer and has a pronounced orange-red color and high DO values. Students examine core sediments recovered in this zone; the cores are generally devoid of organic matter and are oxidized with the orange color of Fe-oxyhydroxide solids. In contrast, groundwater from the nearby deeper well EVS 3 is clean and free of Fe-oxyhydroxide solids. The deeper groundwater exhibits moderately reducing conditions with relatively low DO values. The deeper aquifer contains abundant organic matter. Students also sample gasoline-contaminated groundwater from EVS 1. The
258
Lee et al.
contaminated water has a pale pink color, strong fuel odor, and very low DO values. They are asked how they can tell that the water is contaminated and how gasoline might get into the soil and groundwater. The students conclude that water from different depths (aquifers) at a site can vary in water quality; such a concept is practical and important for finding clean water supply from different aquifer zones. Program Assessment and Evaluation The overall goal of the WET project is to enrich the knowledge and understanding of students and teachers in the basics of hydrology so that they can utilize water-resources information, achieve a deeper awareness of water-quality issues, and understand the interplay among natural and anthropogenic changes and the water cycle. At the conclusion of the WET activities, students revisit key concepts by participating in a series of assessment activities. The first activity involves matching basic hydrologic terms (e.g., water table, saturated and unsaturated zones, etc.) using a schematic illustration. These terms were introduced during the indoor field preparation and outdoor well testing. In the second activity, students are asked to write short answers to the following questions: 1. What happens to an aquifer when it rains? 2. What happens to an aquifer when it stops raining (during a drought)? 3. Which material (gravels, sands, clays) is most permeable (allows fast water movement)? 4. Which material (gravels, sands, clays) is most porous (provides more space to store water)? 5. How can groundwater become contaminated, and how can we clean it up? 6. How can we bring groundwater from aquifers up to the surface? 7. What procedure is used before water sampling to get a representative water sample from a well? 8. Name a few common sources of groundwater contamination. The evaluation results show that a very high percentage (>80%) of the student participants were able to match key terms with the schematic drawing with a minimum of 75% correct answers. Although all participants were able to answer correctly over 75% of the short answers, the quality of expression and level of detail varied considerably. Once students had an opportunity to answer the questions on their own, the WET instructors led a discussion in which the students contributed their opinions. Although students were usually able to successfully match key terms with their meanings if definitions were provided, they were less successful in remembering the terms and definitions if they had to recall the information totally on their own. Students were, however, able to describe the handson activities in which they participated and, in their own words, express the purpose of the activity. For example, most did not recall the specific meanings of the terms pH and DO, but they
did remember how to properly test water quality and measure the water-table depths. They were also able to apply the concepts of balance in recharge and water use, and they understood how drought, pumping, and pollution might affect water quality and water availability at a well. The results suggest that the project design was effective in the immediate time frame of the activity. However, we continue to work on methods to determine how effective the activities are in getting students to retain key concepts over time. Having conducted the WET field activities with the same schools multiple times, we have arranged to have the same students return in successive years, so we can begin to see the impact of the field experience and have the opportunity to test for longer-term retention. In addition to the assessment tests, participating students and teachers were also asked to complete short surveys on the event activities, so that we could get their suggestions for improving future field days and better focusing the individual modules. They were also asked for qualitative assessments (e.g., would you tell a friend to participate in this event?). In general, comments from participants were positive and indicate that both students and teachers found the WET events well-designed, stimulating, and even fun. Students gave a high ranking to our WET program, even though they considered our water experiments to be the most intellectually challenging among the suite of field day activities available for their participation. Teachers commented that the educational modules correlate well with the classroom curriculum and the Alabama COS science objectives for middle school children. LESSONS LEARNED From our interaction with students and teachers and from results of our assessment tests, we were able to gain some insight into the effectiveness of the WET field events. Prior to the drilling of the wells at the E.V. Smith field site, students in the WET events were offered only indoor laboratory activities. After well construction, the indoor activities were utilized as a way to prepare students for the field experience. We learned that while the indoor laboratory activities appeared to capture the students’ attention, and the students were eager participants, it was the hands-on field activities that seemed to capture the most interest. Least effective were stand-alone demonstrations (e.g., Darcy’s experiment) in which the students were not active participants, but rather mostly observers. These conclusions are based not only on the results of assessment tests of key terms and concepts, but also on qualitative observations of the student’s level of attention and enthusiasm (from teachers and our own observations) and the number of questions asked during the activities. Whether the activities were laboratory-based or fieldbased, the students’ motivation to participate was very high. This may be in part because the events were conducted away from the normal school setting. In general, students performed beyond our level of expectation, particularly when field activi-
Water education (WET) for Alabama’s black belt ties were added after laboratory exercises. Although a few students appeared to have difficulty mastering basic hydrology concepts, the hands-on measurements of water-table depth and sampling of contaminated groundwater seemed to be an effective means of information transfer to every student. In a broader sense, the WET field activities gave the students a chance to follow the scientific method in making observations and interpreting data. Having the opportunity to compare a clean water well with a contaminated one at the field site allowed the students to experience first-hand the importance of water quality. CONCLUSIONS AND BROADER IMPLICATIONS WET activities involve specific outcomes that can be easily measured (e.g., how to measure pH, DO, water-table depth; how to determine hydrologic gradient and flow direction; how to identify contaminants). Although well drilling and construction are somewhat costly, other materials used in the program are inexpensive (Table 1) and can be easily duplicated by teachers for use in the classroom, if a field experience is not possible (http://www.auburn.edu/~leeming/outreach.htm). Based on our experience with middle school children, however, the field-based activities imparted a deeper, more thorough understanding of hydrologic concepts than the laboratory-style activities alone. A conclusion of this project is that low-resource schools can effectively partner with universities to offer children in rural communities a meaningful and enriching field experience that increases their understanding of water resources and underscores the need to protect water resources. Such a project can give these children access to expertise and facilities, thereby strengthening the connections between the university and the community. As a state-run institution, we rely on these connections to recruit future students and foster the support of our constituents. It should be noted, however, that low-resource schools may be less likely to participate if they must bear the costs of transportation to the field site and the materials themselves. Support from the university or from external organizations may be required to make a field experience successful. Our project has a long-term goal of increasing the participation of underrepresented groups in environmental and water sciences and improving performance in science-related subjects; however, this is not easily measured in a short time. We will continue to seek ways to determine the longer-term impact of the WET activities, especially in rural, low-income communities.
259
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for this project was provided by Auburn University Outreach Scholarship Program (to Lee and Wolf). The authors thank Auburn University’s E.V. Smith Center and the Robert G. Wehle Nature Center for assistance in running the fieldday activities. Transportation to the field sites was provided by Auburn University’s Environmental Institute. REFERENCES CITED Alley, W.M., 1999, Sustainability of Ground-Water Resources: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1186, 79 p. American Ground Water Trust, 2007, Well…What’s All That Drilling About?: Concord, New Hampshire, Eau Claire Press Company, 31 p. Cook, M.R., 1993, The Eutaw Aquifer in Alabama: Geological Survey of Alabama Bulletin 156, 105 p. Foster, S., 2006, Groundwater; sustainability issues and governance needs: Episodes, v. 29, p. 238–243. Gates, A.E., Langford, R.P., Hodgeson, R.M., and Driscoll, J.J., III, 1996, Groundwater-simulation apparatus for introductory and advanced courses in environmental geology: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 44, p. 559–564. Horton, J.W., Jr., Zietz, I., and Neathery, T.L., 1984, Truncation of the Appalachian Piedmont beneath the coastal plain of Alabama: Evidence from the new magnetic data: Geology, v. 12, p. 51–55. Hudak, P.F., 1996, Hydrogeology lessons and exercises for introductory physicalgeology students: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 44, p. 315–316. King, D.T., Jr., 1990, Facies stratigraphy and relative sea-level history—Upper Cretaceous Eutaw Formation, central and eastern Alabama: Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, v. 40, p. 381–387. Lee, M.-K., 1998, Hands-on laboratory exercises for an undergraduate hydrogeology course: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 46, p. 433–438. Lee, M.-K., Griffin, J., Saunders, J.A., Wang, Y., and Jean, J., 2007, Reactive transport of heavy metals and isotopes in the Eutaw coastal plain aquifer, Alabama: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 112, p. G02026, doi: 10.1029/2006JG000238. Moench, M., 2005, Groundwater; the challenge of monitoring and management: World’s Water, v. 2004–2005, p. 79–100. Penny, E., Lee, M.-K., and Morton, C., 2003, Groundwater and microbial processes of the Alabama coastal plain aquifers: Water Resources Research, v. 39, p. 1320, doi: 10.1029/2003WR001963. Raymond, D.E., Osborne, W.E., Copeland, C.W., and Neathery, T.L., 1988, Alabama Stratigraphy: Geological Survey of Alabama Circular 140, 97 p. Rimal, N.N., and Ronald, D.S., 2000, Using available resources to enhance the teaching of hydrogeology: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 48, p. 508–513. Salvage, K., Graney, J., and Barker, J., 2004, Watershed-based integration of hydrology, geochemistry, and geophysics in an environmental geology curriculum: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 52, p. 141–148. Shat, T., 2005, Groundwater and human development; challenges and opportunities in livelihoods and environment: Water Science and Technology, v. 51, p. 27–37. Tedesco, L.P., and Salazar, K.A., 2006, Using environmental service learning in an urban environment to address water quality issues: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 123–132. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program “School of Rock”: Lessons learned from an ocean-going research expedition for earth and ocean science educators Kristen St. John Department of Geology and Environmental Science, MSC 6903, 7125 Memorial Hall, 395 S. High St., James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, USA R. Mark Leckie Department of Geosciences, 611 North Pleasant Street, 233 Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts 01003-9297, USA Scott Slough Department of Teaching, Learning and Culture, Texas A&M University, 308 Harrington Tower, MS 4232, College Station, Texas 77843-4232, USA Leslie Peart Ocean Leadership, 1201 New York Ave, NW, 4th Floor, Washington, D.C., 20005, USA Matthew Niemitz Adobe Systems, Inc., 601 Townsend Street, San Francisco, California 94103, USA Ann Klaus Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, Texas A&M University, 1000 Discovery Drive, College Station, Texas 77845-9547, USA
ABSTRACT The “School of Rock” (SOR) expedition was carried out onboard the JOIDES Resolution during a 2 wk transit from Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, to Acapulco, Mexico, in 2005 as a pilot field program to make scientific ocean drilling research practices and results accessible to precollege educators. Through focused inquiry, the program engaged and exposed 10 teachers and three informal educators to the nature of scientific investigation at sea and to the data collected and discoveries made over nearly four decades of scientific ocean drilling. Success stemmed from intense planning, institutional support, and a program design built on diverse experiences of the instructional team and tailored to educator needs, including an integrated C3 (connections, communications, and curriculum) instructional approach. The C3 approach
St. John et al. allowed teachers time to work on curricula for their classrooms, to communicate with their students, and to make a variety of connections—from curricula to people to “the science.” While instructional materials were designed and taught at an undergraduate to graduate level for nongeoscientists, as part of the field program, the participants adapted and/or developed new activities for use in their grade 5–12 classes and museum settings during and after the expedition. Communication was supported by a daily updated interactive Web site, which also extended the SOR learning community to nonparticipant educators and the general public, before, during, and after the expedition. Success is demonstrated by the resulting curriculum materials and by the formal and informal collaborations that have led to transformative career changes of teacher participants.
BACKGROUND The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) is an international (United States, Japan, 17 European countries, People’s Republic of China, and the Republic of Korea) scientific ocean drilling program that explores Earth history and structure recorded in seafloor sediments and rocks, and monitors subseafloor environments (Fig. 1; IODP Planning Sub-Committee, 2001). The IODP builds upon the earlier successes of the Deep
Figure 1. Scientific ocean drilling research by Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) and its legacy programs, Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) and Ocean Drilling Program (ODP), into the earth system by drilling the seafloor. A broad range of earth system components, processes, and phenomena can be investigated using marine cores and seafloor monitoring. (Figure is from IODP Planning Sub-Committee, 2001; figure originally by Asahiko Tiara.)
Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) and the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP), which revolutionized our view of earth system history and global processes through ocean basin exploration. IODP is a multiplatform program involving a riserless drilling vessel, a riser drilling vessel, and mission-specific platforms operated by three implementing organizations in the United States, Japan, and Europe, respectively. Over 40 yr, DSDP-ODP-IODP has recovered sediment and rock cores from more than 300 sites in the world’s oceans (Fig. 2). Recovered cores are stored at repositories at the University of Bremen in Bremen, Germany, Kochi University in Kochi, Japan, and Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, USA. Deep-sea cores and scientific ocean drilling data are available to scientists and educators around the world (http://sedis.iodp.org/front_content.php). Scientific ocean drilling has proven that much of the ground truth data for foundational concepts in the geosciences and investigations into the working of the earth system lie in sediment and rock recovered from the subseafloor (Fig. 3; Warme et al., 1981; Kappel and Farrell, 1997; White and Urquhart, 2003). Marine sediment core records, in particular, tap the highest resolution, most continuous, and thus most complete sections for the Cenozoic Era (i.e., past 65 Ma; Ruddiman, 2001). Such cores are therefore windows into a detailed and varied tectonic and climate change history (e.g., Zachos et al., 2001). Investigations of marine core records employ the same scientific skills and interpretative principles that are used to “read” and interpret traditional land-based outcrops. Thus, marine cores, like outcrops, are a geologic archive that can be drawn upon for student learning in the geosciences at all educational levels. The DSDP-ODP-IODP legacy program is arguably a cornerstone research program for earth system science. This program’s basic scientific practices and accomplishments also have many parallels to national content standards for middle and high school earth science education (Fig. 3), including, for example, scientific inquiry, the nature of science, and the development of an understanding of the earth system and fluctuating climates (National Resource Council, 1996). However, for the first 36 yr of the program, the bridge between scientific ocean drilling research and education was only loosely constructed. During this time, only individual efforts and funding for part-time staff enabled the Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI; now the
Integrated Ocean Drilling Program “School of Rock”
263
Figure 2. Drill site map showing Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP), Ocean Drilling Program (ODP), and Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) sites (from http://iodp.tamu.edu/scienceops/maps.html).
Consortium for Ocean Leadership) to support the development of a limited number of educational materials for use in the classroom. These included “The Blast from the Past” poster, which depicted marine stratigraphic and paleobiologic evidence for the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) impact (JOI, 2000), the Cenozoic Glaciation workbook (Domack and Domack, 1993), and the expedition-focused interactive CDs “Mountains to Monsoons” (JOI, 2001a) and “Gateways to Glaciations” (JOI, 2001b). A programmatic shift for scientific ocean drilling education came in 2004 when IODP’s U.S. Implementing Organization (USIO) and U.S. Science Support Program provided fulltime funds to support a small education staff for scientific ocean
drilling. The ramp-up for the “School of Rock” (SOR) expedition program began soon thereafter. As an introduction to her new position, Education Director Peart sailed on the JOIDES Resolution during a short transit between expedition port calls in 2004. It was during this experience that she conceived the idea of transforming a usually quiet and low-staffed ship on transit between expeditions to a vibrant school at sea populated by highly motivated formal and informal educators as the students, and a diverse instructional team of research scientists, education specialists, and media-resource specialists. The goal of this floating field school was to make ocean drilling science accessible to educators in a high-impact way.
264
St. John et al.
A
B
Select Scientific Ocean Drilling Practices and Discoveries Making observations, collecting data, analyzing and synthesizing results, making and testing hypotheses
Fundamental practice to all ocean drilling research
Select National Science Education Content Standards grades 5-8 & 9-12 (NRC, 1996) Content Standard A: Science as Inquiry
Using a multiproxy approach to characterizing sediment and rocks Drawing on diverse talents and teamwork to achieve scientific goals Determining age from fossils, paleomagnetism, isotopes
Content Standard G: History and Nature of Science …All students should develop understanding of science as a human endeavor…
Confirmed hypothesis of seafloor spreading and plate tectonics Determined the history of sea-level rise; demonstrated that the Mediterranean Sea had evaporated at least once, leaving a nearly empty ocean basin for a time Documented cyclic climate change controlled by orbital forcings
Major scientific discoveries about the earth system
Confirmed the details of tropical climates in polar regions 55 m.y.; confirmed the timing of gateway opening between Australia and Antarctica and the establishment of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current; documented abrupt global warming events (e.g., PETM) that interrupted a 40 m.y. cooling trend in the Cenozoic
Content Standard D: Earth and Space Science ….As a result of their activities in grades 9-12, all students should develop an understanding of evolution of the earth system; determination of geologic time via rock sequences, fossils, and radioactive isotopes. …..In studying the evolution of earth system over geologic time, students develop a deeper understanding of the evidence, first introduced in grades 5-8, of Earth’s past and unravel the interconnected story of Earth’s dynamic crust, fluctuating climate, and evolving life forms.
Established ocean floor observatories to monitor fluid flow in ocean sediments and crust, and discovered evidence of a vast, active deep biosphere in ocean sediments and crust
Figure 3. Comparison of (A) select scientific ocean drilling practices and discoveries with (B) relevant education content standards (National Research Council [NRC], 1996). PETM—Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
PLANNING LOGISTICS The SOR expedition was a teacher research field experience blended with an inquiry-based workshop. As such, planning for logistics varied little from any field-based learning experience and borrowed heavily from logistical planning for IODP expeditions, especially in the use or adaptation of policies, forms, and documentation. Logistical planning began in late 2004, when the draft 2005 expedition schedule was first published, and the Expedition 312 transit was identified as suitable for an “all-education” expedition. The USIO’s education and outreach team outlined and submitted an education plan based upon the science objectives of Expedition 312, thinking that cores drilled from the same site during earlier expeditions and scientific staff would likely to be onboard during the transit. Once the concept was approved and, in late October to November 2005, the transit schedule was confirmed, the oppor-
tunity was broadly promoted to educators at all grade levels and informal educators through seven IODP-related and partner Web sites and listserves. With only 3 mo remaining, a small subset of the instructional team reviewed and ranked nearly 60 applications and conducted phone interviews over a fast-paced 2 wk period, leaving just enough time for selected teachers to make arrangements for being away from their classrooms, completing paperwork, and securing physicals and passports. Ten grade 5–12 teachers with progressive, inquiry-focused philosophies and demonstrated track records of curriculum development and/or peer teaching were selected from a national pool. Three berths were assigned to informal education partners from the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, the Science Museum of Minnesota, and a K–12 textbook publishing representative. In early summer 2005, research scientists with experience in scientific ocean drilling on the JOIDES Resolution were chosen
Integrated Ocean Drilling Program “School of Rock” as lead instructors, and the content theme of paleoceanography was finalized, a theme that matched the expertise of the scientists who volunteered and were chosen to direct the pilot SOR. PROGRAM DESIGN TENETS The program design for SOR evolved out of the collective experience of the USIO’s education and outreach team and the SOR instructional team. Peart and Klaus, USIO deputy director for data services, and facilitator for the USIO’s education planning group, served as the administrative branch of the SOR team and shared responsibilities for program planning logistics within JOI and USIO. Content instruction was designed and implemented by Leckie and St. John, both of whom had sailed numerous times on the JOIDES Resolution as a paleontologist and sedimentologist, respectively. In addition, Leckie and St. John each had interest and experience in the pedagogy of geoscience education for adult learners, including undergraduate and graduate students and in-service teachers, and had served sequential terms on a scientific ocean drilling advisory committee (U.S. Advisory Committee on Scientific Ocean Drilling, USAC) as education and outreach advocates. Niemitz, a JOI program associate at the time and a geoscientist by training, was experienced in Web design and real-time multimedia communications, and was responsible for SOR ship-to-shore communications and support of onshore interactive learning. Slough, science education specialist, provided pedagogical guidance, along with Peart, and was responsible for program evaluation. Peart also facilitated the adaptation and development of SOR curriculum by the teacher participants during and after the expedition. Instructional team planning began 3 mo before the SOR expedition and included three face-to-face meetings, one at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, one at the JOI office in Washington, DC, and a final 2 d meeting prior to the participants’ arrival at the ship in Victoria, British Columbia. Through the USIO education and outreach team discussions and these face-to-face SOR discussions, as well as conference calls and e-mails, the instructional team outlined the following SOR program design tenets: 1. K–12 teachers and informal educators need a program leadership team that includes research scientists and professional educators to help fulfill their scientific content, skill set, and pedagogical needs. 2. The transit of the JOIDES Resolution offers a unique, authentic, and technology-rich field setting for educators to experience ocean drilling science. The SOR experience should model how ocean drilling science is done at sea through inquiry, technology, and teamwork. The educators need to experience the breadth of the scientific ocean drilling experience, from core flow to analytical databases, and from the atmosphere of the “science party” to interactions with the science support team and ship’s crew. 3. The SOR curriculum should be data-rich, integrating authentic ocean drilling practices that are fundamental to
265
all IODP science, as well as content topics that draw on the expertise of the research scientists on the instructional team. Thus, the topics of core description, age determination, and the marine sedimentary record of past climate change (paleoceanography) would be the primary content focus. 4. The program could not be taught as would an undergraduate field course for geology majors. The SOR field program would neither be a capstone experience in which geology students work independently and show what they learned after a multiyear degree program, nor would it be a showand-tell, as may be more typical for a novice audience. The SOR audience would be professional educators, all with college degrees, but not necessarily in the earth sciences; most, in fact, had education or biology bachelor degrees. SOR curriculum would be taught at the undergraduate to graduate level for adult learners. 5. The teachers need access to curriculum that is based on actual scientific data and discoveries for use in their classrooms. These curricular materials need to be linked to local and state standards so that they are matched to high-stakes accountability exams that dominate the teaching and learning expectations in public schools today. The participating educators themselves would be responsible for adapting and developing SOR curriculum for their classrooms during and after the SOR expedition. The premise is that as each content topic is completed, the educators should then have the knowledge and skills to translate ocean drilling science from the undergraduate/graduate level at which they were taught in SOR to the grades 5–12 level (or general audience level) at which they teach. 6. The educators need time in the field to communicate with their schools, students, and museum audiences. Most participants would be taking leave from their classrooms (and their families) to participate in SOR. We recognize that during professional development programs, educators are constantly thinking “how can I use this in my own teaching?” Since the SOR program was during the school year when classes were in session, translating their experience in near real time for use with the students in their classes became more important. Thus, online communication would be an essential factor in the SOR field program. 7. The educators need time to make connections between and among the new things they are learning and experiencing in the field and their classroom and museums, as well as their prior experiences and knowledge. They need time to reflect and write about what they are doing and learning, and time to process and capture their experience. This is especially true given the expectation that the educators would begin adapting and developing teacher resources during SOR based on their SOR field experience. 8. The educators need flexibility in the field program agenda. They are teaching professionals who bring a different angle to the whole field-based science learning community. Teachers may want time to investigate some aspect of the field experience that was not originally emphasized on the curriculum agenda. This could be very fruitful, albeit not in the original field plan.
266
St. John et al.
EVALUATION DESIGN The SOR ocean-going research experience was implemented as a pilot program, and its evaluation was informed by the “designbased research” approach (or design studies), which emphasizes both qualitative and quantitative data collected in cooperation between researcher and practitioners (Bell et al., 2004). Designbased research is a systematic but flexible approach to studying educational innovations in authentic teaching and learning contexts (i.e., during SOR), enabling researchers and instructional team members to design, implement, and improve instructional materials and programs as they are being implemented. As such, the design-based research approach was able to provide “just-intime” feedback to the instructional design team. Because SOR was a pilot study, the design-based research approach matched the inductive reasoning phase of a research cycle, which emphasizes the movement from facts, observations, and evidence through inductive logic to general inferences (Krathwohl, 1993; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). The primary data source (i.e., facts) for this critical feedback was through teacher “connections.” In the teachers’ daily “connections” journals, they were prompted to record connections of all kinds (e.g., past experience and knowledge, people, memorable events, instructional ideas) encountered during laboratory, classroom activities, curriculum development, classroom communications, and throughout the day. The teachers were also asked to record frustrations, or missed connections. A more summative evaluation included focused interviews and observations after the expedition by the field program evaluator. Questions and observations focused on teacher involvement in a variety of required and elective activities sponsored by the SOR program, including reflection on the efficacy of these activities and implementation of the developed curricula in their respective classrooms. Additionally, long-term impact of the SOR experience was collected through systematic and continuous communication and data collection with all SOR participants. A monthly e-mail that details the current state of the education and outreach components of Deep Earth Academy (formerly JOI Learning) routinely includes the celebration of the professional successes (e.g., a new job, a new exhibit, or a presentation at a conference that includes/involves SOR) of the SOR participants and instructors. The e-mail includes prompts to continue to provide examples of the ways in which the participants and instructors continue to use SOR curricula, develop new curricula, present at conferences, teach workshops, publish papers, or anything else they want to celebrate related to SOR. There also have been two annual follow-up questionnaires that have provided additional documentation of SOR activities by participants.
Figure 4. “School of Rock” logo.
days in port in Acapulco. From the time the educators arrived on the JOIDES Resolution (Fig. 5) until they departed for their flights home, the cohort of educators, as well as the SOR instructional team, were immersed in a learning community of scientific ocean drilling. The days were long for the teachers (12–14 h) and even longer for the instructional team, since about half of the curriculum used in the SOR was developed while at sea, and instructors were continuously adjusting to address teacher questions and needs. A summary of the daily schedule is provided in Table 1. Field instruction modeled and supported open inquiry using exercises based on authentic shipboard research activities and data. The educators worked with previously drilled sediment and basement cores that were sent to the ship from the IODP Gulf
IMPLEMENTATION The SOR field expedition for educators took place during the IODP pre–Expedition 312 transit from Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, to Acapulco, Mexico, from 31 October to 12 November 2005 (Fig. 4). The SOR continued for two additional
Figure 5. JOIDES Resolution in port in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, October 2005. Photo is courtesy of Julie Marsteller, “School of Rock” (SOR) participant.
Open
Introduction to geochemistry Geochemistry activity on percent carbonate analysis C3 time
Open
Warm up and debrief “CORK 101” lecture (via ship-to-shore videoconference) Presentation on viewing the Expedition 301 CORK sites via submersible C3 time C3 time Geophysics lecture and tour of underway geophysics laboratory Geophysics activities: seismic stratigraphy in site selection and sea-level curves
Warm up and debrief C3 time
Warm up and debrief Abrupt events in Earth history discussion Activities on K-P extinction, PETM, E-O boundary and Oi1 event
Warm up and debrief Climate cyclicity discussion Activities on Milankovitch cyclicity and suborbital oscillations
Open
Day 13 In Acapulco
(Continued )
Open
C3 time
C3 time Ship tour
Day 6
Climate change discussion
Biostratigraphy continued: sample processing in paleo laboratory, photomicroscopy of smear slides
Warm up and debrief, biostratigraphy continued (Group B) and C3 time (Group A)
Day 12 Under way to Acapulco, Mexico, and in Acapulco Activity on sediment pointcount analysis and interpretation Observe arrival in port Customs and immigration
Introduction to biostratigraphy: construction of age-depth plots and sedimentation rates (Group A) and C3 time (Group B)
Warm up and debrief, teachers share core descriptions and sample cores Marine sediments lecture
TABLE 1. “SCHOOL OF ROCK” DAILY SCHEDULE (Continued ) Day 9 Day 10 Day 11
Core description continued
Core description activity continued
Warm up and debrief, core flow introduction, tour of the core laboratory, core description activity: visual core description smear slides, creation of barrel sheets
Day 5
Paleomagnetism Ocean crust C3 time C3 time C3 time C3 time laboratory tour lecture, core and activity: description, thin polarity reversal, section photostratigraphy, microscopy correlation to GPTS, construction of age-depth plots Geochemistry cont’d Evening C3 time Open Open Open Open Open Open Key: E-O—Eocene-Oligocene; GPTS—geomagnetic polarity time scale; K-P—Cretaceous-Paleocene; Oi—initial Oligocene glaciation event; PETM—Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum.
Afternoon
Morning
Open
Evening
Lifeboat drill Plate tectonic activities continued C3 Time = connections, curriculum, and communications
Warm up and debrief, depart Victoria, view Juan de Fuca Strait, introduction to water and meteorological data collection Plate tectonics discussion and activities
TABLE 1. “SCHOOL OF ROCK” DAILY SCHEDULE Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Under way to Acapulco, Mexico
Day 7 Day 8 Under way to Acapulco, Mexico
Orientation: safety JOIDES Resolution tour and introductions Ocean drilling legacy lecture “History of Our Planet Revealed: Stories Only Rocks Can Tell” by Dr. Jeff Fox, Director, IODP
Afternoon
Morning
Day 1 In Port—Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Transport participants to JOIDES Resolution Cabin assignments, paperwork Orientation: life on board, communications
267
268
St. John et al.
Coast Repository, and they worked with published data from 56 drill sites and 26 scientific ocean drilling expeditions to investigate fundamental scientific practices and discoveries of the DSDP-ODP-IODP legacy (Leckie et al., 2006). Complementing this, activities were carried out in which the educators learned how to handle and process core and core samples in the same laboratories that scientists use on research expeditions. The educators were introduced to the processes of drilling at sea and core recovery by the drilling crew, and core flow through the many shipboard laboratories and laboratory equipment by the science technical staff. In addition, the exercises and activities required the educators to learn how to access published data through the scientific ocean drilling program legacy Web sites. Many of the special needs of teachers were met by incorporating an almost daily instructional piece entitled “Connections, Communications, and Curriculum (C3)” (Table 1). C3 time was woven into the SOR field schedule to allow teachers time to work on curricula for their classrooms, to communicate with their students, and to make a variety of connections—from curricula to people to “the science.” C3 time was packaged in conjunction with natural breaks in the schedule and at different times each day to allow for free-form time and teachers’ communication with students in several different time zones. It was essential to integrate communication time to the classrooms with curriculum development and connection time in order to gently push participants away from their personal learning and education and bring them back into the realm of the average student. This helped the participants be in the right “frame of mind” for applying the new concepts they were learning to their own individual classrooms (Niemitz et al., 2006, 2008). Teachers reported “frequent contact outside the conference room [the shipboard classroom].” One teacher noted C3 time “allowed me to process, catch-up, or just take a break. To me, the schedule was both accommodating and full.” Because the SOR took place during the school year, it presented a unique opportunity to engage teacher-to-student interaction via ship-to-shore communication in near real time. The expedition Web site (http://www.joilearning.org/schoolofrock/) included daily blog posts, an expedition location tracking exercise, a video question-and-answer section, participant biographies, and a library of background resources. Through these varied means of connection, onshore students were able to immerse themselves in the experience of an oceanographic expedition as well as discover what the participants were doing on a daily basis. Beyond simply providing an interactive way to connect with the participants onshore, the Web site extended the School of Rock learning community to nonparticipant educators and the general public, before, during, and after the expedition (Niemitz et al., 2006, 2008, 2009). A special ship-to-shore video conference was also set up so a scientific expert on shore could teach a unit on marine hydrothermal circulation and answer SOR educators’ questions about IODP in situ monitoring of such a circulation system on the nearby Juan de Fuca Ridge. Unscheduled times typically were filled with more C3 time by teacher choice. Teachers also used this open time to interview
a cross section of the ship’s manifest, as well as develop instructional laboratory demonstration videos. The career interview format was developed through group discussion between the SOR instructional team and educators. Instructional laboratory videos were not part of the instructional design, but they were incorporated and supported when this exciting idea emerged through teacher-instructor discussions. Educators also interacted with the captain and crew on the ship’s bridge regularly; meteorological and oceanographic data, which were normally collected and recorded twice daily by the bridge deck crew, became a sharedtask of rotating paired educators and the bridge deck crew. DISCUSSION What Did We Accomplish? Logistics of ocean-based research are well understood by IODP scientists and managers; however, the logistics and value of an “all-education” expedition for a cohort of teachers were untested aboard the JOIDES Resolution until the SOR. This was due to two primary factors: (1) the scientific ocean drilling IODP legacy program rarely has times when science programs are not scheduled on the vessel, and (2) berth space is prioritized to maximize scientific outcome. With SOR, we demonstrated that a research vessel can be populated by a group of teachers and scientists brought together for the single purpose of education. While the ship’s crew and technicians traveled onboard the vessel between scientific expeditions from Victoria to Acapulco, the ship was “repurposed” for education by placing the SOR instructional team and the teacher cohort aboard with a wealth of cores and data at their disposal. The National Research Council publication titled How People Learn (Bransford et al., 2000) recognizes that people construct a view of the natural world through their experiences and observations. To explain phenomena and make predictions, people need to draw from their own authentic experiences and observations—they need to engage in deliberate practice, to promote a conceptual change of prior knowledge (Chinn and Malhotra, 2002). By bringing teachers into the field setting of marine geoscientists, the teachers develop their own skills of observation, data interpretation, and synthesis that exemplify theoretical and empirical (Bransford et al., 2000; Bransford and Donovan, 2005) best practices for learning. In addition, the SOR program for teachers and informal educators modeled key aspects of the nature of science: (1) discoveries and scientific connections are rarely made in isolation, but they are the fruits of collaboration, and (2) scientific advancements often rely on technological advancement, especially in marine geoscience. What Did We Learn? Borrowing from the old African proverb, “it takes a whole ship to raise a SOR teacher.” As a world-class research vessel, the JOIDES Resolution and her crew were the perfect host for the
Integrated Ocean Drilling Program “School of Rock” inaugural SOR. Four major themes have emerged that highlight the teachers’ enthusiasm for the quantity and quality of the field program. The first three major themes are largely connected to research and are described as: (1) the importance of scientific ocean drilling, (2) the JOIDES Resolution’s role in that process, and (3) the historical role of cores as the primary data source. The excitement of ocean floor observatories, which was a new scientific area for most of the educators, and their future relevance were also noted. These themes could be largely predicted from the subheading for the expedition title: “An Ocean-Going Research Expedition for Earth and Ocean Science Educators” and were clearly the result of focused inquiry-based instruction. The final theme came from the C3 instructional component and was characterized by (4) overwhelming enthusiasm and productivity during the expedition, in spite of 12–14 h workdays plus “homework” for eleven straight days in a shipboard environment. The first three themes were explicitly related to scientific ocean drilling research but were different enough to be singled out. The first theme represents the overall importance of scientific ocean drilling as it was expressed repeatedly, to paraphrase a number of teachers, “to use real…easily accessible…data to prove how we know what we know.” This was very powerful compared to their previous descriptions of “scientists have researched this.” Scientific ocean drilling’s contribution to powerful frameworks in earth science such as plate tectonics, seafloor spreading, and global climate change were mentioned by almost every teacher as “take-home messages.” The second theme revolved around the use of technology in marine geoscience research. Simply put, the JOIDES Resolution made an impression on every participant. Predictably, every educator truly appreciated the technical sophistication and gained professional enrichment by experiencing this workshop in the shipboard environment. One 30 yr teaching veteran described the ship as a “technological and social marvel” and proceeded to photo and/or video every inch of the ship that he could receive permission to document and every employee from “cook to captain.” The majority of this information was edited and sent back to his school in almost real-time with the help of JOIDES Resolution and SOR staff and an enthusiastic computer technician at his home school. A teacher noted, “The JOIDES Resolution represents a micro-version of how the scientific community works. Usually, the general public does not recognize the collaboration involved in substantial findings.” The teachers consistently noted the general and technological problem-solving skills demonstrated by drillers, staff, and technicians on a daily basis. The third and final research-related theme that the educators universally noted was the importance of cores as a data source for the scientific ocean drilling program. One teacher noted, “When we were processing core, we were processing data...‘data’ is no longer an abstract concept.” Teachers consistently cited Webbased access to data as essential to scientists and teachers alike— “research at my fingertips.” One stated that “data was [sic] integral to future teaching plans...we have to make this easy…totally accessible.” Other teachers were so aware of the data potential
269
that they started planning to order core material from the repository. A representative statement by a teacher sums up the success of the pilot SOR field expedition for teacher education:
My previous experience with professional development was about 90% useless and 10% valuable. Most professional development for teachers (at least in my experience) is designed and conducted by people who maybe don’t quite understand teaching or students. As a result, it is often irrelevant to what actually goes on in the classroom…. The School of Rock was clearly designed around a need…. The key to the success of the School of Rock is that it was a responsive program—instead of creating something in a void, and then cramming it down our throats, the organizers sought to respond to an existing need; and during the program, they listened to our feedback and made adjustments as necessary.
In addition, as the expedition unfolded, it was hard to tell if the teachers were more impressed by the ship or by the crew. We expected the ship to be the most important component of the ocean-going portion of this experience, but clearly the entire crew, from cook to captain, complemented the experience. The crew of JOIDES Resolution is fairly consistent and as such carried out routines that had been established over time to support its scientific drilling mission. While the crew and the scientific party maintain a supportive and collegial relationship, there is often a separation that develops to maximize the science. One of the most successful curricular resources initiated on the ship were career profiles (e.g., http://www.oceanleadership.org/education/ deep-earth-academy/students/careers/career-profiles/), which every participant helped develop and thus felt a sense of ownership. The participants were so enthusiastic about the career profiles because not many of their students will sail as ocean drilling scientists, but all of their students could see a career that they were capable of and possibly interested in. Thus, the participants scoured the ship to find crew to interview. Almost without exception, this resulted in a personal relationship between the participants and the crew. They began to eat meals together, they visited in the hallways, and they exchanged contact information. In the end, the captain was eating with the participants, and invited the entire SOR to “sail with him anytime!” Camaraderie and a spirit of unity and respect among the SOR group, technicians, IODP staff, Catamar, and Transocean were apparent and welcomed. The scheduled trips to all areas of the ship, twice daily weather and ocean reports collected from the bridge, and the career profiles all likely contributed to this spirit, but perhaps more importantly, the teachers clearly respected everyone on the ship and thus earned the respect of the crew. What Were the Long-Term Outcomes? As we look at long-term impact, the observable indicators include a continuous engagement with the community, new professional opportunities and awards that were influenced and
270
St. John et al.
supported by SOR participation, and continued development and implementation of SOR curricular resources. The SOR participants and instructors have remained a very close group. One powerful indicator that SOR has had a long-term impact is the continuous engagement with, and expansion of, the community. The original instructional team is largely intact and has expanded since 2005. This expansion includes incorporation of new university-based collaborators and SOR participants into the instructional team. Instructors continue to teach in subsequent SOR or SOR-related courses. Instructors and participants continue to develop curricula together, as well as present at conferences and publish papers together. Participants invite instructors into their classroom and vice versa. Most importantly, there is a sense of community that is maintained by continuing to work together—instructor and participant. A second area where the long-term impact of the SOR can be seen is through new professional opportunities that have been directly influenced by SOR participation. The most direct and powerful example is characterized by one of the SOR participants who was hired as a full-time member of the Ocean Leadership education and outreach team. While she was clearly an accomplished educator, her SOR experience and demonstrated ability to participate and thrive in the community was a deciding factor in her hiring. A second example is reflected by another well-accomplished SOR educator who worked in formal professional development for science educators on the east coast. In part because of her SOR experience and SOR professional connections, she switched jobs to informal science education on the west coast and is now working with a long-time collaborator of Ocean Leadership. The third example comes from a member of the instructional team who returned to graduate school after the SOR to develop and study the impact of emerging technology on learning, which closely mirrored his role with SOR. He continues to publish with the group, provides technology consulting for various curricular products, and used SOR technology examples in his portfolio to secure an educational technology job with a Fortune 500 company. Following the SOR, all of the participants led informal presentations of SOR highlights, activities, and reflections to their students and fellow teachers. All but one participant has documented formal presentations beyond their students and fellow teachers to include: the local school boards; local interest groups (e.g., gem club, summer camp, retirement home); local and regional news sources; and local, regional, national, and international presentations at professional conferences, often in continued collaboration with instructors. One teacher taught a college-credit short course for science teachers based on SOR activities and samples requested through the Gulf Coast Repository. Another participant was able to help incorporate scientific ocean drilling into the new Ocean Hall exhibit at the Smithsonian (which opened in fall 2008). Four participants have returned to subsequent SOR workshops as instructors. The long-term impact of SOR can also be seen through awards and recognitions supported by SOR participation. One
SOR teacher with over 30 yr of teaching experience has received five teaching awards in the past year that all included a significant link to SOR participation and a collaboration that he developed with his local computer information technology support person to develop near real-time and asynchronous modules from his shipboard experience. A second teacher received the Outstanding Earth Science Teacher award for the Eastern section of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, based in part on a strong recommendation and continued collaboration with a SOR instructor. A third example comes from a SOR informal educator; this participant’s museum team won two awards from the 2006 Museum and the Web Conference for their Science Buzz Web site, in which his work with SOR was cited. The final area where the long-term impact of SOR can be seen is in the continued development and implementation of SOR curricular resources. The lead instructors developed over a dozen undergraduate- to graduate-level exercises for the SOR, and SOR participants translated their learning into useful teaching resources by developing 25 new discovery-based activities, posters, videos, and computer interactive modules related to ocean drilling research. Table 2 identifies some of curriculum resources stemming from the pilot SOR; all of the exercises listed in Table 2 (among many others) are accessible at the Deep Earth Academy Web site (http://www.oceanleadership.org/education/ deep-earth-academy/). Several of the teachers and almost all of the instructors continue to create and modify curricular resources that are shared through this Web site and are patterned after SOR activities and/or are based on the wealth of data and legacy of scientific ocean drilling. These materials are constantly evolving through testing in schools and at various SOR outreach activities. Since the expedition, the educators have helped disseminate the new activities through 50 talks, workshops, presentations, and publications for local to national audiences. Other tangible outcomes are the subsequent SOR shore-based programs for educators, including programs held at Western Michigan University, Grand Valley State University, the national Geological Society of American (GSA) meeting in Philadelphia, the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Manchester Community College, University of Massachusetts, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, the Gulf Coast Repository at Texas A&M, as well as extensions into graduate education via inclusion of SOR-adapted materials at Ben Gurion University in Israel and the international Urbino Summer School for Paleoclimatology in Italy, and funding of an extension project to develop SOR-type curriculum for the introductory undergraduate geology classroom (Jones et al., 2008; Leckie et al., 2008; Pound et al., 2008; St. John et al., 2008). While we clearly recruited participants and instructors who were accomplished, initial SOR participation and continued engagement directly impacted their interests and ability to take the next steps in their careers, opened up many new professional opportunities, stimulated some impressive educational awards, and provided outlets for developing significant curricular resources. These participants still have opportunities to attend other professional development programs. Instead, their
Stable isotopes | rapid climate change | paleoceanography | mass extinction | global warming | Earth history Sediment core | oxygen isotopes | microfossils | climate change JOIDES Resolution | geography | flags | countries of the world
Classroom exercise
Classroom exercise
Relative age | micropaleontology | extinction | biozones | biostratigraphy | absolute age Paleomagnetism | magnetostratigraphy | magnetic reversal | Earth history | declination
How Old Is It? Part 1—Biostratigraphy
How Old Is It? Part 2—Magnetostratigraphy (Paleomagnetism) and the Geomagnetic Polarity Timescale Abrupt Events of the Past 70 Million Years— Evidence from Scientific Ocean Drilling Secrets of the Sediments—Using Marine Sediments to Study Climate Change It’s a Small World After All
Poster with classroom exercises
Microfossils
Microfossils: The Ocean’s Storytellers
Inquiry into Sediment Cores
Title Plate Tectonics and Contributions from Scientific Ocean Drilling—Going Back to the Original Data Nannofossils Reveal Seafloor Spreading Truth!
almost unanimous continuous participation in SOR outreach signals a transition from receiver of professional development to provider, which is perhaps the best indicator of the long-term impact of SOR. CONCLUSIONS The SOR was a pilot seagoing educator workshop aboard the JOIDES Resolution during a transit of the drill ship from Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, to Acapulco, Mexico. During the 12 day expedition, 13 formal and informal educators from across the United States were mentored and taught by scientists engaged in ocean drilling research, the USIO education director and staff, and shipboard technical staff. This pilot program provided the educators with an opportunity to experiment on oceanfloor core samples and participate in hands-on learning in a number of the shipboard laboratories. They were exposed to the rich history of scientific ocean drilling and its foundational impact on our understanding of earth system processes and history. They learned that legacy scientific ocean drilling data are valuable educational resources and accessible on the Web. By living, working, and learning aboard the JOIDES Resolution, the educators discovered the conditions of life at sea, the highly collaborative nature of scientific investigation, the workings of a research vessel, and the many scientific, technical, and maritime careers that serve the operation. C3 time (connections, communications, and curriculum) provided the educators with the opportunity to reflect on what they were learning, make connections with people, previous knowledge, and experiences, create original age- or audience-appropriate activities, and share their new experiences with their classrooms, museums, colleagues, and families. The teachers were intensely engaged in the scientific endeavor and were highly motivated to translate what they learned at sea to classroom experiences for their students. They were involved in the excitement of discovery that comes on every expedition of scientific ocean drilling. SOR exemplifies the possibilities for bridging partnerships between science research and education. It strengthens and supports excellence in science education; it fosters new direct collaborations with educators who traditionally are not directly involved in research; and it has the potential to broaden participation from underrepresented groups by involving teachers and informal educators from a diverse range of schools and other institutions. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Integrated Ocean Drilling Program’s (IODP) U.S. Implementing Organization and Ocean Leadership (formerly JOI) for financial and institutional support and giving us the green light to implement this pilot education field program. We look forward to future IODP expedition transits as opportunities for the shipboard SOR programs. We extend our gratitude to Transocean, and especially Captain Alex Simpson and his crew, the
Catamar staff, and the IODP shipboard scientific and technical staff for becoming teachers to the teachers—you all contributed more than we ever expected or hoped to the educational learning community that the JOIDES Resolution became on the Expedition 312 transit. The cores shipped to the JR were essential to the SOR learning experience; we thank John Firth and the staff at the Gulf Coast Repository for supporting the SOR. Finally, we thank the educators who participated in the inaugural “School of Rock”; we learned as much from you as you did from us. This paper was improved by the thoughtful and insightful comments of Steve Hovan and an anonymous reviewer. REFERENCES CITED Bell, P.L., Hoadley, C., and Linn, M.C., 2004, Design-based research as educational inquiry, in Linn, M.C., Davis, E.A., and Bell, P.L., eds., Internet Environments for Science Education: Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 412 p. Bransford, J.D., and Donovan, M.S., 2005, Scientific inquiry and how people learn, in Donovan, M.S., and Bransford, J.D., eds., How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom: Washington, D.C., National Research Council, p. 27–198. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking, R.R., 2000, How People Learn— Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Washington, D.C., National Research Council, National Academies Press, 374 p. Chinn, C.A., and Malhotra, B.A., 2002, Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks: Science Education, v. 86, p. 175–218, doi: 10.1002/sce.10001. Domack, E., and Domack, C.R., 1993, Cenozoic Glaciation—The Marine Record: Washington, D.C., Ocean Drilling–Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Inc.–U.S. Science Support Program, 48 p. Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) Planning Sub-Committee, 2001, Earth, Oceans, and Life—Scientific Investigations of the Earth System Using Multiple Drilling Platforms and New Drilling Technologies: Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Initial Science Plan 2003–2013: http:// www.iodp.org/isp/ (accessed 18 January 2009). Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI), 2000, Blast from the Past poster: http:// www.oceanleadership.org/posters/blastfromthepast (accessed 18 January 2009). Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI), 2001a, Mountains to Monsoons CD: http://www.oceanleadership.org/learning/materials/mtm.html (accessed 18 January 2009). Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI), 2001b, Gateways to Glaciation CD: http://www.oceanleadership.org/learning/materials/gtg.html (accessed 18 January 2009). Jones, M.E., Leckie., St. John., K., and Pound., K.S., 2008, Using benthic foraminiferal oxygen isotope data from DSDP and ODP sediment cores as a framework for climate change connections in introductory geology and oceanography courses: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 89, no. 53, fall meeting supplement, abstract ED21B-0621. Kappel, E., and Farrell, J., 1997, ODP’s Greatest Hits, contributions from the U.S. scientific community, Volume 1: 1985–1996: Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI)/United States Science Support Program (USSSP): http:// www.odplegacy.org/PDF/Outreach/Brochures/ODP_Greatest_Hits.pdf (accessed 20 January 2009). Krathwohl, D.R., 1993, The Methods of Educational and Social Science Research: An Integrated Approach: White Plains, New York, Longman, 742 p. Leckie, R.M., St. John, K., Peart, L., Klaus, A., Slough, S., and Niemitz, M., 2006, The “School of Rock Expedition”: Education and Science Connect at Sea: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 87, no. 24, p. 240–241, doi: 10.1029/2006EO240003. Leckie, R.M., Jones, M.H., St. John, K., and Pound, K.S., 2008, Age determination for deep-sea cores: Inquiry-based learning with authentic scientific ocean drilling data: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 89, no. 53, fall meeting supplement, abstract ED31A-0595. National Research Council, 1996, National Science Education Standards: http:// www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962 (accessed 18 January 2009).
Integrated Ocean Drilling Program “School of Rock” Niemitz, M., Slough, S., Peart, L., Klaus, A., St. John, K., and Leckie, M., 2006, Ship-to-shore educational communications and interactivity via the world wide web: The School of Rock expedition case study, in Kommers, P., and Richards, G., eds., Proceedings of the World Conference on Education Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunication, 2006: Chesapeake, Virginia, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), p. 191–198, http://www.editlib.org/index .cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewAbstract&paper_id=23014. Niemitz, M., Slough, S., St. John, K., Leckie, R.M., Peart, L., and Klaus, A., 2009, Integrating K–12 hybrid online education activities in teacher education programs: Reflections from the School of Rock expedition, Technology Implementation in Teacher Education: Reflective Models (in press). Pound, K.S., St. John, K., Krissek, L.A., Jones, M.H., Leckie, R.M., and Pyle, E.J., 2008, Why drill here? Teaching to build student understanding of the role sediment cores from polar regions play in interpreting climate change: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 89, no. 53, fall meeting supplement, abstract ED33A-0612. Ruddiman, W.F., 2001, Earth’s Climate Past and Future: New York, Freeman, 465 p.
273
St. John, K., Leckie, R.M., Jones, M.H., Pound, K.S., and Pyle, E.J., 2008, Constructing knowledge of marine sediments in introductory geology and oceanography courses using DSDP, ODP, and IODP Data: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 89, no. 53, Fall meeting supplement, abstract ED31A-0596. Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C., 2003, Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research: Thousand Oaks, California, Sage, 200 p. Warme, J.E., Douglas, R.G., and Winterer, E.L., 1981, The Deep Sea Drilling Project: A Decade of Progress: Society for Sedimentary Geology (SEPM) Special Publication 32, 563 p. White, K., and Urquhart, E., eds., 2003, ODP Highlights, International Scientific Contributions from the Ocean Drilling Program, United States Science Support Program, 36 p. Available online at http://www.odplegacy.org/PDF/ Outreach/Brochures/ODP_Greatest_Hits2.pdf (accessed 18 January 2009). Zachos, J.C., Pagani, M., Sloan, L., Thomas, E., and Billups, K., 2001, Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global climate change 65 Ma to present: Science, v. 292, p. 686–693, doi: 10.1126/science.1059412. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Geological field experiences in Mexico: An effective and efficient model for enabling middle and high school science teachers to connect with their burgeoning Hispanic populations K. Kitts* Eugene Perry Jr. Department of Geology and Environmental Geosciences, Northern Illinois University, Davis Hall 312, Normal Road, DeKalb, Illinois 60115, USA Rosa Maria Leal-Bautista Guadalupe Velazquez-Oliman Centro para el Estudio del Agua del Centro de Investigacion Cientifica de Yucatán, CP97200, Mérida, Yucatán, México
ABSTRACT To encourage Hispanic participation and enrollment in the geosciences and ultimately enhance diversity within the discipline, we recruited ten middle and high school science teachers for a three-week field experience to the Central Mexico volcanic belt. Supported by the National Science Foundation’s Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences (OEDG) program, the experience began with a minipedagogy course on multiculturalism and inquiry methodologies at Northern Illinois University (NIU) and continued with fieldwork in Mexico, where participants worked with Universidad National Autonoma de Mexico geoscientists, visited local schools, and attended cultural events. The experience culminated in the teachers producing standards-based educational materials from their field experiences and presenting them at professional conferences. We measured the efficacy of these activities quantitatively via pre- and post-tests to assess affective domain changes (i.e., confidence levels, preconceptions, and biases), NIU staff observations of participants in their home institutions, and evaluations of participants’ field books and pedagogical materials. Additionally, effectiveness was measured by reviews of still and video footage, and examination of comments in field books and on surveys given before the program, directly after, and one year after the experience. We present these data here and identify specific activities that are both effective and efficient in changing teacher behaviors and attitudes, enabling them to better connect with their Hispanic students in their geoscience classrooms.
INTRODUCTION Problem Identification Huntoon and Lane (2007) reviewed data from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and found that since 1966, fewer B.A./ B.S. to Ph.D. degrees have been awarded in the geosciences than in any other science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) field. Additionally, from 1995 to 2001, degrees awarded to underrepresented groups were lower in the geosciences than all other STEM fields. In a recently released report (2009), the American Geological Institute suggests that the disparity between whole-population numbers and their corresponding representation in the profession can be viewed as a first-order proxy of the recruitment and sustainability of geoscience as a discipline. They show that in 2009 women earn 43% of all geoscience degrees, but comprise only 18.6% of non-tenure track geoscience faculty and 14.2% of tenure-track geoscience faculty. They also show that the trends cited in Huntoon and Lane have continued into 2008. Specifically, the percentage of all STEM degrees conferred to Hispanics and African Americans is 8%, whereas the percentage of geoscience degrees conferred is only 2%. In contrast, Hispanics and African Americans comprise 29% of the current population. The U.S. Census projects that of the additional 5.6 million school-age children living in the United States in 2025, 93% will be Hispanic (Schmidt, 2003). Extending these predictions further out, both the Pew Research Center (2008) and the American Geological Institute (2009) estimate that by the year 2050, Hispanics will represent 29%–30% of the population. These trends are particularly troubling as Hispanics have traditionally been the most underrepresented population in science and math (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1999; Huntoon and Lane, 2007; American Geological Institute, 2009). Therefore, unless more Hispanics choose geoscience careers, there will be a shortage of geoscientists to tackle the technical and environmental problems of the next generation. The restructuring of the United States economy has generated a dramatic decline in manufacturing and an equally dramatic rise in a polarized service sector. One part consists of menial, low-wage jobs, and the other part consists of high-skill, highwage jobs requiring advanced technical, scientific, and professional skills (Sassen, 1991, 1994). Additionally, Lynch et al. (1996) found that socioeconomic status is the single most powerful factor that affects science motivation and performance. This occurs both at the individual family level and on the institutional level. Because local tax bases fund most school districts, a disproportionate number of Hispanic students, by virtue of where they live, attend underfunded schools, exacerbating their difficulties and limiting their choices. However, despite a recognition of the economic value of an advanced education, only 52% of immigrant and native-born Hispanic high school students graduate (Greene and Foster, 2003). Although the Latino share of all bachelor’s degrees awarded has exceeded population growth rates, the gap between Hispanic
achievement and higher-achieving white and Asian cohorts has not narrowed (Garcia, 2004). Hence, young Latinos still remain half as likely as young Asians and whites to earn baccalaureate degrees. Among women, Latinas lag behind their female counterparts in almost every other ethno-racial grouping, especially in geosciences (Huntoon and Lane, 2007). Finding Solutions In an attempt to find solutions to this lack of diversity within the discipline and impending shortfall of qualified geoscientists, we identified and recruited ten middle and high school science teachers serving large Hispanic populations (60%–97%) for a paid three-week field experience to the Central Mexico volcanic belt in June and July of 2006. Supported by a National Science Foundation (NSF) Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences (OEDG) grant, this intensive field experience combined science, culture, and pedagogy and began with a multicultural workshop followed by actual fieldwork locally and in central Mexico. The fieldwork in Mexico exposed the teachers to a geologic and social environment outside of their community where they interacted with a diverse group of scientists from the Universidad National Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM), teachers from cooperating middle and high schools in Puebla, and Mexican authorities at CENAPRED (National Disaster Preparedness Organization). At UNAM, the teachers participated in several mini-courses that addressed not only the important geologic characteristics of the Central Mexico volcanic belt, but also the hazards of having large urban populations living in close proximity to several active volcanoes. While visiting CENAPRED, the teachers participated in several panel discussions and heard reports from leading Mexican scientists. From Mexico City, the students entered the field and completed several inquiry-based activities, taking trips to Mt. Popocatépetl, several lahars, a cinder cone, two maars, and a geothermal power station. While in Puebla State, the teachers spent the day at a new school complex in San Martin, which is expanding rapidly to keep pace with sharp increases in school population. There, the teachers had first-hand opportunity to observe and participate in classes of students ranging in age from preschool through high school. The participants had lunch with parents and teachers, providing an opportunity to establish ties for future exchanges. During the afternoon, the teachers participated in a professional development activity with the Mexican teachers. The topics of the day included comparison of the two educational systems and developing teaching strategies to address second-language issues. At San Martin, a large proportion of the students speak local native Indian dialects, and Spanish is their second language. Interspersed with these experiences, there were cultural activities and visits to several archaeological sites and museums. Upon returning to NIU, the teachers participated in a methods course and produced peer-reviewed, standards-based educational materials that address issues of diversity, identity, and geosci-
Geological field experiences in Mexico ence content. These materials included a virtual field trip of the experience, companion guidebooks, and inquiry-based lesson plans, and they can be found on the project’s companion Web site (http://oedg.niu.edu). The experience culminated with financial support for the teachers to present their experiences and materials at local, regional, and national science educator conferences. PROGRAM MODEL We selected science teachers as the target audience of our field experience for three reasons. First, we wished to respond to the frustration expressed by in-service teachers with their self-perceived inability to reach their Hispanic students and interest them in science (Kitts, 2005). Second, the multiplicative effect is efficient and cost effective. By helping a few teachers, they in turn help many Hispanic students over the course of many years. Third, because students must decide to take the rigorous science and math courses early in their education sequence, it is of the utmost importance to reach out to all science students at this critical time. As a case in point, Latino students are disproportionately educated in highly segregated, poorly financed schools, Latino high school students have lower reading and math skills on average and therefore take fewer college preparatory classes (Schmidt, 2003; Garcia, 2004). Part of this segregation is selfimposed due to a limited exposure to English in early childhood. While limited English proficiency can be resolved through effective language instruction, the more insidious problem is the continuing “tracking effects” of English as a second language (ESL) programs (Gonzalez et al., 2003). Zuniga et al. (2005) investigated the effects of science course placement on Hispanic student success in science, as measured by performance and enrollment in subsequent science courses. The school system in question placed all students identified as having limited English proficiency into a science course intended for those with learning disabilities, regardless of academic ability. The study showed that these students were subsequently unlikely to take science and math courses required for college admission despite the fact that most had college aspirations. The long-term effect of relegation of Hispanic students to courses perceived as “less rigorous” is elimination of the opportunity to take upper-level science and math courses. Without active intervention, it is highly likely that many ESL students will continue to be shunted off the science and math track. Given the unique difficulties facing young Latinos and bearing in mind that our primary objective is to encourage Hispanic participation and enrollment in the geosciences, we identified key strategies relevant to reaching and supporting nontraditional students and incorporated them directly into the design of the field experience. Those key strategies included: (1) developing teacher content knowledge and confidence; (2) aiding teachers in identifying and evaluating any misconceptions or biases about their nontraditional students; (3) explicitly modeling pedagogical techniques such as inquiry, hands-on, and science literacy methodologies; (4) providing culturally relevant examples and activi-
277
ties; (5) leveraging dominant cultural strengths such as a sense of community and parental participation; (6) providing access to quality mentorship; (7) supporting active science and pedagogical research by the teachers themselves; (8) promoting teacher leadership (i.e., providing mentoring opportunities, funds, and logistic support to send teachers to professional conferences); and (9) addressing identity formation issues of both the Hispanic students and their teachers as scientists. We integrated these nine strands into the field experience by subdividing the program into three parts: (1) the introductory mini-courses, which prepared the teachers for both geological content and cultural awareness, (2) the actual fieldwork, and (3) the opportunity for the teachers to translate their experiences directly and immediately into standards-based materials that they could use in their classrooms and share with the greater community. Table 1 maps these key strategies to the main activities of the field experience. Note that these support threads are woven throughout the entire program. Based on the data produced during this track 1 experience and on the findings presented here, we proposed and received a track 2 OEDG five year extension grant. As with the track 1 model, we will identify and recruit ten to twelve middle and high school science teachers serving large Hispanic populations for a field experience in Northern Illinois and Mexico. However, the track 2 program has now been expanded to a series of two year programs, each of which will center on this field experience to be followed by school visitations, regularly scheduled workshops, additional fieldwork, and a subsequent summer course. This track 2 experience will culminate in a national conference of middle and high school educators to be held in the greater Chicago area. Travel grants will be made available for the host Mexican teachers to visit in the participants’ schools as part of the International Educational Conference. Over the course of the grant period, it is expected that three cohorts will be shepherded through the program. To date, we are 15 months into our 2008 cohort. Although data collection is only beginning, these preliminary analyses fully support the track 1 data presented here. Figure 1 is a graphic time line of both the original track 1 project and now the expanded track 2 project. The design of the track 2 program was informed by, and predicated on, the data presented here from the track 1 experience. As the track 1 data show, this fully integrated model has proven to be highly effective and efficient in changing teacher behaviors, attitudes, and methodologies and enabling them to better connect with their Hispanic students in their geoscience classrooms. A review of the theoretical underpinnings and the rationale behind the selection of these methodologies and strategies is presented next. For an additional in depth review of multicultural education, see Banks and Banks (2004). THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Starting in the 1960s, science education research and literature examined and attempted to explain why females and ethnic
278
Kitts et al. TABLE 1. FIELD EXPERIENCE ACTIVITIES MAPPED TO THE NINE KEY STRATEGIES Key strategy Field experience activity 1. Content knowledge and Mini-courses on Northern Illinois and Mexico geology confidence Fieldwork practice at Northern Illinois University (NIU) Field experience Mini-geology courses at Universidad National Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM) Visit to CENAPRED (Mexican National Disaster Preparedness Organization) 2. Identification of misconceptions
Multicultural workshop Parent panels at NIU and in Mexico School visit Field experience Visit to CENAPRED Cultural events and museums
3. Pedagogical methodologies
Mini-pedagogy courses Literacy training Modeling of inquiry in the field Authentic research activities Requirement to produce teaching materials
4. Culturally relevant teaching materials
Field experience Providing each participant with camera Requirement to produce teaching materials Visit to CENAPRED
5. Leveraging cultural strengths
Parent panels at NIU and in Mexico School visit Providing access to NIU facilities
6. Mentorship
Field experience Team-building exercises in field Funding to present at conferences Providing access to NIU and UNAM scientists School visit
7. Active research
Field experience Providing access to NIU facilities Funding to present at conferences Visit to CENAPRED
8. Teacher leadership
Funding to present at conferences Team-building exercises in field Field experience Requirement to produce teaching materials
9. Identity formation
Identity workshop Field experience Providing access to NIU facilities Funding to present at conferences
minorities have avoided the STEM disciplines. In a review of this literature, Scantlebury and Baker (2008) pointed out that the major research themes have shifted over time. In the 1960s and 1970s, it was suggested that the achievement and/or interest gap might be due to girls and ethnic minorities being less cognitively capable in science. In the 1980s, feminist and multicultural studies promoted “different ways of knowing,” which unintentionally implied that the deficit model was correct, and that although girls and minorities were not as good at science, they should be allowed to participate regardless. Subsequent
studies in the late 1980s and the early 1990s disproved this deficit model, and the paradigm switched to examining possible environmental reasons why success or failure in science correlated with gender and ethnicity. Since the mid-1990s, most of the studies have focused on societal/cultural biases and expectations. Today, the paradigm assumes that it is the system that needs remediation and not the students, and the latest studies are bearing this out. For example, Hyde et al. (2008) showed that the mathematics achievement gap no longer exists between girls and boys.
Geological field experiences in Mexico
279
Figure 1. A time line of activities for track 1 cohort 1 (2006) and track 2 cohort 2 (2008).
In examining the science education literature of the last 20 years, several sociocultural, familial, and educational variables have been identified that may account for some of the gender and ethnic differences in science achievement and participation. These include: (1) presence of cultural stereotypes and expectations (Kahle and Meece, 1994; Farenga and Joyce, 1999; Aikenhead, 2008; Hanson, 2008), (2) negative teacher attitudes (Jones and Wheatley, 1990; Potter and Rosser, 1992; Guzzetti and Williams, 1996; Greenfield, 1997; Bianchini et al., 2000; Zacharia and Barton, 2004; Hanson, 2008; Koballa and Glynn, 2008), (3) a lack of opportunities to do science (Kahle and Lakes, 1983; Jones and Wheatley, 1990; Kahle and Meece, 1994; Catsambis, 1995; Greenfield, 1996; Jones et al., 2000; Hanson, 2008), (4) poor quality of science teaching (Siegel and Ranney, 2003; Zacharia and Barton, 2004; Aikenhead, 2008; Anderson, 2008; Hanson, 2008), (5) lack of cultural relevance (Baker and Leary, 1995; Catsambis, 1995; Weinburgh, 1995; Greenfield, 1996; Jones et al., 2000; Zacharia and Barton, 2004), (6) weak leveraging of cultural strengths (Smith and Hausafus, 1998; Simpson and Parsons, 2008; Fouad, 2008), (7) lack of role models (Seymour and Hewitt, 2000; NSF, 2003, 2007; Wallace and Haines, 2004; Gilmartin et al., 2007; Hanson, 2008), and (8) low levels of student self-efficacy or confidence in science (Markus and Nurius, 1986; Kahle and Meece, 1994; Furner and Duffy, 2002; Sadowski, 2003; Beghetto, 2007; Britner, 2008; Brotman and Moore, 2008; Zeldin et al., 2008). In the science education literature, the catchall heading of “poor quality of science teaching” includes teacher competency,
attitudes, skill, experience, and choice of preferred methodologies. However, we will limit the discussion to four main subheadings: (1) lack of teacher content knowledge, (2) low level of teacher confidence, (3) ineffective, boring, or androcentric methodologies, and (4) avoidance or ignorance of literacy or ESL techniques. In an unpublished study by NIU’s Office of Clinical Supervision, only ~15% of the science teachers teaching geoscience content in grades 6–12 in northern Illinois have a degree in geoscience. This is due in part to the way teachers are certified in Illinois. Secondary teachers (6–12) are required to have a degree in the discipline in which they teach, but this is not true for elementary certification holders (K–9) (ISBE, 2008). This overlap allows elementary certified teachers to teach middle school science without having any geoscience coursework on their transcripts. Unfortunately, this dearth of qualified geoscience teacher extends across the United States. The American Geological Institute (2009) reports that only 78% of high school geoscience teachers have a degree in geoscience. Additionally, in 2006, the total number of certified, practicing geoscience teachers was less than 15,000, in comparison to over 60,000 biology teachers. With 47 out of 50 states mandating geoscience be taught in middle school, the vast majority of students are being taught geoscience concepts by teachers that have a very limited geoscience content background. Therefore, it is critical to afford geology content and field experiences to these teachers because it may be their only opportunity to gain first-hand knowledge. In a review paper on science instruction, Aikenhead (2008) suggests that all “major failures” (i.e., loss of interested students
280
Kitts et al.
in science) are due to delivery being boring, of no relevance to the students, and socially sterile. Aikenhead also points out that teachers must refrain from talking about science and rather have their students actively engage in doing science via hands-on and inquiry activities. Note that in this program, we define inquiry in the strictest sense. Inquiry must be student-centered, meaning that the students must ask the question, formulate the method, and develop an interpretation. The teacher may only facilitate or ask guiding questions. Details of this type of inquiry may be found in Llewellyn (2004) and is also known as open inquiry in Bell et al. (2005). Many other studies have also found that inquiry-based activities are especially effective for the nontraditional science student. Keys and Bryan (2001) and Lee et al. (2006) showed that students from non-mainstream and less privileged backgrounds in science showed greater gains in science content and skill than their more privileged counterparts when placed in inquiry-based classrooms. Akerson and Hanuscin (2007) assessed the influence on elementary teachers’ views of nature of science during a three year professional development program that emphasized scientific inquiry and inquiry-based instruction. The study showed that the teachers became more effective as measured by an analysis of student interest and retention. As a final example, Capobianco (2007) in a study examining the experiences of teachers attempting to incorporate more female- and minority-friendly methodologies in their instruction, including the use of inquiry, also showed improvements in student interest and retention. A factor of special importance to a predominantly Hispanic school population is the inclusion of literacy and/or ESL techniques in regular science instruction. As Roberts (2008) points out, the term “science literacy” means different things to different audiences. Roberts differentiates science literacy into three types. Specifically, there is cultural scientific literacy, consisting of background knowledge that allows for basic communication; functional scientific literacy, where an individual can converse, read, and write in nonscientific but meaningful ways; and finally, true scientific literacy, where the individual not only can communicate but understands the intricacies and subtleties associated with the nature of science. We define literacy here by the broadest context, including all three levels, as some ESL students are gifted in science but are barely functional in English initially. As discussed previously, Latino high school students tend to have lower reading and math skills and take fewer college preparatory classes. This is due in part to limited English proficiency, which must be addressed in science as well as language arts courses in order to prevent Latino students from being diverted off the science and math track. However, there is an additional constraint on middle school teachers. In response to educational initiatives such as No Child Left Behind legislation, middle schools across the nation have been transforming their reading programs (e.g., Doda and Thompson, 2002) to require all teachers to incorporate effective reading strategies into their content areas. Unfortunately, many teachers outside the language arts arena do not know which reading strategies are particularly effec-
tive, having never received such training. Therefore, professional development becomes a key factor. Research shows (Atwell, 1998; Caskey, 2005) that incorporation of literacy instruction and assessment into science instruction directly is highly beneficial for promoting academic achievement at all levels and in all students. As described in the model section, we concentrated our efforts on teachers because by helping a few teachers, they in turn help many Hispanic students over the course of many years. However, in order to broaden the impact of these interventions, we also recognized the importance of teachers as leaders. Crowther (2008) proposed a new paradigm for the teaching profession by relying on, promoting, and empowering teachers as leaders in order to enhance the possibility of social reform. They cite numerous failed top-down initiatives and propose that change can only happen if the initiative comes from the grassroots. They define a teacher leader as someone who strives to improve relationships with peers, students, and the broader community; strives for authenticity in their teaching, learning, and assessment; facilitates learning communities by participating in and taking charge of professional development; counters barriers in the school’s culture and structure by advocating for all children but especially for the marginalized or disadvantaged; and finally translates ideas into a sustainable system of action by nurturing a culture of success. The Crowther definition for a teacher leader has special implications for science teachers. In order to be authentic, they cannot simply talk about scientific research but must also engage in it, and they must share that new knowledge with others. Roth (2008) listed many advantages of having teachers do research, such as positive identity development, higher confidence and competency levels, new knowledge production, peermentorship, collaboration, and access to materials and instrumentation for both themselves and their students. However, Roth also points out that there is still some mistrust between practicing teachers and academic researchers. This mistrust can be greatly reduced when teachers become leaders and participate actively in the research themselves. Specifically, Roth cites studies showing that institutional changes are often more readily accepted, fully implemented, and thereby deemed more successful when initiated by peers. FIELD EXPERIENCE EVALUATION Quantitative and Qualitative Efficacy Studies We measured the efficacy of the field experience and associated activities quantitatively by (1) pre- and post-tests designed to assess both the affective domain changes in educators (i.e., confidence levels, preconceptions, and biases) and content knowledge, (2) observations by NIU staff members of participants in their home institutions over the course of a year, (3) evaluations of field books and pedagogical materials produced by the teachers during and after the field experience, and (4) a 75-item teach-
Geological field experiences in Mexico ing styles inventory. Additionally, effectiveness was measured by reviewing (1) still and video footage of all activities; (2) participant journal entries in field books; (3) participants’ rankings of usefulness and interest of each activity; and, finally, (4) participant surveys and self-evaluations conducted just before, directly after, and one year after the experience. The quantitative affective domain instruments were developed in partnership with the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and NIU and funded in part by an NSF GeoEd collaborative grant. These instruments were composed of pre- and post-tests that asked 7–15 questions per topic using a Likert scale of 1–5 and a participant free-hand production of a concept map on the inquiry method. The concept maps were evaluated on total number of entries (nodes), depth, number of entries at each depth, number of crosslinkages, numbers of labeled cross-linkages, and accuracy based on the scoring methods of Yin et al. (2005) and Safayeni et al. (2005). Since our initial instrument design, Derbentseva et al. (2007) have shown that printing the guiding question on the concept map page itself increases dynamic thinking. Figures 2 and 3 show typical pre-experience and postexperience concept maps on inquiry. Note that the concept map was given to the partici-
281
pants before the inquiry pre- and postattitudinal survey to prevent cross-contamination. The attitudinal surveys explored the participants’ views pre-experience and postexperience on the following: (1) definition of science; (2) attitudes toward learning science; (3) attitudes toward teaching science; (4) attitudes toward the current and previous professional development activities (two instruments combined in Table 2); (5) confidence in teaching science; (6) myths associated with the inquiry method; and (7) attitudes toward nontraditional students. The responses were evaluated using a statistical t-test, where significant and highly significant values were defined by p = 0.05 and p = 0.01, respectively, on the null hypothesis. The results of these attitudinal and confidence instruments appear in Table 2. The implications are reviewed in the discussion section. RESULTS The purpose of the efficacy studies was to determine whether the nine integrated strategies were indeed successful in helping the participants to reach and support their Hispanic students. Thus, we will present all the evaluation results together
Figure 2. A pre-experience participant free-hand inquiry concept map.
282
Kitts et al.
Figure 3. A postexperience participant free-hand inquiry concept map.
Geological field experiences in Mexico
283
TABLE 2. STUDENT t-TEST ANALYSIS OF SEVEN INSTRUMENTS EVALUATING CHANGE IN ATTITUDES AND CONFIDENCE IN PARTICIPANTS Instrument Number of Number of Pre-experience Postexperience t-test Level of questions participants mean and mean and p value significance variance variance Definition of science 7 • Middle school 6 4.29 ± 0.22 4.46 ± 0.25 0.21 None • High school 4 4.71 ± 0.18 4.21 ± 0.43 0.05 Significant • All 10 4.37 ± 0.22 4.39 ± 0.16 0.48 None Attitudes on learning science 7 • Middle school 6 4.69 ± 0.12 4.71 ± 0.05 0.44 None • High school 4 4.61 ± 0.37 4.82 ± 0.14 0.22 None • All 10 4.66 ± 0.20 4.73 ± 0.07 0.36 None Attitudes on science 5 • Middle school 0.09 None 6 4.37 ± 0.31 4.77 ± 0.08 • High school 4 4.70 ± 0.29 4.80 ± 0.04 0.36 None • All 10 4.58 ± 0.31 4.78 ± 0.05 0.24 None Attitudes on professional development 27 • Middle school 6 3.86 ± 0.57 3.91 ± 0.41 0.40 None • High school 4 4.02 ± 0.88 4.14 ± 0.67 0.31 None • All 10 3.92 ± 0.62 4.00 ± 0.42 0.35 None Confidence in teaching science 10 • Middle school 6 4.21 ± 0.09 4.42 ± 0.06 0.05 Significant • High school 4 4.45 ± 0.05 4.65 ± 0.06 0.04 Significant • All 10 4.32 ± 0.05 4.50 ± 0.04 0.04 Significant Attitudes on inquiry 10 • Middle school 6 1.80 ± 0.11 1.79 ± 0.32 0.49 None • High school 4 1.95 ± 0.39 1.65 ± 0.39 0.17 None • All 10 1.78 ± 0.11 1.66 ± 0.22 0.25 None Attitudes on nontraditional students 14 0.04 Significant • Middle school 6 2.72 ± 0.71 2.21 ± 0.33 • High school 4 2.36 ± 0.16 1.95 ± 0.42 0.03 Significant 10 2.57 ± 0.37 2.11 ± 0.27 0.02 Significant • All
under each of the nine headings identified and described in the introduction. Implications of these data and observations will be discussed in the following section. Note that in all cases, n = 10. All ten original teachers continued to participate throughout the entire project. 1. Developing Teacher Content Knowledge and Confidence As described previously, in Illinois, secondary teachers are required to have a degree in the subject matter in which they teach but this is not true for elementary certification holders. This quirk allows elementary certified teachers to teach middle school science without having any upper-level science courses. Scores on the content instrument went up only slightly for the high school teachers but there was a highly significant change with the middle school teachers not possessing a degree in science. Sample content questions included the topics of geologic hazard evaluation, pyroclastic flows, earthquake mechanics and igneous rock formation. The pre- and postexperience attitudinal tests assessing confidence levels in teaching science showed a corresponding statistically significant increase by the middle and high school participants. The attitude assessment surveyed the teachers’ opinions on the definition of science, on science in general, on learning science, on their confidence in teaching science, and on their confidence in translating their previous and current workshop experiences into positive improvements in their own classroom.
Here are some typical statements from the surveys. “I like learning about the Earth and how it works.” “Science classes I have taken previously were boring.” “Science makes me feel uncomfortable, restless, irritable, or impatient.” “Geologic discoveries made today are important for the future.” “People with poor social skills tend to become scientists.” “Science is useful for the problems of everyday life.” “Scientific beliefs remain stable over time.” “I am confident that I can teach science skills.” “I am confident that I can assist learners who are having difficulties mastering science.” “I think that I will be able to use what I learn in this workshop in my courses.” “I believe that I will do well in this workshop.” “During previous workshops, I was always trying to see ways of how the workshop material could be adapted for use in my classroom.” Additionally, all participants showed a significant increase in the number, quality, and correct usage of geological terms in their field books over the course of the experience. The quality of their observations also improved as measured by number of correct geological terms and separation of observation from interpretation. More importantly, the middle school teachers established relationships with the high school teachers and NIU and UNAM faculty. They are now actively seeking help as they teach geoscience concepts in which they have no official training beyond this experience, as measured by e-mail activity from 2006 to present, additional teaching materials produced, and the presentations at local, regional, and national conferences by nine of the ten participants.
284
Kitts et al.
In the application for the field experience, candidates were asked to describe why they wanted to participate in the program. All of the applicants stated that they were searching for proven ways to engage and inspire their Hispanic students because they found their current methodologies lacking. After attendance in the program, the participants unanimously selfreported that they felt that they were more “positive” and “prepared” when they started the school year and that this translated directly to student behavior and expectation. All the teachers were observed to have excellent rapport with their students. As the teachers were not observed prior to participation in the program, we cannot independently verify the teachers’ assertions that they developed a superior relationship with their Hispanic students as a result of this program. 2. Misconceptions about Nontraditional Students The field experience began with a multicultural workshop that included a panel discussion with Hispanic parents of middle and high school students. This functioned both as a starting point for an open and honest dialog on diversity and to provide tools for developing connections between the teachers and their students. By their own admission in their field books and in subsequent interviews, the teachers were more willing to honestly respond to the questions in the pre- and post-tests evaluating attitudes toward nontraditional science students because this introduction raised their comfort level. Despite the development of a “safe” environment for discussions, with only ten participants, we were not confident that we would be able to see a difference in the pre- and post-tests. However, this was not the case. We found significant changes in preand postexperience attitudinal responses to statements such as: “My nontraditional science students do not value science”; “My nontraditional science students do not have the math ability to go on in science”; and “In comparison to my traditional science students, my nontraditional ones are less motivated and refuse to do their homework.” In the survey that occurred one year after the experience (2007–2008 school year), eight of the ten participants spontaneously observed that they had underestimated their Hispanic students’ abilities and desire to do well in class. 3. Changes in Type and Frequency of Pedagogical Methodologies Employed As described already, we define inquiry in the strictest sense. Inquiry must be student-centered, meaning that the students must ask the question, formulate the method, and develop an interpretation. Despite not suffering from many myths associated with inquiry as shown in Table 2 (lower numbers means higher disagreement with the myths), the participants were hard-pressed to free-hand much information on inquiry on the pre-intervention concept map (Fig. 2), suggesting a cursory rather than practiced knowledge of the inquiry method (Fig. 3). We modeled the inquiry method first in the field in Mexico and then required the teachers to produce their own standardsbased, inquiry lessons plans. To illustrate, the teachers were
escorted to two maars in central Mexico. They were encouraged to make observations and develop a scientific question. The question the teachers agreed upon was, “How did this structure form?” The teachers worked in pairs, took data, developed hypotheses at the first site, and tested them against the second site, examining the predictability of their models. The five teacher pairs presented their findings to each other and came to the conclusion that these structures were maars that were formed when a volcanic vent erupted under or near a lake bed (i.e., the “correct” answer). After the teachers produced their own inquiry-based lessons plans, the plans were peer-reviewed, posted on the companion Web site, and classroom tested the following year. Nine of the ten teachers presented their lesson plans at local, regional, or national conferences. Additionally, during the 2006–2007 and 2007–2008 school years, six of the participants served as cooperating teachers for student teachers placed by NIU. All these student teachers (total of nine) were trained to use inquiry and made use of the materials produced during the experience. Six of these student teachers presented their own modified versions of these teaching materials at the 2007 and 2008 National Conventions of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). Although the participants showed positive change in the frequency of use and quality of their inquiry-based lesson plans, they did not succeed at implementing any science literacy methodologies. During the pedagogy mini-course, participants were given several reading strategies to incorporate into their lesson plans. Despite an average score of 4.4 out of 5 on the estimated usefulness of these strategies, not a single teacher incorporated any of the reading strategies into their lessons plans. When asked why not, they responded almost unanimously that they had “forgotten.” Therefore, as with the production of the inquiry-based lesson plans, the teachers need explicit support in order to fully integrate these strategies into their everyday teaching repertoire. 4. Change in Usage of Culturally Relevant Examples and Activities No participants identified themselves as using any Central or South American geologic examples in their teaching. Instead, they used the standard examples in the textbooks (i.e., Mt. St. Helens and Hawaii). They were also uniformly unaware of online materials such as those produced by CENAPRED, which have entire educational units dedicated to disaster preparedness in Spanish. All of the participants and their nine student teachers are now using their lesson plans, photos, virtual field trips, and artifacts gained during the field experience to teach geological concepts in their classrooms. As a result, all of the participants self-observed that their Hispanic students were more interested in lessons that included these culturally relevant materials than those that did not. One participant designed and ran an action research project testing specifically whether her observations stood up to scientific scrutiny. She used examples from her field experience in two sections and her standard materials in two other sections
Geological field experiences in Mexico and compared the results of interest surveys and unit test scores. Her data showed that the interest level increased and test results were improved by statistically significant amounts. She presented these data at the 2008 NSTA National Convention. 5. Change in Leverage of Cultural Strengths: Sense of Community and Parental Involvement Before the trip to Mexico, the teachers participated in a panel discussion with a group of both legal and illegal immigrant parents. All ten participants recorded in their field books how impressed and surprised they were at the interest level expressed by the parents in their children’s education. Later, in another meeting with parents at the San Martin School outside of Puebla (recorded via videotape), the teachers reiterated their surprise by asking whether this sort of parental involvement is typical or if the San Martin parents were particularly active. The San Martin parents were confused by the question asking in turn whether the implication was that American parents did not support their children’s education. Nine of the participants now regularly invite their Hispanic parents to participate in their classroom activities. Six of the participants explicitly attribute this to either the parent panel at NIU or the San Martin School visit in their field books or surveys. 6. Change in Access or Use of Mentoring Relationships In the pre-experience surveys, no participants identified themselves as knowing any Hispanic scientists. After the experience, all ten participants have extensive contact information for the Hispanic geoscientists who participated in the experience. To date, six of the ten participants have had Hispanic scientists visit their classrooms, and all have had their students enter into e-mail correspondence with Hispanic scientists or science students in the San Martin School. Additionally, as described already, the middle school teachers now have professional mentors for geology and pedagogy here at NIU and at UNAM. As this project has been funded for an additional five years, we are beginning to track how these mentoring relationships affect Hispanic students’ participation in geoscience. 7. Change in Active Participation in Pedagogical or Scientific Research Due to a moratorium on field trips in all but one of the participating school districts, there is currently only one teacher using the analytical equipment at NIU. However, four teachers are involved in a separate National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) project directed toward determining the origins of the valley networks on Mars (Kitts et al., 2008). Specifically, the teachers and students are analyzing real NASA data in order to answer the question, “Did it ever rain on Mars?” The entire project is online and requires only computer access with an Internet connection on the part of the project schools. To date, two Hispanic students have presented science fair projects on their work. Four teachers have participated in small-scale action research projects (like the one described in number four), and
285
three have already presented their results. Although the action research projects are small in scale, they all show positive changes in student performance. More importantly, as described more thoroughly in section nine, the teachers now self-identify as researchers and have passed this on to their students. 8. Change in Teacher Leadership Activities Part of teacher leadership is a willingness to present materials at conferences and act as a mentor for other educators. Of the ten participants, only two had ever attended a regional or national science teacher conference and only one had ever presented. To date, seven have presented at local conferences, nine at regional conferences, and seven at national conferences. Additionally, because of their willingness to take on preservice teachers, our participants have hosted a total of 18 clinical students and student teachers. These preservice teachers were subsequently introduced and given copies of all the materials produced during the program. These students have become a de facto cohort 1.5. As mentioned previously, six of these students participated in the National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA) share-athons at the two most recent national NSTA conventions. 9. Change in Self-Perceived Identity in Teacher Participants or Students At the beginning of the experience, only three of the participants raised their hand when asked if they were scientists. After the experience, all raised their hands. When asked to describe a geoscientist, the participants described Dr. Kitts or Dr. Perry, who were both standing in the room at the time. After the field experience, four participants described faculty members from UNAM and six described themselves. During observations in the participants’ home institutions, all the teachers referred to themselves as scientists on numerous occasions, and their students self-identified as scientists during the inquiry activities, having received encouragement by their teachers. However, very few students continued to self-identify as scientists by the end of the year. As with the literacy component, both teachers and students need more extensive and explicit activities to help expand their senses of self. In the survey conducted one year later (2007–2008), all the teachers who participated in leadership activities referred to themselves as researchers. During the 2008 NSTA convention, six of the teachers felt that presenting at a national conference raised the legitimacy of their work. One participant stated, “Researchers go to conferences and present. Teachers don’t.” The other five teachers agreed. The implication is that many science teachers do not view themselves as researchers. This self-perception needs to be challenged, or it may well be transferred in a negative way to the students. DISCUSSION One of the goals of this volume is to document the critical importance of providing field experiences for geoscience
286
Kitts et al.
students in general. However, this modified field experience is of even more benefit for teachers serving large Hispanic populations for two reasons: (1) direct exposure to the geology of Mexico, which provides authentic, relevant examples, and (2) total immersion in both the Mexican culture and the culture of scientific research for the teachers themselves. Teachers cannot model what they themselves have never experienced. According to pedagogical research on foreign-language instruction (e.g., Senior, 1998), the best way to dispel misconceptions and encourage cultural understanding and appreciation is to provide total immersion opportunities such as these types of field experiences. As multicultural educational theory (Baker and Leary, 1995; Catsambis, 1995; Weinburgh, 1995; Greenfield, 1996; Jones et al., 2000; Zacharia and Barton, 2004; Banks and Banks, 2004) and these efficacy studies demonstrate, culturally relevant examples increase both student interest and retention. According to Chiappetta and Koballa (2002), a modern multicultural science classroom should integrate content, promote cultural harmony, counter racism, and be sensitive to gender identity. Content integration is defined as using examples and content from a variety of cultures and groups to illustrate key concepts, principles, and theories in science. However, as Baptiste and Key (1996) warned, not all content integration is of equal quality. The simple recognition of an African American scientist on a bulletin board during Black History Month is not the same as integrating diverse cultures and people directly into the curriculum. For example, showing a picture of Mt. Popocatépetl may interest students who have seen it for themselves, but this is not as effective as evaluating national disaster hazards by integrating a live monitoring feed of the volcano into the curriculum. Without the day spent at CENAPRED, the teachers would not have made the necessary connections to enable the development of these classroom activities. Constructivist education theory proposes that all learning takes place in a cultural context, and, therefore, just as students must learn the “culture” of the science classroom, teachers must learn the culture of their students to facilitate communication between the two worlds (e.g., Chiappetta and Koballa, 2002). This also extends between the culture of the classroom and the culture of the research science laboratory. Examining the first case, almost all modern textbooks have eliminated overt stereotyping, but studies have shown that many teachers themselves inadvertently reinforce the very stereotypes excised from the texts (Jones and Wheatley, 1990; Potter and Rosser, 1992; Guzzetti and Williams, 1996; Greenfield, 1997; Bianchini et al., 2000; Zacharia and Barton, 2004; Hanson, 2008; Koballa and Glynn, 2008). Additionally, educational materials still contain some subtle inaccuracies. For example, because of safety issues, nearly all pictures of scientists show them wearing goggles and a white coat. This is not standard field gear and unintentionally reinforces the mad scientist stereotype. Returning to the first point, educators need safe opportunities to examine and challenge their belief system. The multicul-
tural workshop, parent panels, and school visits in both Mexico and the United States functioned as a starting point for an open and honest dialog on diversity and also provided tools for developing connections between the teachers and their students. With their comfort level raised, the teachers were more willing to honestly evaluate their attitudes toward nontraditional science students. Changes cannot be made unless and until a need for change is recognized. As an illustration, one participant complained that it was inappropriate for the geology professors to argue in front of the teachers. When asked to identify the argument on tape, the participant pointed to a conversation between two female Mexican hydrologists, an American female geochemist, and a male German-born UNAM geologist. When questioned, none of the scientists remembered an argument. Instead, the participant had misinterpreted the entire situation. She had assumed there was an argument based solely on the rapid speech and arm waving of the two Latina hydrologists. The participant later confided in a survey that she had been misinterpreting the side conversations of many of her Latina students and decided it was time for her “to learn to really speak Spanish.” In the second case, where teachers must learn the culture of the research scientist, the teachers come to understand that most scientists conduct their research via the inquiry method. As described previously, Llewellyn (2004) defined inquiry as the posing of a question inspired by observation, development of a method of investigation, and the interpretation of the resultant data. Despite the fact that national science standards (NSTA, 2008) mandate the use of the inquiry method, most science teachers begin their career with only an undergraduate degree and have never experienced a science classroom that makes use of inquiry methods or conducted actual scientific research (Keys and Bryan, 2001). Consequently, there is a need to expose these teachers to such methods and afford them the space, the materials, and opportunity to incorporate such techniques into their own teaching. Therefore, time spent doing research with Mexican scientists serves to provide actual scientific research experiences and to educate and to dispel any misconceptions the teachers may have about who geoscientists really are and what they do. The reverse is also true. Geoscientists must be challenged to analyze and evaluate their own attitudes and misconceptions about the secondary science classroom. In understanding the realities of teaching middle and high students, it becomes clear that without addressing ESL and adolescent identity issues, geoscience content simply gets lost in translation. Identity formation is the fundamental developmental task of adolescence (Sadowski, 2003), and it requires adolescents to integrate information on how others see them and how they see themselves. In turn, this filters what the adolescents believe they can become. Members of U.S. ethnic minority groups are particularly challenged in their identity formation because of cultural stereotypes about their competence, the lack of institutional supports, and scarce employment opportunities (Board
Geological field experiences in Mexico on Children, Youth, and Families, 2002; Hanson, 2008). When students have clear ideas about who they want to become, they are more willing to put forth the effort needed to attain their goals. At minimum, in order for minority youth to explore and consider science as a career, they need to identify with scientists and envision the possibility of themselves as scientists (Huntoon and Lane, 2007). For example, Kozoll and Osborne (2004) found that expanding the worldview of the children of migrant agricultural workers is of critical importance in keeping them in school and providing relevancy between their lives and science. Along similar lines, Carlone and Johnson (2007, p. 1187) developed a model of science identity to make sense of the science experiences of 15 successful women of color over the course of their undergraduate and graduate studies in science and into sciencerelated careers. They showed that “science identity accounts both for how women make meaning of science experiences and how society structures possible meanings.” A lack of mentorship may have an additional effect. Frome et al. (2006) found the most significant predictor for a young woman to change her career plans was a desire for a job that would allow the flexibility to have a family. In addition, they found that encouraging women to take classes in math and science was not sufficient. Role models who could demonstrate a successful balance between career and family were a requirement. Thus, the development of a mentoring system made possible by programs such as this becomes even more important. The take-home message is clear. Field experiences are vital to quality geoscience education, but they have special relevance to teachers serving large populations of Hispanic students. Teachers have the access and ability to encourage Hispanic participation and enrollment in the geosciences and ultimately enhance diversity within the discipline. The geoscience community can aid these teachers and make the field experience even more beneficial for reaching and supporting these nontraditional geoscience students by making simple adjustments to their field experience model. These modifications should include: providing a safe environment and strategies to examine and challenge any misconceptions or biases; modeling and providing time to develop and practice highly effective inquiry and literacy methodologies; aiding in obtaining and developing culturally relevant materials; encouraging and providing access to mentors and other individuals in the greater community; supporting teacher leadership activities; and promoting healthy identity formation in both the teachers and their students. FUTURE WORK: TRACK 2 It is our hope that the expanded workshops, additional local field experiences, a mandatory action research project, continued travel support to conferences, and a follow-up summer course on adolescent identity development and science literacy will leverage the successes of the track 1 project model and ameliorate the two weakness identified here. Specifically,
287
in support of our overarching objective of increasing the participation of Hispanic students in the geosciences, we will provide the opportunity and resources to (1) help the teachers develop and incorporate a literacy plan into their science teaching, and (2) encourage and bolster a sense of competency, skill, and selfautonomy in geoscience among the teachers and their students. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the teacher participants for their hard work. We thank the geology staff at UNAM, the staff at CENAPRED, and the teachers at San Martin School for allowing us to visit their institutions and for being such wonderful hosts. This research is supported by a National Science Foundation (NSF) Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences grant (0503386). REFERENCES CITED Aikenhead, G.S., 2008, Humanistic perspectives in the science curriculum, in Abell, S.K., and Lederman, N.G., eds., Handbook of Research on Science Education: New York, Routledge Press, p. 881–910. Akerson, V.L., and Hanuscin, D.L., 2007, Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 44, p. 653–680, doi: 10.1002/tea.20159. American Geological Institute, 2009, Status of the Geoscience Workforce 2009: Alexandria, Virginia, 136 p. Anderson, R.D., 2008, Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula, in Abell, S.K., and Lederman, N.G., eds., Handbook of Research on Science Education: New York, Routledge Press, p. 807–830. Atwell, N., 1998, In the Middle: New Understandings about Writing, Reading, and Learning (2nd ed.): Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Heinemann, 560 p. Baker, D., and Leary, R., 1995, Letting girls speak out about science: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 32, p. 3–27, doi: 10.1002/ tea.3660320104. Banks, J.A., and Banks, C.A., eds., 2004, Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (2nd ed.): San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Imprint, 1089 p. Baptiste, H., and Key, S., 1996, Cultural inclusion: Where does your program stand?: Science Teacher (Normal, Illinois), v. 63, no. 2, p. 32–35. Beghetto, R.A., 2007, Factors associated with middle and secondary students’ perceived science competence: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 44, p. 800–814, doi: 10.1002/tea.20166. Bell, R.L., Smetana, L., and Binns, I., 2005, Simplifying inquiry instruction: Science Teacher (Normal, Illinois), v. 72, no. 7, p. 30–33. Bianchini, J.A., Cavazos, L.M., and Helms, J.V., 2000, From professional lives to inclusive practice: Science teachers and scientists’ views of gender and ethnicity in science education: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 37, p. 511–547, doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<511 ::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-3. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, 2002, Community Programs to Promote Youth Development: Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 432 p. Britner, S.L., 2008, Motivation in high school science students: A comparison of gender differences in life, physical, and earth science classes: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 45, p. 955–970, doi: 10.1002/ tea.20249. Brotman, J.S., and Moore, F.M., 2008, Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 45, p. 971–1002, doi: 10.1002/tea.20241. Capobianco, B.M., 2007, Science teachers’ attempts at integrating feminist pedagogy through collaborative action research: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 44, p. 1–32, doi: 10.1002/tea.20120. Carlone, H.B., and Johnson, A., 2007, Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 44, p. 1187–1218, doi: 10.1002/ tea.20237.
288
Kitts et al.
Caskey, M.M., ed., 2005, Making a Difference: Action Research in Middle Level Education: Volume 5. The Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education Series: Greenwich, Connecticut, Information Age Publishing, 318 p. Catsambis, S., 1995, Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 32, p. 243–257, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660320305. Chiappetta, E., and Koballa, T., 2002, Science Instruction in the Middle and Secondary School: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Merrill Prentice Hall, 337 p. Crowther, F., 2008, Introduction, in Crowther, F., Ferguson, M., and Hann, L., eds., Developing Teacher Leaders: How Teacher Leadership Enhances School Success: New York, Corwin Press, p. 216. Derbentseva, N., Safayeni, F., and Cañas, A.J., 2007, Concept maps: Experiments on dynamic thinking: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 44, p. 448–465, doi: 10.1002/tea.20153. Doda, N.M., and Thompson, S.C., 2002, Transforming Ourselves, Transforming Schools: Middle School Change: Westerville, Ohio, National Middle School Association, 364 p. Farenga, S.J., and Joyce, B.A., 1999, Intentions of young students to enroll in science courses in the future: An examination of gender differences: Science Education, v. 83, p. 55–75, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098 -237X(199901)83:1<55::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-O. Fouad, N., 2008, Tracking the reasons many girls avoid science and math: ScienceDaily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080905153807.htm (accessed 8 September 2008). Frome, P.M., Alfed, C.J., Eccles, J.S., and Barber, B.L., 2006, Why don’t they want a male-dominated job? An investigation of young women who changed their occupational aspirations: Educational Research and Evaluation, v. 12, p. 359–372, doi: 10.1080/13803610600765786. Furner, J.M., and Duffy, M.L., 2002, Equality for all students in the new millennium: Disabling math anxiety: Intervention in School and Clinic, v. 38, p. 67–74, doi: 10.1177/10534512020380020101. Garcia, P., 2004, Understanding obstacles and barriers to Hispanic baccalaureates: Inter-University Program for Latino Research: www.nd.edu/~iuplr/ research/publications.html (accessed 18 August 2009). Gilmartin, S., Denson, N., Li, E., Bryant, A., and Schbacher, P., 2007, Gender ratios in high school science departments: The effect of percent female faculty on multiple dimensions of students’ science identities: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 44, p. 980–1009, doi: 10.1002/tea.20179. Gonzalez, K., Stone, C., and Jovel, J., 2003, Examining the role of social capital in access to college for Latinas: Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, v. 2, no. 2, p. 146–170, doi: 10.1177/1538192702250620. Greene, J., and Foster, G., 2003, Public High School Graduation and College Readiness in the United States: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research Education Working Paper 3: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ ewp_03.htm (accessed 18 August 2009). Greenfield, T.A., 1996, Gender, ethnicity, science achievement, and attitudes: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 33, p. 901–933, doi: 10.1002/ (SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:8<901::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-#. Greenfield, T.A., 1997, Gender- and grade-level differences in science interest and participation: Science Education, v. 81, p. 259–267, doi: 10.1002/ (SICI)1098-237X(199706)81:3<259::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-C. Guzzetti, B.J., and Williams, W.O., 1996, Gender, text, and discussion: Examining intellectual safety in the science classroom: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 33, p. 5–20, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098 -2736(199601)33:1<5::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-Z. Hanson, S.L., 2008, Swimming against the Tide: Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 224 p. Huntoon, J.E., and Lane, M.J., 2007, Diversity in the geosciences and successful strategies for increasing diversity: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, p. 447–457. Hyde, J.S., Lindberg, S.M., Linn, M.C., Ellis, A.B., and Williams, C.C., 2008, Gender similarities characterize math performance: Science, v. 321, p. 494–495, doi: 10.1126/science.1160364. Illinois State Board of Education, 2008, Requirements for Science Teacher Certification: http://www.isbe.state.il.us/certification/Default.htm (accessed 18 August 2009). Jones, G., and Wheatley, J., 1990, Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in science classrooms: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 27, p. 861–874, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660270906.
Jones, G., Howe, A., and Rua, M., 2000, Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists: Science Education, v. 84, p. 180–192, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X (200003)84:2<180::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-X. Kahle, J.B., and Lakes, M.K., 1983, The myth of equality in science classrooms: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 20, p. 131–140, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660200205. Kahle, J.B., and Meece, J., 1994, Research on gender issues in the classroom, in Gable, D., ed., Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning: New York, Macmillan, p. 542–557. Keys, C.W., and Bryan, L.A., 2001, Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 38, p. 631–645, doi: 10.1002/tea.1023. Kitts, K., 2005, Enhancing Diversity Track 1: Intensive Field Experience in Northern Illinois and Central Mexico for Junior and Senior High School Teachers Serving Large Hispanic Populations: National Science Foundation (NSF) Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences Grant Application: http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/earlycareer/ research/NSFgrants.html (accessed 18 August 2009). Kitts, K., Luo, W., and Hung, W.-C., 2008, Did it ever rain on Mars? A professional development opportunity for teachers and an actual NASA research opportunity for middle and high school students: The Earth Scientist, v. 27, no. 2, p. 17–20. Koballa, R.T., Jr., and Glynn, S.M., 2008, Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning, in Abell, S.K., and Lederman, N.G., eds., Handbook of Research on Science Education: New York, Routledge Press, p. 75–102. Kozoll, R.H., and Osborne, M.D., 2004, Finding Meaning in Science: Lifeworld, Identity, and Self: Science Education, v. 88, p. 157–181. Lee, O., Buxton, C., Lewis, S., and LeRoy, K., 2006, Science inquiry and student diversity: Enhanced abilities and continuing difficulties after an instructional intervention: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 43, p. 607–636, doi: 10.1002/tea.20141. Llewellyn, D., 2004, Teaching High School Science through Inquiry: A Case Study Approach: St. John Fisher College: Rochester, New York, Corwin Press, 232 p. Lynch, S., Atwater, M., Cawley, J., Exxles, J., Lee, O., Marrett, C., RojasMedlin, D., Secada, W., Stefanich, G., and Willetto, A., 1996, An Equity Blueprint for Project 2061, 2nd Draft: Washington, D.C., American Association for the Advancement of Science, 282 p. Markus, H.R., and Nurius, P., 1986, Possible selves: The American Psychologist, v. 41, p. 954–969, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954. National Center for Educational Statistics, 1999, The Conditions of Education: Washington, D.C., National Center for Educational Statistics. National Science Foundation, 2003, New Formulas for America’s Workforce: Girls in Science and Engineering: National Science Foundation Publication NSF03207: http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/ (accessed 18 August 2009), 260 p. National Science Foundation, 2007, New Formulas for America’s Workforce: Girls in Science and Engineering 2: National Science Foundation Publication NSF07660: http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/ (accessed 18 August 2009), 87 p. National Science Teachers Association, 2008, Science Teaching Standards: http://www.nsta.org/publications/nses.aspx (accessed 18 August 2009). Pew Research Center, 2008, Immigration to Play Lead Role in Future U.S. Growth; U.S. Population Projections: 2005–2050: http://pewresearch.org/ pubs/729/united-states-population-projections (accessed 18 August 2009). Potter, E.F., and Rosser, S.V., 1992, Factors in life science textbooks that may deter girls’ interest in science: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 29, p. 669–686, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660290705. Roberts, D.A., 2008, Scientific literacy/science literacy, in Abell, S.K., and Lederman, N.G., eds., Handbook of Research on Science Education: New York, Routledge Press, p. 729–780. Roth, K.J., 2008, Science teachers as researchers, in Abell, S.K., and Lederman, N.G., eds., Handbook of Research on Science Education: New York, Routledge Press, p. 1205–1259. Sadowski, M., 2003, Adolescents at School: Perspectives on Youth, Identity, and Education: Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 200 p. Safayeni, F., Derbentseva, N., and Cañas, A.J., 2005, A theoretical note on concepts and the need for cyclic concept maps: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 42, p. 741–766, doi: 10.1002/tea.20074.
Geological field experiences in Mexico Sassen, S., 1991, The Global City: New York, Princeton University Press, 478 p. Sassen, S., 1994, Cities in a World Economy: Thousand Oaks, California, Pine Forge/Sage, 247 p. Scantlebury, K., and Baker, D., 2008, Gender issues in science education research: Remembering where the difference lies, in Abell, S.K., and Lederman, N.G., eds., Handbook of Research on Science Education: New York, Routledge Press, p. 257–285. Schmidt, P., 2003, Academe’s Hispanic future: The Chronicle of Higher Education, v. 50, p. A8–A12. Senior, D., 1998, Beyond learning Italian: Total immersion for cultural diversity: Italica: Linguistics and Pedagogy, v. 75, no. 4, p. 517–531. Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N.M., 2000, Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences: Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press, 444 p. Siegel, M.A., and Ranney, M.A., 2003, Developing the “Changes in Attitude about the Relevance of Science (CARS) Questionnaire” and assessing two high school science classes: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 40, p. 757–775, doi: 10.1002/tea.10110. Simpson, J.A., and Parsons, E.C., 2008, African American perspectives and informal science educational experiences: Science Education, v. 93, p. 293–321, doi: 10.1002/sce.20300. Smith, F.M., and Hausafus, C.O., 1998, Relationship of family support and ethnic minority students’ achievement in science and mathematics: Science Education, v. 82, p. 111–125.
289
Wallace, J.E., and Haines, V.A., 2004, The benefits of mentoring for engineering students: Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, v. 10, p. 372–391, doi: 10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v10.i4.60. Weinburgh, M., 1995, Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 32, p. 387–398, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660320407. Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Araceli Ruiz-Primo, M., Ayala, C.C., and Shavelson, R.J., 2005, Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 42, p. 166–184, doi: 10.1002/tea.20049. Zacharia, Z., and Barton, Z.C., 2004, Urban middle-school students’ attitudes toward a defined science: Science Education, v. 88, p. 197–222, doi: 10.1002/sce.10110. Zeldin, A.L., Britner, S.L., and Pajares, F., 2008, A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 45, p. 1036–1058, doi: 10.1002/tea.20195. Zuniga, K., Olson, J.K., and Winter, M., 2005, Science education for rural Latino/a students: Course placement and success in science: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 42, p. 376–402, doi: 10.1002/tea.20064. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience: Influencing factors and implications for learning Alison Stokes Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) Experiential Learning in Environmental and Natural Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK Alan P. Boyle Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Liverpool, L69 3GP, UK ABSTRACT Fieldwork has always been a crucial component of undergraduate geoscience degrees, yet our understanding of the learning processes that operate in a field environment is limited. Learning is a complex process, and there is increasing interest in the role played in this process by the affective domain, in particular, the link between affect (emotion and attitude) and cognition (understanding). This study investigates the impact of residential geoscience fieldwork on students’ affective responses (e.g., feelings, attitudes, motivations), and their subsequent learning outcomes. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from 62 students from a single UK university undertaking a 9 d geologic mapping-training field course. Pre–field class positive affects became strengthened, while negative feelings and attitudes were ameliorated as a result of the fieldwork. However, some aspects of the students’ experience generated new negative responses, while extracurricular social and cultural activities generated unexpectedly positive responses. In terms of outcomes, the fieldwork enabled students to develop generic as well as subject-specific skills, e.g., teamwork, decision making, and autonomy, while engagement in social interactions both within and outside of the field environment enabled students to develop valuable interpersonal skills. Such skills are seldom assessed as learning outcomes, but they are an important part of students’ development from novice to expert geoscientists, and a vital component of the wider competences required by employers and society. INTRODUCTION Fieldwork is widely considered to be one of the most effective means of learning in the geosciences (e.g., Mondlane and Mapani, 2002; Butler, 2008; Kelso and Brown, this volume). Most importantly, it enables students to contextualize knowledge and make sense of the world through handson interaction with their environment, and to become proficient in a range of subject-specific and generic transferable skills. However, general understanding of the processes by
which students learn in the field is limited. Many geoscientists might argue that it is not necessary to understand the “how” of fieldwork—it should just be done. But simply taking students into the field does not mean that they will learn, nor does it guarantee that learning will be effective (Lonergan and Andresen, 1988; Kent et al., 1997) or, for that matter, effectively measured. Increasing threats to fieldwork mean that geoscience departments are under growing pressure to justify its continued inclusion in the undergraduate geoscience curriculum (Boyle et al., 2007), so it is important to understand
the particular characteristics of fieldwork as a learning environment that help promote learning. Learning objectives can be classified into three main types or “domains”: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor (Bloom, 1956; Kratwohl et al., 1964; Dave, 1970). In geology, as in most other field disciplines, specified outcomes typically emphasize the cognitive domain (knowledge, understanding, and conceptualization) and, to some extent, the psychomotor domain, (practical skills) but they exclude the affective domain. The term “affective” refers to representations of value, and the affective domain deals with outcomes such as emotions, moods, attitudes, and feelings, which reflect positive or negative personal value (Clore et al., 2001). Affective outcomes are valuable in themselves, e.g., the development of attitudes and behaviors appropriate to professional practice, but they can also strongly influence cognitive outcomes (Ashby et al., 1999; Isen, 2000). According to Eiss and Harbeck (1969), sensory input, e.g., from seeing or hearing, prompts responses in the affective domain that interact with the cognitive and psychomotor domains to produce learning (Fig. 1). Hence, the affective domain may play a much more fundamental role in learning than previously considered, acting as the “driver” for the entire learning process and therefore representing a necessary precondition for learning to occur (Eiss and Harbeck, 1969; Iozzi, 1989; Perrier and Nsengiyumva, 2003; Beard and Wilson, 2005) (Fig. 1). Examining the role of the affective domain is thus crucial to understanding learning processes (Koballa and Glynn, 2007). The relationship between affect and cognition is of particular interest since it is cognitive outcomes that educators typically seek to enhance. This relationship is influenced by aspects of the academic context such as learning environment, nature of the
Cognitive
OVERT BEHAVIOR
LEARNING PROCESS Affective
Psychomotor
SENSORY INPUT
Figure 1. The learning model of Eiss and Harbeck (1969). Learning is initiated by sensory input and driven by interaction among the affective, cognitive, and psychomotor domains. Overt behavior by the learner indicates whether or not the required learning has taken place.
academic task, and assessment (Pintrich et al., 1993). Previous studies have shown fieldwork to promote development in both the cognitive and affective domains (Kern and Carpenter, 1984, 1986; Nundy, 1999; Elkins and Elkins, 2007). A recent study by Boyle et al. (2007) outlined the link between indicators of positive affect, such as confidence, motivation, and interest, and approaches to learning likely to give successful cognitive outcomes, based on findings from a large (n > 300) cross-institution and cross-disciplinary study. They suggested that the success of fieldwork as a learning environment lies, above all, in its ability to promote positive affective states, and concluded from their findings that “fieldwork is good.” Some Theoretical Considerations This study aims to further our understanding of the learning processes that take place in the field by investigating the experiences of undergraduate students engaged in residential geologic fieldwork. We aim to test the hypothesis that fieldwork prompts positive affective responses in students, to identify the factors influencing these responses, and to explore the relationship between affective responses and learning outcomes. Fieldwork per se is relatively untheorized, but wider pedagogic theories can provide a useful framework in which to investigate the learning processes operating in a field environment. These theoretical perspectives provide a series of “lenses” through which the findings of this study are interpreted and discussed. The link between affective and cognitive learning outcomes is mediated by “approaches to learning,” where a deep approach is characterized by the intention to understand and a surface approach is characterized by a focus on memorization (Table 1). The approach that students adopt is influenced by their perceptions of the learning environment, which can in turn influence learning outcomes (Trigwell and Prosser, 1991; Lizzio et al., 2002), where deep approaches lead to improved understanding and therefore better performance. A link has also been shown between approaches to learning and affect (Marton and Saljo, 1976), where deep approaches are characterized by interest and intrinsic motivation, and surface learning is characterized by extrinsic motivation and fear of failure (Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983; Entwistle and Smith, 2002). Students’ affective responses to fieldwork can thus act as indicators of their approaches to learning in the field (Boyle et al., 2007), and hence influence their learning outcomes from field activities. When students feel positive, they exhibit greater self-efficacy (confidence in being able to accomplish a task) and hence hold higher expectations of success (Bandura, 1997; Breen and Lindsay, 1999; Clore and Schnall, 2005). Interest acts as an intrinsic motivator for learning, promoting the desire to learn for its own sake and enhancing cognitive engagement (Silvia, 2008). Conversely, extrinsic motivation promotes the need to perform tasks in order to gain something outside of the activity itself (Whang and Hancock, 1994), e.g., recognition or high grades. Motivation is further reflected in students’ perceptions of the importance of a
The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience
293
TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF DEEP AND SURFACE APPROACHES TO LEARNING (ENTWISTLE, 1987) Deep approach Surface approach • Intention to understand • Intention to complete task requirements • Vigorous interaction with content • Memorize information needed for assessments • Relate new ideas to previous knowledge • Failure to distinguish principles from examples • Relate concepts to everyday experience • Treat task as an external imposition • Relate evidence to conclusions • Focus on discrete elements without integration • Examine the logic of the argument • Unreflectiveness about purpose or strategies
task, the value attached to the outcomes (Bandura, 1986; Pintrich and De Groot, 1990), and whether their goal for learning is to achieve mastery of particular concepts or skills, or to prove their ability through performance (Ames and Archer, 1988; Murphy and Alexander, 2000; Pintrich, 2000). Boyle et al. (2007) found residential fieldwork to be effective in promoting high levels of interest and motivation (the antecedents of deep learning), and to be highly valued as a learning activity. Perhaps unsurprisingly, negative feelings such as anxiety can have the opposite effect, causing students to become demotivated and disengage from learning. Orion and Hofstein (1994) found that “novelty space” associated with geographic, cognitive, and psychological factors inhibited student engagement with field activity, thus creating a barrier to learning that could be reduced by adequate preparation. This desire to reduce negative feelings such as uncertainty and anxiety is natural (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Bar-Anan et al., 2009), but it may not always be achievable in a field situation. Affective states such as moods and emotions can also facilitate different ways of thinking, e.g., they can influence problem-solving ability, decision making (Ashby et al., 1999; Isen, 2000), and the way in which information is processed during learning (Gasper and Clore, 2002; Clore and Schnall, 2005; Storbeck and Clore, 2005). Most significantly, positive moods can encourage superficial and less systematic processing strategies (Schnall et al., 2008), while negative moods tend to trigger more vigilant and effortful processing styles (Forgas, 2001). Hence, a happy mood may not always be conducive to the learning task at hand, particularly if it requires attention to detail! Active participation is an important factor in the learning process (e.g., Kolb, 1984; Bransford et al., 1999). Active learning can result in greater retention of materials, enhanced problemsolving abilities, and improved attitudes and motivation (Snyder, 2003), and it is influenced significantly by the extent to which students engage with their learning environment (Turner and Curran, 2006). According to Kolb’s experiential learning theory, learning is “a process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (1984, p. 41), and transformation proceeds through discrete stages of concrete experience, reflection, generation of new ideas, and subsequent testing. Part of the assumed effectiveness of fieldwork lies in its ability to promote interaction with “real-life” examples of abstract concepts and processes. However, interaction with reality alone is not enough to generate learning. As indicated by Figure 1, the student must be engaged both mentally and emotionally, and a key to the latter is the affective responses generated by direct interaction with
real geology. The exact mechanism by which this engagement occurs is poorly understood, but it may reflect enhanced sensory stimulation (i.e., involving all the senses, not just vision) and the receiving of self-relevant feedback (Millar and Millar, 1996; Beard and Wilson, 2005). Active participation in fieldwork also promotes the development of “memorable episodes,” which can aid in the retention and recall of subject-specific information (Gagné and White, 1978; Mackenzie and White, 1982; Nundy, 1999). In his study of elementary school children, Nundy (1999) found these memorable episodes to be commonly based around events that created a positive emotional response, e.g., that were fun and enjoyable. In short, affective responses such as emotion can aid memory, and hence enhance learning. Links between affect and learning can be further explained by neuroscientific processes. For example, the production of adrenaline during emotional experiences (positive or negative) can assist the transfer of memories from short-term to long-term (Cahill and McGaugh, 1998; Ashby et al., 1999), while dopamine released in response to positive experiences (e.g., the gaining of reward) can increase levels of motivation and cognitive engagement (Ashby et al., 1999; Zull, 2002; Turner and Curran, 2006). In the context of fieldwork, such positive experiences might relate to the receiving of positive feedback on performance, the discovery of a particularly useful outcrop, or simply good weather. Negative emotions, on the other hand (e.g., resulting from a lack of perceived reward or stress/anxiety) can result in reduced concentration and disengagement from the learning process by inhibiting activity in certain areas of the brain (e.g., Gold, 2005). Finally, our understanding of fieldwork as an effective means of learning can be enhanced by considering the social processes operating during field activity. All learning environments are to some extent cultural, social, and interactive (Tobin, 1998; Tal, 2001), but the degree of social interaction and cultural engagement offered by the field is unique. This is particularly so in the case of residential fieldwork, where students are required to become fully immersed in the discipline of geology rather than simply “do” geology for a day. The types of social interaction promoted within field environments enable students to construct knowledge and meaning through collaboration with experts and peers, while at the same time developing their ability to perform tasks and solve problems independently (Vygotsky, 1978; Bandura, 1986). By engaging in shared activities and experiences with other students and faculty members, both within and outside of the field environment, students become familiar with the language, culture, and the ways of thinking and practicing that are
294
Stokes and Boyle
characteristic of the discipline of geology, and thus they start to shape their identity as “geoscientists” (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Given that students’ perceptions of social and cultural context can be significant to their learning (Alsop and Watts, 2000), and given the overtly social nature of most undergraduate fieldwork, it is surprising that the social context of geoscience fieldwork has received relatively little attention. A notable exception is the recent study by Elkins and Elkins (2007), which identifies social “novelty” as a specific, significant influence on students’ motivation to learn, and an additional component of the “novelty space” identified by Orion and Hofstein (1994). STUDY POPULATION AND SETTING Sixty-two students entering the second year of a 3 or 4 yr geoscience degree program at a UK university participated in a 9 d geologic-mapping-training field course in the Teruel Province of eastern Spain. The study group consisted of 44 males and 18 females, and ages ranged from 19 to 37 yr. The study area featured a succession of well-exposed Mesozoic-Tertiary marine and continental sediments, and contained large-scale tectonic structures that were easily observed from the surrounding landscape (Simón, 2004) (Fig. 2). The students mapped discrete areas of increasing structural and stratigraphic complexity in order to determine the regional geologic and geomorphologic evolution. By the end of the field course, they were expected to have met the following learning objectives: (1) demonstrate competence in a range of practical field skills; (2) produce a geologic map, lithostratigraphic column, annotated cross section, and supporting field notes; and (3) demonstrate an ability to operate in a safe, professional, logical, and systematic manner.
B C A
The field course began with a 2 d faculty-led introduction to the local geology and the principles of geologic mapping, during which five members of academic faculty each provided instruction to groups of ~12 students. Students then worked in selfselected groups of three (occasionally four) for the remainder of the course and were responsible for planning their activities and managing their time. Faculty were present in the field area for students to consult for feedback and guidance as and when they required, and they were also available for fixed periods during the evening. Each student was expected to work autonomously within their group, and final grades were awarded on the basis of individual, rather than group, performance. Despite the emphasis of the learning objectives on the cognitive and psychomotor domains, several aspects of this field course were considered likely to impact the affective domain. The timing of the course at the end of the summer break maximized “novelty space” by precluding any opportunity for formal preparatory sessions, or for the students to become reacquainted socially or refresh their existing knowledge or skills (Orion and Hofstein, 1994; Elkins and Elkins, 2007). Once at the field location, the local terrain was physically challenging in places, and the climate offered extremes of heat during the day and low temperatures at night. In addition, all students and members of faculty/technical staff were accommodated at the local campsite, which had limited, and basic, facilities—thus requiring the sharing of both social and living spaces between students and “experts” (Nairn, 2003). From a social perspective, the course coincided with the local village fiesta—a cultural extravaganza involving two to three days (and nights) of activities including dances, parades, and bull-running—which provided the students with some particularly memorable (and emotional!) episodes. From a geologic perspective, the successions were well exposed and relatively continuous throughout the area, but they were also sufficiently complex, both stratigraphically and structurally, to reflect the complexity and variability (and hence uncertainty) inherent in “real” geologic data. Training in geologic mapping is a fundamental requirement of undergraduate geoscience education in the UK and Ireland (Boyle et al., this volume), and in many respects, the field experience described here is typical of those provided by British and Irish institutions. In the United States, similar experiences might be provided by field camps for geology majors, or by some of the activities described in this volume (e.g., Marshall et al., this volume; May et al., this volume). Despite the focus of this study on a mapping-training course, the wider implications should be applicable to a broad range of field experiences, including those for nonmajors or school students, particularly if they include a residential element or overseas travel. METHODOLOGY
Figure 2. Overview of the field mapping area north of Aliaga, Spain. The area is characterized by well-exposed marine and continental sediments featuring prominent limestone units (A), and large-scale tectonic structures in the form of folds (B) and faults (C).
This study used pre- and postexperience surveying, individual and group interviews, and direct observation of student activities to address the following questions:
The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience 1. What are the factors influencing students’ affective responses to residential fieldwork? 2. How do these factors impact on the learning process? We build on the “generalized” findings of Boyle et al. (2007) by investigating changes in affective responses within a single group of students participating in a common geologic activity. Pre- and postexperience survey data provide a “quantifiable measure” of changes in the students’ feelings and attitudes, but they provide little or no information about factors likely to have influenced these changes, or about the students’ learning process or experiences (Taber, 2000; Rabiee, 2004). By applying a mixed qualitative/quantitative approach, this study gains valuable additional insight into both the learning processes operating within a field environment, and the factors influencing them. This combination of statistical analysis and contextual data has been used successfully by previous researchers and can inform practice at both local and wider scales (Libarkin and Kurdziel, 2002a). Data Collection Surveys Students completed a modified version of Boyle et al.’s (2007) survey instrument at the beginning and end of the field course. This survey uses a combination of Likert scale (threepoint), ranked, continuous-scale, and free-text questions to investigate learning in the affective domain. Question formats varied according to the nature of the data being sought, and to promote student engagement with the survey (i.e., prevent them becoming bored with one particular format). Key sections within the survey relevant to this study are: 1. core/demographic data; 2. feelings about fieldwork (ranked); 3. anticipation of fieldwork (Likert scale); 4. collaboration, motivation, and enjoyment (Likert scale); 5. procedures in fieldwork (Likert scale); 6. impact of fieldwork on knowledge (continuous scale); 7. perceptions of fieldwork as being useful (continuous scale); and 8. open questions relating to various aspects of the student experience, including expectations, good, bad, and memorable experiences, social relationships, and perceptions of skills acquired (free text). Similar data were collected in both surveys (post–field course questions being reflective rather than anticipatory), with the exception of the demographic and some free-text data. Pre– and post–field course surveys were returned by 62 (100%) and 53 (85%) students, respectively. Interviews In total, 31 interviews were conducted by two independent researchers over three separate (i.e., nonadjacent) days during the field course. Students were interviewed in situ (i.e., while engaged in field activity) using an informal conversational
295
approach (Patton, 1990). Interviews would open with a predetermined question such as “why do you think it is important to learn to map?” or, later on in the field course, “how do you feel you are progressing?” after which the researcher would allow the conversation to progress naturally, and thus enable themes and topics to emerge. Qualitative interviews of this type are valuable because they allow flexibility in the subject and sequence of the discussion, and enable students to define their experiences in their own words (Cohen et al., 2000). Themes identified during interviews earlier in the field course, such as difficulty in visualizing structures, or issues relating to motivation, formed the basis for questions asked during later interviews. As this approach required distracting the student from their task, interview times were restricted to ~5–10 min. An additional group interview of approximately 1 h duration was conducted with ten students at the end of day seven. This took a slightly more focused approach using topics and issues identified from the in situ interviews, but with the wording and sequencing of questions decided during the course of the interview (Patton, 1990). Issues addressed included motivation, social and cultural aspects, difficulties experienced by the students, the impact of the field course on learning in general, and issues specific to mapping such as visualizing in three dimensions. In contrast to the field interviews, the setting was outside of the learning environment and during the students’ free time. Participants were entirely voluntary and included a mix of genders, ages, and degrees of physical mobility. This approach enabled discussions to develop between the participants and a wide range of responses to be gathered (Cohen et al., 2000), thus providing a clearer indication of, and deeper insight into, the range of attitudes and opinions present within the group (Rabiee, 2004; Breen, 2006). All interviews were recorded using a digital voice recorder and transcribed verbatim by the researcher conducting the interview. Observation Observing learning processes directly can be difficult, and this is one of the reasons why learning is typically considered in terms of products (i.e., learning outcomes) (Schmitz, 2006). Direct observation of fieldwork is rarely reported in the literature (e.g., Orion and Hofstein, 1994; Lai, 1999), yet this procedure can provide valuable insight into the learning process (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). As with the interviews, a semistructured approach was applied to the observation that enabled us to gather data to illuminate specific issues (e.g., the nature of social interactions) alongside more emergent themes (Cohen et al., 2000). Observations were undertaken by the two researchers during the faculty-led introductory sessions and on the same days as the in situ interviews, and focused on (1) looking for evidence from the students’ behavior that fieldwork promoted positive (or negative) responses, and (2) finding clues as to the factors influencing these responses. During the faculty-led days, the researchers each accompanied and observed different groups of students as they
296
Stokes and Boyle
were introduced to the study area and embarked upon preliminary data collection. For the remainder of the time, the researchers located themselves in specific, but separate, parts of the field area and observed students as they worked within that area. Spending time with the students during the introductory period helped them to become used to the presence of the researchers, and thus to reduce reactivity effects (Cohen et al., 2000). Data were collected in the form of in situ and reflective field notes, and photographs. The combination of interviews and observations in this way is a particularly useful means of cross-checking and hence validating the findings from qualitative research. Observations provide checks on information gathered from interviews, while interviews enable the researcher to explore the internal feelings of the students, rather than just their external behavior (Patton, 1990). Both data sets were strengthened through immersion in the learning context over time (Morrison, 1993). In this study, the observational data are used to support and provide further context for interpretations based on the survey and interview data, rather than as the basis for interpretations per se. Data Analysis Quantitative Data Quantitative survey data were analyzed using Excel and SPSS. All data were subject to descriptive statistical analysis, while inferential statistics were used to investigate differences between pre- and post-fieldwork responses. Paired data were collected either as three-point (i.e., ordinal) Likert scale data (1 = positive, 0 = neutral, −1 = negative), or continuous-scale data in which students indicated their agreement with statements by marking an X along a continuum (10 cm line) ranging from “totally disagree” (0) to “totally agree” (10). The students’ score represented the distance to the X from the zero point, measured to the nearest 0.1 cm. Boyle et al. (2007) applied parametric tests to their paired data on the grounds that these are more powerful than nonparametric tests and are robust against minor violations, particularly if sample sizes are large (Kinnear and Gray, 2000). This study had a significantly smaller sample size than Boyle et al. (2007), and the majority of data were found not to be normally distributed; hence, all paired data were compared using nonparametric methods. The continuous data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test, which is the nonparametric equivalent if the t-test and assumes a continuous scale of measurement. Paired Likert scale data were analyzed using the Sign test, which, although relatively low power, is more appropriate for the limited scale range (three-point), which can result in a high proportion of tied ranks, and hence erroneous calculations of P values using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test (Roberson et al., 1995). Differences between subgroups, e.g., gender, were tested using the χ2 test. Qualitative Data All interview transcripts were coded independently by both researchers using NVivo 2.0, and key themes were identified using thematic content analysis (Patton, 1990; Libarkin and
Kurdziel, 2002b; Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). Some codes were assigned a priori, e.g., where a specific topic had been introduced by the researcher, while others were assigned inductively based on the words and phrases used by the students. Constant comparison (Taber, 2000) was used to check the internal consistency of the codes assigned to the data, and coding was modified where appropriate. A similar approach was taken to coding the observation data. The researchers assigned the data a total of 74 and 83 codes, respectively, and achieved over 70% agreement in the first instance. Further comparison and discussion resolved any remaining discrepancies. The data were then subject to secondary coding (Miles and Huberman, 1984), and the dominant themes forming the basis for subsequent interpretation were identified. Free-text survey responses were analyzed using thematic content analysis to identify the main categories of response to each question, and then they were quantified to provide a semiquantitative estimation of the “strength” of students’ perceptions or views on particular aspects of their experience (Kempa and Orion, 1996). It should be stressed that this investigation makes no attempt to identify gains in knowledge or understanding resulting from this fieldwork—we focus on furthering our understanding of the student experience of residential fieldwork, and on identifying factors that influence the learning process. QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS This section summarizes key findings from the pre– and post–field course surveys. Boyle et al. (2007) provided empirical evidence that students’ feelings and attitudes toward residential fieldwork improve as a result of their field experience. Based on a sample of over 300 students participating in a variety of field courses across seven UK institutions, they identified statistically significant gains (at 95% confidence level or above) in affective responses relating to anticipation, knowledge, usefulness, collaboration, motivation and enjoyment, and procedures. The findings presented here are based on 62 students from a single UK institution participating in a single, common field activity. Anticipation and Reflection As a preliminary measure of anticipation and reflection, students were asked to select and rank three options from a choice of ten (five positive and five negative) that best reflected their feelings at the beginning and end of the field course. The findings are summarized in Figure 3. Students’ feelings were found to be generally positive at the start of the field course (64% of all responses), and to become strengthened as a result of undertaking the fieldwork (89% of all responses). However, we found that 32 students (57%) selected at least one negative feeling in the precourse survey, implying that over half of the cohort embarked on the fieldwork with some degree of anxiety or concern. At the end of the field course, this had reduced to 13 students, most of whom indicated that they “found it hard.”
The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience
A
Positive feelings
297
Negative feelings
Number of responses
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Eagerly anticipating
B
Can’t wait
Relaxed
Happy
Confident about what is expected
Concerned
Worried
Don’t know what to expect
Don’t want to go
Apprehensive
Negative feelings
Positive feelings 40
Key 35
Number of responses
Rank 3 30
Rank 2 25
Rank 1 20 15 10 5 0 Learned a lot
Worthwhile Thoroughly enjoyed it
Glad we had to go
Want to go again
Found it hard
Wish not compulsory
Did not enjoy
Lived up to my fears
Didn’t know what to expect
Figure 3. Students’ feelings toward fieldwork as measured (A) pre–field course and (B) post–field course. Students were presented with ten options (indicated on the x-axis) and asked to select and rank the three that they felt reflected their own feelings. Positive feeling amongst the students increased as a result of the field course.
A series of three-point Likert scale questions enabled closer investigation of students’ feelings toward specific field activities (Table 2). Differences in pre– and post–field course data were found to be significant in relation to visiting a different place, and getting to know faculty members (at 90% confidence level or above). Mean scores also increased in relation to getting to know other students, working all day in the outdoors, and achieving the academic demands of the work, and decreased in relation to coping with physical challenges. Although none of these changes is statistically significant, the data are indicative of generally positive feelings. Perceptions of physical fitness and ability to meet physical challenges have previously been recognized as sources of anxiety, particularly amongst females (Maguire, 1998;
Bracken and Mawdsley, 2004). Gender differences in relation to coping with physical challenges were found to be weakly significant prior to the field course (χ2 = 5.67, p = 0.059), where males were more positive about their abilities than females, although no significant difference was identified at the end. This finding seems to confirm that of Boyle et al. (2007) that fieldwork can act as a leveler of affective responses. Collaboration, Motivation, and Enjoyment Students’ feelings in relation to collaboration, motivation, and enjoyment did not appear to change significantly as a result of the fieldwork (Table 2). However, positive feelings toward
298
Stokes and Boyle TABLE 2. SUMMARY STATISTICAL DATA FOR SURVEY QUESTIONS SCORED BY THREE-POINT LIKERT SCALE (POSITIVE = 1; NEUTRAL = 0; NEGATIVE = –1) Pre-fieldwork data Anticipation and reflection n mean SD a) Getting to know the staff (faculty) 62 0.742 0.477 b) Visiting a different place 62 0 .8 87 0 .3 1 9 c) Working all day in the outdoors 62 0 . 468 0 .6 71 d) Coping with physical challenges 62 0.629 0.579 62 0.516 0.646 e) Achieving the academic demands of the work f) Getting to know the other students on the course 62 0.790 0.517 Collaboration, motivation and enjoyment a) Fieldwork is an activity I enjoy 61 0.689 0.564 b) I would recommend fieldwork to others 61 0.738 0.513 c) I like to be challenged in my academic work 61 0.557 0.646 d) The more fieldwork I undertake, the more interesting 61 0.574 0.618 the work becomes to me e) It is important to be able to work with others 61 0.918 0.277 f) I use colleagues as an information source 61 0.639 0.517 g) I trust the contribution of my group/peers when 61 0.672 0.507 completing group work 61 0.574 0.531 h) I would always check the group’s answer, and if I thought it was incorrect, I would make up my own mind i) I sometimes lose interest in the work because of the 60 0.267 0.686 weather Proced ure s in fieldwork a) I feel fully prepared for this fieldwork 62 0.210 0.656 b) The information that we have been given about this 62 0.258 0.676 fieldwork has answered all of my questions c) I am careful to record exactly what I observe 62 0.532 0.593 d) I am not fazed by having to use technical equipment 62 0.581 0.560 e) I am comfortable reading a map, i.e., I can 62 0.645 0.603 recognize hills, valleys, give accurate grid references, etc. f) I find it easy to visualize things in 3D 62 0.258 0.626 g) I know how to calculate true dip 62 0.306 0.715 h) I know what is meant by strike 62 0.548 0.619 i) I know the difference between the apparent offset 62 –0.032 –0.032 0.768 and actual offset of a fault Note: Sign test was used to test data for statistical significance. Key: SD—standard deviation; 3D—three dimensions. *Significant at 99% or above. † Significant at 95% or above. § Significant at 90% or above.
working with others were found to be exceptionally high both before and after the field course, thus identifying collaboration as a valued aspect of learning (Kempa and Orion, 1996). This in itself is a significant finding, since the value that students attribute to learning activities can be an indicator of motivation (Pintrich and DeGroot, 1990; Breen and Lindsay, 1999). Students also valued the opportunity to work independently of academic faculty (Marques et al., 2003), showing high levels of trust in their colleagues and a willingness to use them as sources of information. The field course was designed to encourage both collaborative and independent working, and success in the latter is reflected in the students becoming increasingly positive about making up their own minds in collaborative situations (p = 0.096). Issues relating to collaboration and wider social learning are further discussed in the qualitative analysis. Previous research has shown that students find fieldwork enjoyable and motivating (Kern and Carpenter, 1984, 1986;
Manner, 1995), and that these feelings can become enhanced as a result of engaging in field activity (Boyle et al., 2007). The fact that this field course did not prompt statistically significant changes does not mean that the students did not enjoy or become motivated by their experience; indeed, the mean scores for the majority of the statements in this section are extremely encouraging, indicating a high degree of positive feeling both at the beginning and the end of the fieldwork. However, what these data do demonstrate is that, while fieldwork might be successful at prompting positive affective responses, it may not always enhance them. Procedures in Fieldwork Prior to the field course, students seemed unsure about their level of preparation, and their ability to perform some field tasks (Table 2). Perceived lack of preparation can be a source of anxiety
The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience (Glynn and Koballa, 2006), and this is likely to have contributed to the negative feeling identified at the start of the field course (Fig. 3). Despite this, at the end of the field course, the students demonstrated increased self-efficacy (i.e., belief in being able to complete a task) in field procedures such as reading and interpreting a map and calculating true dip, and in their understanding of concepts such as strike and the difference between actual and apparent fault offsets. While these procedures relate more to cognitive and psychomotor skills, feelings of efficacy can be indicators of interest and motivation (Bandura, 1986; Pintrich and De Groot, 1990) and hence provide an indirect measure of change in affective state. The students were less certain about their ability to visualize geologic features in three dimensions—positive responses increased from just 35% to 45% after the field course, and there was no significant increase in mean scores. We found males to be significantly more positive than females about their visualization abilities before the field course (χ2 = 6.45, p = 0.040), but no significant differences were identified between the genders at the end. This finding is interesting since previous research suggests that males can develop better spatial-visualization skills than females (e.g., Orion et al., 1997), although the extent to which a true gender difference exists in relation to spatial understanding remains unclear (Ishikawa and Kastens, 2005). Knowledge and Usefulness Statements relating to knowledge and usefulness were used to explore students’ perceptions of the academic value of fieldwork. In general, we found agreement with statements to be high both before and after the fieldwork, thus demonstrating the extent to which fieldwork was valued as an academic activity (Table 3). Interestingly, we identified a significant difference between pre- and post-fieldwork data, and decrease in mean score, relating to the statements “field work will help my understanding of the subject” and “first-hand experience of themes/
299
topics etc. studied in class makes it easier to understand them.” Thus, while the students recognized the value and importance of fieldwork, they appeared less certain about the impact of fieldwork on their understanding. Similar findings concerning perceptions of understanding have been reported by Boyle et al. (2007) and may reflect students’ feelings about the interpretive nature of geology, and the “fuzziness” of real geologic data (Raab and Frodeman, 2002). QUALITATIVE FINDINGS Ten major themes were identified from the qualitative data as representing the key aspects of students’ fieldwork experience (Fig. 4): (1) demographic factors, (2) personal factors, (3) physical nature of field area, (4) academic context, (5) logistical factors, (6) social/cultural context, (7) experiential learning, (8) social learning, (9) geologic/academic outcomes, and (10) nongeologic/nonacademic outcomes. These themes are explored using the 3P learning model of Biggs (2003) as a conceptual framework. This model treats learning as a system in which outcomes (“products”) result from the interactions between input (“presage”) factors (i.e., those relating to student characteristics and academic context) and students’ approaches to learning (i.e., whether these are surface or deep) (Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983). Boyle et al. (2007) found fieldwork to be effective in promoting the positive affective responses associated with deep approaches to learning, and, by implication, enhanced learning outcomes. While our qualitative data do not provide direct evidence for a deep or surface approach, these can be inferred from students’ affective responses to presage factors,
TABLE 3. SUMMARY STATISTICAL DATA FOR SURVEY QUESTIONS SCORED BY CONTINUOUS SCALE (0 = TOTALLY DISAGREE; 10 = TOTALLY AGREE) Pre-fieldwork data Knowledge mean SD n a) Firsthand experience of themes/topics studied in class 62 8.302 1.880 makes it easier to understand them b) Fieldwork gives me a chance to develop my problem62 7.976 1.963 solving skills Perception of fieldwork as being u s eful a) Fieldwork will help my understanding of the subject 62 8.682 1.672 b) It is important to know how to solve problems in the field 62 8.576 1.813 c) Without a field experience, my degree subject would be 61 7.328 2.534 too academic and theoretical d) Fieldwork skills will be important to me in my choice of 61 7.580 2.558 career Note: Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test data for statistical significance. *Significant at 99% or above. † Significant at 95% or above. § Significant at 90% or above.
n 53
Post-fieldwork data mean SD 7.994 1.685
Z –1.792
Significance (two-tailed) § 0.073
53
8.338
1.515
–0.842
0.400
51 51 53
8.365 9.124 8.336
1.397 1.057 2.055
–2.076 –1.714 –3.334
0.038 § 0.086 0.001*
53
7.958
1.976
–0.136
0.892
†
300
Stokes and Boyle Presage
Process
Student characteristics
Learning
1. Demographic
2. Personal
7. Experiential processes
Product Outcomes 9. Geologic/Academic
age
prior experience
learning by doing
mapping/field skills
gender
preparation
linking theory with practice
subject-specific knowledge
physical ability
expectations
engagement with reality
visualization skills
developing competencies
coping with uncertainty
Field course characteristics Geologic/Academic 3. Physical
accommodation
physical challenge
food
learning environment
weather
location
illness/injury
duration
lack of sleep/tiredness
10. Nongeologic/ Nonacademic
peer-to-peer learning novice-expert interaction
5. Logistical
nature of terrain/
4. Academic
8. Social processes
Nongeologic/ Nonacademic
independence/autonomy teamwork time management safety awareness
Approach surface
social relationships/skills confidence
deep
6. Social/cultural
nature of task/challenge
social activities
teaching context
cultural activities
social context
social relationships
Affective Response
Figure 4. Factors characterizing the students’ learning experience as indicated by the qualitative data. Affective responses to presage factors influence students’ approaches to learning, which subsequently influence the learning outcomes. Approaches to learning are also implied from the learning processes observed within the field environment. Solid lines indicate direct influences on learning; dashed lines indicate indirect links to learning approaches. Factors are based on the “3P” model of Biggs (2003) (see text for discussion).
and from their feelings and attitudes toward the learning processes operating during the fieldwork. Factors Influencing the Student Experience Six of the ten themes identified relate to the input, or “presage” stage of learning (Fig. 4). These themes relate both to student characteristics, and characteristics of the field course, the latter of which are subdivided according to academic/geologic aspects, and nonacademic/nongeologic (i.e., extra-curricular) aspects. It is interesting to note the similarity among the four major field course characteristics identified from this study (boxes 3–6 in Fig. 4) and the factors defining “novelty space” (Orion and Hofstein, 1994; Elkins and Elkins, 2007). This provides independent support for the novelty space theory, which states that barriers to successful engagement with learning are created by geographical (physical), cognitive (academic), psychological (logistical), and social/cultural factors. Student Characteristics Student characteristics are defined by demographic (e.g., age, gender) and personal factors (e.g., prior experience, expectations).
Demographic factors. We found that demographic factors were more likely to triangulate with other factors, e.g., attitudes to physical challenges, than to produce affective responses in and of themselves. Hence, they are not considered here in detail. Personal factors. As indicated by the survey findings, students embarked on the fieldwork with generally positive attitudes and feelings. While some students did not know what to expect from the field course (Fig. 3), the majority held optimistic expectations that embraced the full range of cognitive, affective, psychomotor and social factors. Quotations from both interviews and written (survey) data are used throughout this section to provide further insight into, and context for, the students’ personal experiences of the fieldwork. The following statements exemplify some of the students’ expectations and hopes for the field course.
“A better understanding of the subject, great experience and lots of fun.”
“Learn new skills and improve on others, get to know other students better.”
The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience Expectations can be shaped by prior experience, which itself is an important precursor to affective response (Picard et al., 2004; Crossman, 2007). We found students’ perceptions of their previous fieldwork experiences to be largely positive, and where negative feelings were identified these did not persist to the end of the field course, further confirming that fieldwork can act as a leveler of anxiety (Boyle et al., 2007).
301
to the physical aspects of the fieldwork, where a lack of confidence amongst females during the early stages of fieldwork was often exacerbated by a perceived (but not necessarily deliberate) “macho” attitude amongst some of the male students (Bracken and Mawdsley, 2004).
“If there’s a mountain to overcome the boys will no doubt run up it, thinking ‘we have to get up there before the girls do.’” “I really didn’t want to come here, but I’m glad I did, because like, the social side’s been really good—I’ve spoken to people I’ve never spoken to before, even [on previous field courses].”
Preparation is important for engagement with learning (Orion and Hofstein, 1994; Marshall et al., this volume) and lack of preparation (real or perceived) can be a source of anxiety (Glynn and Koballa, 2006). This is no doubt reflected by some of the less positive precourse feelings identified from the quantitative data. The faculty-led introductory sessions helped students to overcome these feelings by providing the opportunity to refresh existing knowledge and skills, become reacquainted with colleagues, and thereby increase self-confidence.
Ultimately, the females proved to be no less able than the males, and although these differences in feelings decreased as the field course progressed, they were no doubt influenced by the gender ratio within the group (which was biased toward males 44:18) and the tendency for single-gender mapping groups to inhibit social interaction. Academic factors. Students’ feelings and attitudes toward both fieldwork as a learning activity, and the field as a learning environment, were overwhelmingly positive. They displayed a high degree of interest in their surroundings (geologic and social) and also expressed increased motivation to learn in the field compared to other environments.
“I think I had forgotten over 95% of what I had learned so I was really happy with the lecturers having preparation sessions—it really helped.”
“I have more motivation to be getting up here than I would at home or to be going to a lecture.”
Thus, in terms of personal characteristics, these findings confirm the students’ perceptions of the field course as generally positive and influenced by their prior experiences of fieldwork. They also provide further insight into some of the factors likely to contribute to initial feelings of anxiety or concern, and identify preparation as an important means of reducing these. Field Course Characteristics: Geologic and Academic Factors Geologic and academic factors comprise the physical nature of the field course, (e.g., location, nature of terrain), and the academic context (e.g., nature of the learning task, social context of learning). Physical factors. Students’ attitudes toward the physical location of the field course were generally positive. They enjoyed being “away from the beaten track,” and were impressed by the landscape and scenery. Feelings were more varied, however, toward the local terrain and its associated physical challenges. Students with mobility limitations expressed some frustration at their inability to access parts of the field area, although this did not necessarily prevent them from participating in learning activities. Previous authors have discussed the “gendered” nature of fieldwork (e.g., Nairn, 1996; Maguire, 1998; Hall et al., 2004), and we identified perceptions amongst both male and female students that fieldwork (and geology as a discipline) is a typically “masculine” endeavor. This was particularly evident in relation
“If it’s interesting you are a lot more likely to get up and do [fieldwork].”
Some preference for more passive forms of learning was encountered, albeit rarely, thus confirming that fieldwork is not necessarily enjoyable or desirable for all students.
“I like the outdoors, but I find it easier to learn in a lecture hall than in the field.”
Although positive about fieldwork per se, some students were less positive about their learning task (geologic mapping) and displayed mixed feelings about their abilities to perform and achieve academically. Visualizing in three dimensions and coping with uncertainty were identified as particular areas for concern—the former being well recognized as “troublesome” for novice students (Ishikawa and Kastens, 2005; Rapp et al., 2007). Students also lacked confidence in their ability to work independently, particularly during the early stages of the field course, although the requirement to work collaboratively helped to counter these feelings by providing students with an element of “social support.” Concerns about academic achievement reflected not only a desire to perform well, but also the recognition that independent
302
Stokes and Boyle
mapping would be a major requirement of the students’ final year honor’s project—for which many rightly viewed this fieldwork as “training.”
“[Mapping] is my least favorite thing about geology but I’m trying to battle through it because I know it’s important.”
“It is just scary because we are so independent. I mean, being on our own is really a confidence issue. We need to improve, and just believe in our own assumptions.”
“Everything’s counted now, everything at this stage of our degree is counted, and [we] want to do well and get a good degree.”
These findings highlight the importance of physical and academic factors in shaping students’ feelings toward their learning, and they provide important insight into motivational factors. The comments relating to interest and preference for the field as a learning environment imply that, for some students, learning was intrinsically motivated. However, to succeed in their degree, students must demonstrate proficiency in geologic mapping, and this is reflected in their concerns about ability to perform and achieve academically, which are more indicative of extrinsic motivation. Field Course Characteristics: Nongeologic or Nonacademic Factors Nongeologic and nonacademic factors emerged from the qualitative data as exerting a considerable influence on the students’ affective responses, and their overall fieldwork experience (Table 4).
Logistical factors. Logistical factors, e.g., accommodation, food, and climate (too hot during the day, too cold at night), tended to induce negative rather than positive feelings and were frequently encountered as demotivators to learning. Practical arrangements are well known to act as demotivating factors (Fletcher and Dodds, 2004), and many students found issue with the camping facilities and food, particularly during the early stages of the field course when the novelty of being in an unfamiliar location was greatest. The degree of negative feeling toward the weather, however, which was consistently hot, dry, and sunny, was somewhat surprising, especially given students’ general lack of enthusiasm for working in wind and rain. Nonetheless, weather was identified by almost a third of the students as the “worst” aspect of their experience. In addition, the climate exacerbated feelings of tiredness caused by lack of sleep or length of time spent in the field, causing loss of concentration and further reducing motivation levels. In light of this, many students (but not all) chose to develop strategies to avoid the hottest parts of the day.
“The heat here is sometimes unbearable, it really smacks you in the face so it is difficult to concentrate.”
“What we are doing is going at a reasonable rate with few breaks, and we seem to finish earlier so we can get out of the sun.”
A further logistical factor impacting on motivation was the outbreak of a sickness bug amongst some students and academic faculty toward the end of the field course—students were not asked to comment on this! Social and cultural factors. In contrast, social and cultural aspects of the field course were viewed as overwhelmingly positive, attracting the greatest number of responses in relation to the
TABLE 4. SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF THE STUDENTS’ LEARNING EXPERIENCE IDENTIFIED FROM OPEN SURVEY QUESTIONS Aspect of Number of Geologic/academic factors Nongeologic/nonacademic factors experience responses Best 50 Learning process 20 Social activities 20 Place/location 6 Cultural activities 19 Engaging in physical activity 3 Camping/food 1 Receiving feedback 2 Weather 1 31* 41 Worst
50
Social context Duration of field course Safety Uncertainty/confusion Lack of physical ability
2 2 1 1 1
Weather Illness/injury Tiredness Camping/food Local people Cultural activities
18 16 7 6 5 1 53
Cultural activities Social activities Camping/food
32 11 3 46
7 Most memorable
48
Geology/scenery Learning process
10 2
12 *Because a single response may contain more than one factor, the total sum of factors relating to a particular aspect (geologic/academic + nongeologic/nonacademic) may be greater than the number of responses.
The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience “best” and “most memorable” aspects of the field course; the fiesta was identified by over half of the students as their “most memorable” experience (Table 4). While academic factors were rarely identified as the “most memorable,” they attracted an equivalent number of responses to both social and cultural factors as the “best” aspect of the students’ experience.
“The academic and social are both important to me.”
“It’s the social experience as well—there are certain things that you won’t get at home, but over here the experience counts for more as you are in the field as well.”
The social benefits of fieldwork are well recognized (Fuller et al., 2006), and in this study, the social and cultural activities provided enhanced opportunities for students to form social relationships and friendships, and facilitated the breaking down of social barriers— particularly between genders. These activities also acted as motivating factors for learning and were viewed by some students as a “reward” for completing academic work during the day.
“During the day…there seems to be still the separate boy and girl groups, but when it comes to socializing in the evenings it’s really different.”
“I feel more motivated to get up and do work ’cos like, we have the evenings off to do what we want so I, like, think that I don’t mind having to work the long hours in the sun.”
“When I get to go out on the night…you’re kind of, like, getting a reward for working hard in the day.”
Attitudes toward the social and cultural activities, and particularly the fiesta, were not unanimously positive, however, and some students considered being unable to fully “opt-out” of activities (e.g., by suffering disturbed sleep through noise) detrimental to their learning. Further, and perhaps unsurprisingly, motivation appeared to “peak” during the time of greatest social and cultural activity, with a subsequent decline clearly evident from the close of the fiesta (day seven) to the end of the course. At this point, despite having made significant progress toward meeting their outcomes, students began to lose motivation and disengage from the learning task. Anecdotally, this effect is well recognized by seasoned field geologists, who frequently consider themselves at greatest risk toward the end of their fieldwork when thoughts start to turn to home.
“We’re thinking about going back and what we’re going to do when we get back now, which is difficult and we’re not focusing on [the work].”
303
We found that the nongeologic/nonacademic aspects of the field course generated mixed feelings among the students. Logistical factors often prompted negative feelings, which reduced motivation levels and caused students to disengage from their learning. Students were motivated by the social and cultural activities, although this appeared to be primarily extrinsic, with the activities providing a perceived “reward” for learning. However, as evidenced by Nundy (1999), the positive feelings associated with memorable experiences encountered during fieldwork can play an important role in the learning process. Further, the socialization of the students outside of the field environment helped to strengthen social relationships and interactions during the fieldwork. This is discussed further in the section on social learning. Overall, we found that presage factors prompted both positive and negative feelings in the students, and that they appeared both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated to learn. These findings are suggestive of the students adopting both deep and surface approaches to learning. Learning Processes By interviewing the students while actively engaged in their learning task, we gained “here and now” information about their perceptions of, and feelings toward, their learning, and gained insight into the processes operating during fieldwork. Our findings suggest that learning was predominantly influenced by experiential and social processes. Experiential Learning This fieldwork provided students with the opportunity to experience geology in an authentic setting, to contextualize their existing knowledge by relating theory to reality, and to gain competency in a range of subject-specific and generic skills. They considered “learning by doing” highly significant to developing their understanding of geology, and placed particular value in gaining direct experience with their subject matter, linking theory with practice, and developing their confidence by applying their knowledge, and testing out new ideas and theories (i.e., learning from their mistakes!). The fieldwork also provided the students with “memorable episodes” (e.g., Mackenzie and White, 1982; Nundy, 1999), which they felt contributed toward their overall learning.
“It’s not just about physically putting stuff on a map, it’s also understanding…like, you learn about faults, but you can’t really understand them until you’ve experienced them.”
“You can learn the theory of [geology], but it’s completely different when you’ve got to put it into practice.”
“It’s about confidence, I mean to go up and touch a rock and say ‘it’s such and such,’ you need it, but if you’re wrong, so what, it’s a learning process.”
304
Stokes and Boyle
“You need to get out in the field ’cos, like, you learn a lot more. It is so much better, it is an experience which will stay in your mind forever.”
Visualization is a significant aspect of cognition (Zull, 2002) and, while experiential learning typically involves multiple sensory experiences, “seeing” was the most critical aspect of the students’ learning experience. Students often find the relationship between two-dimensional views and three-dimensional reality troublesome (Ishikawa and Kastens, 2005; Petcovic and Libarkin, 2007; Rapp et al., 2007), and the survey data indicate that, to some degree, this difficulty persisted for many to the end of the field course. This was characterized in the field by negative responses indicating confusion, reduced confidence, and frustration.
Social Learning The field is a social as well as a physical learning environment (Marques et al., 2003; Hall et al., 2004), and both social and physical interactions are crucial to the learning experience (Meredith et al., 1997). These interactions were facilitated in the field by the breaking down of social barriers via social and cultural activities, and by the social context of the learning task. Attitudes to collaborative working, and by implication social learning, were largely positive, and many students expressed a preference for smaller group sizes, which they felt allowed for greater interaction with faculty members, and encouraged a more active type of learning.
“After a while [in a bigger group] you are just listening, you’re not talking to other people…it is just listening and then your brain becomes tired because you’re not occupied.”
“It becomes annoying when you can’t visualize it—you just sit there and are really frustrated.”
According to Frodeman, “spatial understanding is kinetic; to understand three-dimensional space one must move through it” (2003, p. 112). Spatial understanding is fundamental to geoscience knowledge domains (Golledge et al., 2008), and we found that the physical process of collecting data from three-dimensional geologic phenomena, translating the data onto the map, and then visually relating the resulting two-dimensional patterns to three-dimensional reality combined to be highly significant in helping students to develop their visual-spatial abilities, and hence transform their understanding. As students became aware of their progress, so their self-confidence, feelings of self-efficacy, and motivation to learn increased—all important antecedents to cognitive engagement (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990) and a deep approach to learning.
“Working around this area, and actually being able to see the hills, and see the different units…you can see what’s going on on the ground. Whereas if you just look at a flat page with different colors and lines, it’s not always easy to work out what it’s doing.”
“You first turn up and you don’t know what is going on or what you are looking at, but as time goes by, you start to see what is going on and understand what you are looking at, and you get enthused because you actually understand what is going on.”
These findings are clearly reflective of a deep rather than a surface approach to learning (Table 1). Indeed, it is difficult to see how students could develop an understanding of the geologic evolution of the study area—which requires the integration of knowledge and ideas from a range of domains—without adopting a deep approach, or without physically interacting with their learning environment.
Social interaction is fundamental to cognitive development, and the types of social learning in which students engaged were found to vary over the field course. The initial stages of learning were driven through interactions with faculty and graduate students. Students were assisted in making initial observations and collecting preliminary data, and in constructing meaning from their findings (Vygotsky, 1978). Students also gained the competencies necessary to work independently by observing and imitating the behavior of others (Bandura, 1986), for example, in learning how to take compass bearings, or translate field data onto their maps. Ultimately, the students were required to work independently, but continued social interaction both within and between the mapping groups enabled them to share information and knowledge, collaborate on solving problems, and engage in “peer-support” (e.g., through keeping each other motivated, working together to plan their activities, etc.). This, combined with interaction with faculty and graduate students, enabled students to gradually acquire the knowledge, skills, and behaviors characteristic of geology, within the context of “real” field activities (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Many students had embarked on the field course with working relationships and friendships developed during previous residential fieldwork, while others formed entirely new social bonds. These relationships were highly valued, particularly in terms of future collaborative working and academic support.
“I think a big part of the degree was getting to know people when you’re in the field so you work together in the field, and then when you get back you’re working in groups in tutorials or lectures.”
While a degree of friction, particularly within mapping groups, was inevitable, at the end of the field course the majority of students reported improved relationships both with their group members, and with other students. They were also
The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience overwhelmingly positive about their relationships with “experts” (e.g., faculty members, graduate students, and technical staff), and many reported increased confidence in interacting with faculty members (Table 5). These findings reinforce the strongly positive feelings toward collaborative working identified from the quantitative data. Students perceived “experts” as providers of guidance and support rather than “teachers” or transmitters of knowledge and, while initially lacking in confidence about working independently, demonstrated a clear preference for developing their independence over being “taught.” This is consistent with a deep approach to learning, whereby understanding can be enhanced through working autonomously (Hill and Woodland, 2002). The receipt of feedback was particularly valued because it provided the only means by which students could gain a measure of their progress. The guidance and reassurance provided through feedback helped to improve the students’ self-confidence, and thus increase levels of motivation and engagement (Crossman, 2007).
“I don’t want to be led into any answers, I just need some reassurance to know that I am heading in the right direction. It is about building your confidence up.”
“We got the lecturer to check [the map] and he said it was looking alright, so extra motivation, which was brilliant.”
Many of the learning environments that students encounter over the course of their undergraduate studies involve some degree of social learning, but this is most evident in relation to residential fieldwork, where students become immersed in “living,” as opposed to simply “doing,” their discipline (Stokes, 2008). In this study we found physical and social interactions to be fundamental in helping students to acquire the knowledge, skills, and behaviors that are characteristic of the discipline of geology, and which reflect their transition from novice toward expert geoscientists. Learning Outcomes As stated previously, it is not the intention of this study to identify the cognitive learning outcomes or gains resulting from this fieldwork (typically geologic/academic). Rather, we aim to describe evidence for subject-specific and more generic (and
305
transferable) outcomes (typically nongeologic/nonacademic) that are not generally assessed as part of learning, and in particular the affective outcomes likely to influence future field experiences. Learning outcomes were achieved in the affective, cognitive, and psychomotor domains, although students were assessed only on the last two. This is common practice within geoscience (and science in general), and reflects not only the relative difficulty of measuring outcomes based in emotion (Novak, 1979; Picard et al., 2004; Pyle, this volume), but also the “traditional” positivist view that science should concern facts rather than feelings (Alsop and Watts, 2003). Geologic/Academic Outcomes Coping with uncertainty can be difficult in situations where motivation is driven by performance (i.e., extrinsic). It is natural to want to reduce or overcome feelings of uncertainty (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Bar-Anan et al., 2009), and this was well reflected in the students’ concern over the variability between their maps. The students had received their initial information, thoughts, and ideas from a variety of academic faculty, meaning that they embarked on their independent mapping with a degree of uncertainty about what was “correct.” These feelings of uncertainty were reduced by the students viewing a series of maps created on previous field courses by a single member of faculty (i.e., an “expert”). Although slightly different, they could see that all of these maps provided a valid explanation of the field area. Hence, they were able to appreciate that, rather than seeking a “right answer,” they should instead focus on making sound observations, and using their evidence to justify their interpretations. Interacting and sharing knowledge with a range of academics also helped students to recognize the variability of opinion and practice that exists within the “expert” community, and thus to accept uncertainty as an inherent characteristic of geology.
“I think, looking at his [faculty member] maps, it’s like—he’s done them slightly different each time he’s come out, and if I were to take an average of his [maps]….[T]he main part of what I’ve done isn’t that dissimilar to what he’s done. And, you know, from the average of his [maps] I’m thinking ‘well I can’t be that far off.’”
“People could have told us [there was no right answer], but we wouldn’t have taken it on board.”
TABLE 5. CHANGES IN STUDENTS’ SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AS IDENTIFIED FROM THE POST-FIELDWORK SURVEY Change in relationship Social group Other significant change N Number of Good or Unchanged Declined responses improved Mapping group 52 41 8 0 Some conflict/differences of 6 opinion Other students 50 33 2 0 Got to know more people* 22 Academic faculty, graduate 51 51 0 0 Increased confidence to 12 students, and technical staff approach *Where a response referred to “getting to know more people,” this was not assumed to indicate good or improved relationships, unless explicitly stated.
306
Stokes and Boyle
This ability to cope with uncertainty is an important outcome from the learning experience, since the complex and variable nature of “real” geologic data requires expert geoscientists to become highly skilled in subjective interpretation (Raab and Brosch, 1996; Frodeman, 2003). Further, the sense of achievement and satisfaction felt by students reflected the value attached to the learning outcomes, and hence likely attitudes to future fieldwork (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990; Rozell and Gardner, 2000).
“It is satisfying at the end of the day when you look at your map and you think ‘I did that.’”
The students also recognized the value of the field course in enabling them to learn, develop, and apply a range of field-related or subject-specific skills and competencies. They demonstrated significantly increased self-efficacy in relation to a range of cognitive and psychomotor tasks, and showed a clear appreciation of the value of geologic mapping both to their overall learning, and in terms of future careers.
“It’s vital for geology.”
“For most jobs in geology you need to be able to do field work… you’ve got to be able to make a geologic map of an area.”
Geologic environments are characterized by heterogeneity and gaps in evidence (Brodaric and Gahegan, 2001), and one of the greatest challenges faced by geoscientists is learning to cope with the uncertainty that is inherent in geologic inquiry. The incompleteness of field exposure and the subjective nature of observation mean that, even when expert geologists work together, there will be variability within their interpretations (Brodaric and Gahegan, 2001). In many respects it is this willingness to accept ambiguity that distinguishes geology, and geologic reasoning, from other scientific disciplines (Ault, 1998). Nongeologic/Nonacademic Outcomes Students appeared less explicitly aware of the impact of the fieldwork on their personal and social development. Indeed, when asked to provide a free-text response to the question “what skills have you learnt or developed during this fieldtrip?” only seven out of 48 responses referred to some kind of personal skill (e.g., confidence), and only three specified social skills or teamwork— despite demonstrating improved social relationships with both their peers and with faculty/staff. Skills such as working independently, planning and managing time, and risk-awareness, were not mentioned, even though the students showed clear evidence of possessing these abilities. These more generic outcomes are
highly valued by employers (Penn, 2001; Gedye and Chalkley, 2006) and form part of the skills portfolio required for a student graduating from a UK geoscience program (QAA, 2007). The reasons why these were not recognized by the students as outcomes from their fieldwork are unclear. It may reflect a greater perceived value in outcomes that are assessed (i.e., that will contribute toward their final grades) and thus performance goals, or, alternatively, the students may simply not be conscious of having acquired these important skills. Either way, it is important that students are made aware of the significance of these skills in terms of their academic and wider professional development. Students’ improved self-confidence in geologic mapping was the most significant affective outcome, and it occurred mainly in response to improvements in the students’ abilities to work independently, and to cope with the uncertain nature of geologic data. As mentioned previously, many students were initially uncomfortable with differences that arose between individual maps as a result of working independently, but by the end of the field course this discomfort had largely reduced.
“I’d feel more comfortable if [group members] had the same sort of thing because it would tell me that I’m right.”
“I mean, if you look among…the variation amongst…I mean just, even us three [mapping group], on our maps, it’s a lot…and then amongst the whole group, it’s even more.”
In many respects, these nongeologic and nonacademic outcomes might be considered more significant than subject-specific or academic skills, since these will find application in a much broader range of contexts and careers. The important thing, however, is that successful outcomes were clearly achieved in all three learning domains. Gains in the cognitive and psychomotor domains are reflected in enhanced reasoning skills and practical abilities, while the overcoming of negative feeling and the attribution of value to the learning outcomes reflected a positive impact on the affective domain. These outcomes will influence students attitudes and feelings toward their subsequent fieldwork activities, and hence their approaches to future learning. DISCUSSION
[L]earning involves moving from the familiar to the unfamiliar, traversing the emotional quagmire of success, self-doubt, challenge, and classroom identity. —Alsop and Watts (2003, p. 1043)
This study aims to enhance understanding of the learning processes operating during residential fieldwork by identifying factors likely to prompt affective responses in students learning
The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience geologic mapping, and exploring the impact of affect on learning outcomes. The quantitative data provide general support for the hypothesis that residential fieldwork does prompt positive affective responses. These are desirable because they promote deep approaches to learning (the intention to understand) and improved performance (e.g., Biggs, 2003; Silvia, 2008). Figure 3 shows that positive feeling toward the overall field experience became enhanced as a result of the field course, but the findings in relation to specific aspects of the fieldwork were less conclusive (Tables 2 and 3). In fact, in contrast to Boyle et al. (2007), significant changes in feelings were rarely identified. It is interesting to note that geologic mapping was not represented in the range of residential field experiences contributing to Boyle et al.’s data set, and this apparent lack of enhancement in positive affect may be reflective of students’ feelings toward mapping as a specific learning task, rather than fieldwork in general. Nonetheless, the overall positive nature of responses both before and after the field course is encouraging. Clearer insight into the aspects of the field course that prompt affective responses is provided by the qualitative data. We found factors relating to the presage, process, and product stages of learning (Fig. 4) to influence, and be influenced by, the students’ affective states both directly in terms of their feelings and emotions, and indirectly in terms of their levels of motivation and confidence. At the presage, positive feelings were most commonly encountered in relation to student characteristics (e.g., prior experiences, expectations), fieldwork in general (both as a learning activity and environment), the geographical setting of the field course, the social context of learning (working collaboratively), and extracurricular social and cultural activities. These findings concur broadly with the quantitative data, particularly in relation to perceptions of fieldwork and collaborative learning. Negative feelings were encountered most frequently in relation to geologic mapping as an activity, meeting physical challenges, achieving academically, the social context of learning (working independently), and logistical factors such as weather, accommodation, and lack of sleep. Although implied in part from the quantitative data, these findings provide a clearer indication of the factors likely to contribute to pre–field course anxiety. The attitude of the students toward geologic mapping is perhaps unsurprising—it is difficult, and independent project work (for which this field course provides the training) is the hardest of all field activities. This difficulty was reflected in the students’ comments about mapping itself and their abilities to succeed, many (but not all) of which implied a desire to perform well rather than achieve mastery of skills (Ames and Archer, 1988). These negative feelings decreased as the students engaged with the learning process. The faculty-led introductory period helped to reduce initial barriers to engagement (Orion and Hofstein, 1994), and feelings toward the physical and academic aspects of the field course improved as the students gained expertise and confidence through participation in active and social learning environments. These environments provided the sensory inputs necessary for emotional engagement with the learning
307
task (e.g., by increasing interest levels and hence motivation), along with the physical, mental, and emotional experiences that drive the learning process (Fig. 1). The nature of learning activity seemed likely to encourage a deep rather than a surface approach to learning (Table 1), and this was further reflected in the students’ affective responses and motivation levels. Overall, the learning process was found to be positive, and the students successfully achieved outcomes in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains (Fig. 4). Despite this, many appeared to lack recognition of the value and importance of generic skills. It may be that the acquisition of these skills simply needs to be made more explicit (Andrews et al., 2003), or they may recognize that they have the skills, but be unaware of the relevance to their wider personal and professional development—and this awareness may only increase as they come to plan their independent project. This has important implications for employment, since students may underrepresent important skills and abilities if they do not fully recognize their value. A good example is leadership skills. In business and industry, leadership competencies are typically developed using outwardbound or adventure-style courses (Hattie et al., 1997), yet such skills can be successfully developed through geoscience fieldwork, especially field mapping training where students are problem solving in difficult terrain. Wider Implications This study has identified factors prompting positive and negative affective responses in relation to a specific field experience. Where identified, the overall change in affect resulting from this field experience was positive, although the trajectory of change was not straightforward. Rather, it resulted from a complex interplay between both positive and negative feelings and emotions linked to a wide range of academic and nonacademic factors. Future studies of this type might benefit from a finer-grained approach, employing more sensitive data collection and analysis techniques such that critical interactions and relationships can be identified. An important finding from this study, however, is that the factors prompting affective responses varied between individual students, and also over time. Some of the factors identified in this study may be common to all residential fieldwork, and further research is needed to confirm whether this is the case. Others are likely to be specific to this particular experience, e.g., the nature of the learning task, the students’ prior experiences, and the social and cultural activities. We would therefore expect the factors influencing learning to vary between field courses, along with the extent to which they can be “controlled” (e.g., field activities or locations can be easily adapted to increase student engagement or interest, unlike the weather!). The likelihood of creating a field experience in which every student experiences only positive feelings and emotions is low: there will always be aspects of fieldwork to which at least some students respond negatively, and which, by implication, may hinder or reduce their learning. However, negative affective
308
Stokes and Boyle
responses may not be altogether undesirable. While high levels of anxiety can hinder both motivation and achievement, and thus encourage a surface approach to learning, moderate levels have been found to motivate learning and performance in assessment (Cassady and Johnson, 2002). Further, the apparent ability of mood to influence ways of thinking and information processing (e.g., Ashby et al., 1999; Isen, 2000; Forgas, 2001; Gasper and Clore, 2002; Clore and Schnall, 2005; Schnall et al., 2008) means that, in some cases, a positive state of mind may impede rather than promote learning, depending on the requirements of the task. Hence, the relationship between affective response and approach to learning is perhaps less straightforward than it may appear and therefore merits further investigation, particularly into the role of affective constructs such as motivation and attitudes in fieldwork (Glynn and Koballa, 2006; Koballa and Glynn, 2007). Knowledge from disciplines such as neuroscience, psychology, and cognitive science can contribute greatly to our understanding of affect and its influence on student learning in fieldwork (and geoscience more generally), and we have much to gain by collaborating with such disciplines in future research. The extent to which social and cultural factors influenced the students’ experience is a particularly important finding from this study. These were highly valued as extracurricular activities and acted as motivators for learning and as the basis for “memorable episodes” (Mackenzie and White, 1982; Nundy, 1999). While the contribution of these factors to the final learning outcomes is unclear, they were significant in generating the positive affective responses associated with increased motivation, a deep approach to learning, and ultimately to the successful achievement of learning outcomes. Our findings also identify significant improvements in the quality of social relationships—a further predicator of motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000). However, while it is clear that fieldwork can have significant social benefits (e.g., Crompton and Sellar, 1981; Fuller et al., 2006), in practice social bonding does not always occur (Nairn et al., 2000), and hence these benefits cannot be assumed. Neither can we assume that active participation in fieldwork is sufficient to generate desired learning outcomes. As we have demonstrated, some students have a clear preference for other, more passive learning environments, and this will influence their attitudes and approach to fieldwork. So, although the field provides an unparalleled opportunity to interact with geology and contextualize knowledge in an authentic setting, its apparent power as a learning environment may not be experienced by all students. This has important implications for the design of residential field courses, particularly in the case of nonmajors whose prior experiences and perceptions of the value of fieldwork may vary more widely than those reported here. CONCLUSIONS This study has shown that fieldwork generates a range of affective responses in students that can impact on their learning. Ultimately, learning is an experience unique to individuals, and we should not expect to identify “straightforward monotone rela-
tionships” between affect and cognition (Snow et al., 1996) that will provide a recipe for “effective” fieldwork. Effective learning in the field will never simply result from favorable weather conditions, outstanding exposure, or a meticulously planned activity. However, identifying those aspects of fieldwork most likely to influence students’ affective responses, and understanding their impact upon attitudes and approaches to learning, should facilitate the development of field activities that generate effective learning outcomes in all three domains. Geoscientists have always believed there to be something uniquely valuable about the field learning experience, but until fairly recently much of the evidence used to support this assumption has been anecdotal. The findings from this and other recent investigations provide empirical evidence for the effectiveness of fieldwork as a learning experience and shed new light on the factors that can influence the learning process. Such evidence is vital for the future development of fieldwork and for its continued inclusion on the undergraduate geoscience curriculum. Further, geoscience students need to be made aware of their subliminal acquisition during fieldwork of valued generic employability skills such as leadership. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful thanks go to Kirsty Magnier for help with data collection and analysis, and to all the students and faculty who participated and cooperated in this study. Ruth Weaver, Eric Pyle, and two anonymous reviewers are thanked for their helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. REFERENCES CITED Alsop, S., and Watts, M., 2000, Facts and feelings: Exploiting the affective domain in the learning of physics: Physics Education, v. 35, p. 132–138, doi: 10.1088/0031-9120/35/2/311. Alsop, S., and Watts, M., 2003, Science education and affect: International Journal of Science Education, v. 25, p. 1043–1047, doi: 10.1080/ 0950069032000052180. Ames, C., and Archer, J., 1988, Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes: Journal of Educational Psychology, v. 80, p. 260–267, doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260. Andrews, J., Kneale, P., Sougnez, W., Stewart, M., and Stott, T., 2003, Carrying out pedagogic research into the constructive alignment of fieldwork: Planet, Special Edition 5, p. 51–52, http://www.gees.ac.uk/pubs/planet/ pse5back.pdf (accessed August 2008). Ashby, F.G., Isen, A.M., and Turken, U., 1999, A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition: Psychological Review, v. 106, p. 529–550, doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.3.529. Ault, C.R., 1998, Criteria of excellence for geological inquiry: The necessity of ambiguity: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 35, p. 189– 212, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199802)35:2<189::AID-TEA8>3.0 .CO;2-O. Bandura, A., 1986, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 544 p. Bandura, A., 1997, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control: New York, Freeman, 604 p. Bar-Anan, Y., Wilson, T.D., and Gilbert, D.T., 2009, The feeling of uncertainty intensifies affective reactions: Emotion, v. 9, p. 123–127, doi: 10.1037/ a0014607. Beard, C., and Wilson, J.P., 2005, Ingredients for effective learning: The learning combination lock, in Hartley, P., Woods, A., and Pill, M., eds.,
The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience Enhancing Teaching in Higher Education: New Approaches for Improving Student Learning: London and New York, Routledge, p. 3–15. Biggs, J.B., 2003, Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd ed.): Buckingham, SRHE and Open University Press, 272 p. Bloom, B.S., 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classification of Educational Goals—Handbook I: Cognitive Domain: New York, McKay, 207 p. Boyle, A., Maguire, S., Martin, A., Milsom, C., Nash, R., Rawlinson, S., Turner, A., Wurthmann, S., and Conchie, S., 2007, Fieldwork is good: The student perception and the affective domain: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 31, p. 299–317, doi: 10.1080/03098260601063628. Boyle, A.P., Ryan, P., and Stokes, A., 2009, this volume, External drivers for changing fieldwork practices and provision in the UK and Ireland, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(24). Bracken, L., and Mawdsley, E., 2004, ‘Muddy glee’: Rounding out the picture of women and physical geography fieldwork: Area, v. 36, p. 280–286, doi: 10.1111/j.0004-0894.2004.00225.x. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking, R.R., 1999, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 319 p. Breen, R.L., 2006, A practical guide to focus-group research: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 30, p. 463–475, doi: 10.1080/03098260600927575. Breen, R., and Lindsay, R., 1999, Academic research and student motivation: Studies in Higher Education, v. 24, p. 75–93, doi: 10.1080/ 03075079912331380158. Brodaric, B., and Gahegan, M., 2001, Learning geoscientific categories in situ: Implications for geographic knowledge representation, in Proceedings of the 9th ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems: New York, ACM Press, p. 130–135, available at http:// doi.acm.org/10.1145/512161.512190 (accessed 17 August 2009). Butler, R., 2008, Teaching Geoscience through Fieldwork: Plymouth, UK, Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES), 56 p., http://www.gees.ac.uk/pubs/ guides/fw/fwgeosci.pdf (accessed December 2008). Cahill, L., and McGaugh, J.L., 1998, Mechanisms of emotional arousal and lasting declarative memory: Trends in Neurosciences, v. 21, p. 294–299, doi: 10.1016/S0166-2236(97)01214-9. Cassady, J.C., and Johnson, R.E., 2002, Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance: Contemporary Educational Psychology, v. 27, p. 270–295, doi: 10.1006/ceps.2001.1094. Clore, G.L., and Schnall, S., 2005, The influence of affect on attitude, in Albarracin, D., Johnson, B.T., and Zanna, M.P., eds., The Handbook of Attitudes: Mahwah, New Jersey, London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 437–489. Clore, G.L., Wyer, R.S., Dienes, B., Gasper, K., Gohm, C., and Isbell, L., 2001, Affective feelings as feedback: Some cognitive consequences, in Martin, L.L., and Clore, G.L., eds., Theories of Mood and Cognition: Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 27–62. Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K., 2000, Research Methods in Education (5th ed.): New York, Routledge Falmer, 446 p. Crompton, J.L., and Sellar, C., 1981, Do outdoor education experiences contribute to positive development in the affective domain?: The Journal of Environmental Education, v. 12, p. 21–30. Crossman, J., 2007, The role of relationships and emotions in student perceptions of learning and assessment: Higher Education Research & Development, v. 26, p. 313–327, doi: 10.1080/07294360701494328. Dave, R.H., 1970, Psychomotor levels, in Armstrong, R.J., ed., Developing and Writing Behavioural Objectives: Tucson, Arizona, Educational Innovators Press, p. 33–34. Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M., 1985, Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behaviour: New York, Plenum Press, 371 p. Eiss, A.F., and Harbeck, M.B., 1969, Learning Objectives in the Affective Domain: Washington, D.C., National Science Teachers Association, 42 p. Elkins, J.T., and Elkins, N.M.L., 2007, Teaching geology in the field: Significant geoscience concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geology courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, p. 126–132. Entwistle, N., 1987, A model of the teaching-learning process, in Richardson, J.T.E., Eysenck, M.W., and Warren Piper, D., eds., Student Learning. Research in Education and Cognitive Psychology: Milton Keynes, UK, Open University Press and SRHE, p. 13–28.
309
Entwistle, N., and Ramsden, P., 1983, Understanding Student Learning: London, Croom Helm, 248 p. Entwistle, N., and Smith, C., 2002, Personal understanding and target understanding: Mapping influences on the outcomes of learning: British Journal of Educational Psychology, v. 72, p. 321–342, doi: 10.1348/ 000709902320634528. Fletcher, S., and Dodds, W., 2004, Dipping toes in the water: An international survey of residential fieldwork within ICM degree course curricula, in Green, D.R., Angus, S., Bailey, D., Eleveld, M., Furmanczyk, K., Hansom, J., Longhorn, R.A., Paskoff, R., Psuty, N.P., Randall, R., Ritchie, W., Salman, A., Taussik, J., Pinto, F.T., and Wensink, H., eds., Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium: Delivering Sustainable Coasts: Connecting Science and Policy: Aberdeen, UK, Cambridge Publications, p. 305–309. Forgas, J.P., 2001, The affect infusion model (AIM): An integrative theory of mood effects on cognition and judgments, in Martin, L.L., and Clore, G.L., eds., Theories of Mood and Cognition: Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 27–62. Frodeman, R., 2003, Geo-Logic: Albany, New York, State University of New York Press, 184 p. Fuller, I., Edmondson, S., France, D., Higgitt, D., and Ratinen, I., 2006, International perspectives on the effectiveness of geography fieldwork for learning: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 30, p. 89–101, doi: 10.1080/03098260500499667. Gagné, R.M., and White, R.T., 1978, Memory structures and learning outcomes: Review of Educational Research, v. 48, p. 187–222. Gasper, K., and Clore, G.L., 2002, Attending to the big picture: Mood and global versus local processing of visual information: Psychological Science, v. 13, p. 34–40, doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00406. Gedye, S., and Chalkley, B., 2006, Employability within Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences: http://www.gees.ac.uk/pubs/guides/emp/ geesemployability.pdf (accessed July 2008). Glynn, S.M., and Koballa, T.R., 2006, Motivation to learn in college science, in Mintzes, J.J., and Leonard, W.H., eds., Handbook of College Science Teaching: Arlington, Virginia, National Science Teachers Association Press, p. 25–32. Gold, P.W., 2005, The neurobiology of stress and its relevance to psychotherapy: Clinical Neuroscience Research, v. 87, p. 201–211. Golledge, R.G., Marsh, M., and Battersby, S., 2008, Matching geospatial concepts with geographic educational needs: Geographical Research, v. 46, p. 85–98, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2007.00494.x. Hall, T., Healey, M., and Harrison, M., 2004, Fieldwork and disabled students: Discourses of exclusion and inclusion: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 28, p. 255–280, doi: 10.1080/0309826042000242495. Hattie, J., Marsh, H.W., Neill, J.T., and Richards, G.E., 1997, Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference: Review of Educational Research, v. 67, p. 43–87. Hill, J., and Woodland, W., 2002, An evaluation of foreign fieldwork in promoting deep learning: A preliminary investigation: Assessment and Evaluation, v. 27, p. 539–555, doi: 10.1080/0260293022000020309. Hsieh, H.-F., and Shannon, S.E., 2005, Three approaches to qualitative content analysis: Qualitative Health Research, v. 15, p. 1277–1288, doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687. Iozzi, L.A., 1989, What research says to the educator. Part Two: Environmental education and the affective domain: The Journal of Environmental Education, v. 20, p. 6–13. Isen, A.M., 2000, Positive affect and decision making, in Lewis, M., and Haviland, J., eds., Handbook of Emotions: New York, Guildford Press, p. 417–435. Ishikawa, T., and Kastens, K., 2005, Why some students have trouble with maps and other spatial representations: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, p. 184–197. Kelso, P.R., and Brown, L.M., 2009, this volume, Integration of field experiences in a project-based geoscience curriculum, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(06). Kempa, R.F., and Orion, N., 1996, Students’ perception of co-operative learning in earth science fieldwork: Research in Science and Technological Education, v. 14, p. 33–41. Kent, M., Gilbertson, D.D., and Hunt, C.O., 1997, Fieldwork in geography teaching: A critical review of the literature and approaches: Journal
310
Stokes and Boyle
of Geography in Higher Education, v. 21, p. 313–332, doi: 10.1080/ 03098269708725439. Kern, E.L., and Carpenter, J.R., 1984, Enhancement of student values, interests and attitudes in earth science through a field-orientated approach: Journal of Geological Education, v. 32, p. 299–305. Kern, E.L., and Carpenter, J.R., 1986, Effect of field activities on student learning: Journal of Geological Education, v. 34, p. 180–183. Kinnear, P., and Gray, C., 2000, SPSS for Windows Made Simple: Release 10: Hove, UK, Psychology Press, 432 p. Koballa, T.R., and Glynn, S.M., 2007, Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning, in Abell, S.K., and Lederman, N., eds., Handbook for Research in Science Education: Mahwah, New Jersey, Erlbaum, p. 75–102. Kolb, D.A., 1984, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 256 p. Kratwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., and Masia, B.B., 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classification of Educational Goals—Handbook II: Affective Domain: New York, McKay, 196 p. Lai, K.C., 1999, Freedom to learn: A study of the experiences of secondary school teachers and students in a geography field trip: International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, v. 8, p. 239– 255, doi: 10.1080/10382049908667614. Lave, J., and Wenger, E., 1991, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation: Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 138 p. Libarkin, J.C., and Kurdziel, J.P., 2002a, Research methodologies in science education: The qualitative-quantitative debate: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 50, p. 78–86. Libarkin, J.C., and Kurdziel, J.P., 2002b, Research methodologies in science education: Qualitative data: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 50, p. 195–200. Lincoln, Y.S., and Guba, E.G., 1985, Naturalistic Inquiry: Beverly Hills, California, Sage Publishing, 416 p. Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., and Simons, R., 2002, University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice: Studies in Higher Education, v. 27, p. 27–52, doi: 10.1080/03075070120099359. Lonergan, N., and Andresen, L.W., 1988, Field-based education: Some theoretical considerations: Higher Education Research and Development, v. 7, p. 63–77, doi: 10.1080/0729436880070106. Mackenzie, A.A., and White, R.T., 1982, Fieldwork in geography and longterm memory structures: American Educational Research Journal, v. 19, p. 623–632. Maguire, S., 1998, Gender differences in attitudes to undergraduate fieldwork: Area, v. 30, p. 207–214, doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.1998.tb00065.x. Manner, B.M., 1995, Field studies benefit students and teachers: Journal of Geological Education, v. 43, p. 128–131. Marques, L., Praia, J., and Kempa, R., 2003, A study of students’ perceptions of the organisation and effectiveness of fieldwork in earth sciences education: Research in Science and Technological Education, v. 21, p. 265– 278, doi: 10.1080/0263514032000127275. Marshall, J.S., Gardner, T.W., Protti, M., and Nourse, J.A., 2009, this volume, International geosciences field research with undergraduate students: Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(08). Marton, F., and Saljo, R., 1976, On qualitative differences in learning: 1—Outcomes and processes: The British Journal of Educational Psychology, v. 46, p. 4–11. May, C.L., Eaton, L.S., and Whitmeyer, S.J., 2009, this volume, Integrating student-led research in fluvial geomorphology into traditional field courses: A case study from James Madison University’s field course in Ireland, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(17). Meredith, J.E., Fortner, R.W., and Mullins, G.W., 1997, Model of affective learning for nonformal science education facilities: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 34, p. 805–818, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736 (199710)34:8<805::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-Z. Miles, M., and Huberman, M.A., 1984, Qualitative Data Analysis: Beverly Hills, California, Sage Publications, 352 p. Millar, M.G., and Millar, K.U., 1996, The effects of direct and indirect experience on affective and cognitive responses and the attitude-behaviour
relation: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, v. 32, p. 561–579, doi: 10.1006/jesp.1996.0025. Mondlane, S., and Mapani, B., 2002, The role of fieldwork in undergraduate geoscience education: Approaches and constraints: Teaching Earth Sciences, v. 27, p. 129–131. Morrison, K.R.B., 1993, Planning and Accomplishing School-Centred Evaluation: Norfolk, UK, Peter Francis Publishers, 224 p. Murphy, P.K., and Alexander, P.A., 2000, A motivated exploration of motivation terminology: Contemporary Educational Psychology, v. 25, p. 3–53, doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1019. Nairn, K., 1996, Parties on geography fieldtrips: Embodied fieldwork?: New Zealand Women’s Studies Journal, v. 12, p. 86–97. Nairn, K., 2003, What has the geography of sleeping arrangements got to do with the geography of our teaching spaces?: Gender, Place and Culture, v. 10, p. 67–81, doi: 10.1080/0966369032000052667. Nairn, K., Higgitt, D., and Vanneste, D., 2000, International perspectives on field courses: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 24, p. 246– 254, doi: 10.1080/713677382. Novak, J.D., 1979, Implications for teaching of research on learning, in Rowe, M.B., ed., What Research Says to the Science Teacher: Washington, D.C., National Science Teachers Association, p. 68–79. Nundy, S., 1999, The fieldwork effect: The role and impact of fieldwork in the Upper Primary School: International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, v. 8, p. 190–198, doi: 10.1080/10382049908667608. Orion, N., and Hofstein, A., 1994, Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 31, p. 1097–1119, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660311005. Orion, N., Ben-Chaim, D., and Kali, Y., 1997, Relationship between earth-science education and spatial visualization: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 45, p. 129–132. Patton, M.Q., 1990, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.): Newbury Park, California, Sage Publications, 532 p. Penn, I., 2001, What does the employer want? A British Geological Survey perspective on graduate employability: Planet, Special Edition 1, p. 4–5, http://www.gees.ac.uk/pubs/planet/p2/ip.pdf (accessed July 2008). Perrier, F., and Nsengiyumva, J.-B., 2003, Active science as a contribution to the trauma recovery process: Preliminary indications with orphans for the 1994 genocide in Rwanda: International Journal of Science Education, v. 25, p. 1111–1128, doi: 10.1080/0950069032000052225. Petcovic, H.L., and Libarkin, J.C., 2007, Research in science education: The expert-novice continuum: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, p. 333–339. Picard, R.W., Papert, S., Bender, W., Blumberg, B., Breazeal, C., Cavallo, D., Machover, T., Resnick, M., Roy, D., and Strohecker, C., 2004, Affective learning—A manifesto: BT Technology Journal, v. 22, p. 253–269, doi: 10.1023/B:BTTJ.0000047603.37042.33. Pintrich, P.R., 2000, An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivational terminology, theory, and research: Contemporary Educational Psychology, v. 25, p. 92–104, doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1017. Pintrich, P.R., and De Groot, E.V., 1990, Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance: Journal of Educational Psychology, v. 82, p. 33–40, doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33. Pintrich, P.R., Marx, R.W., and Boyle, R.A., 1993, Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change: Review of Educational Research, v. 63, p. 167–199. Pyle, E.J., 2009, this volume, The evaluation of field course experiences: A framework for development, improvement, and reporting, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(26). QAA, 2007, Benchmark Statement for Earth Sciences, Environmental Sciences, and Environmental Studies: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/ benchmark/statements/earthsciences.pdf (accessed July 2008). Raab, T., and Brosch, F.J., 1996, Uncertainty, subjectivity, experience: A comparative pilot study: Engineering Geology, v. 44, p. 129–145, doi: 10.1016/S0013-7952(96)00065-8. Raab, T., and Frodeman, R., 2002, What is it like to be a geologist? A phenomenology of geology and its epistemological implications: Philosophy and Geography, v. 5, p. 69–81, doi: 10.1080/10903770120116840. Rabiee, F., 2004, Focus-group interview and data analysis: The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, v. 63, p. 655–660, doi: 10.1079/PNS2004399.
The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience Rapp, D.N., Culpepper, S.A., Kirkby, K., and Morin, P., 2007, Fostering students’ comprehension of topographic maps: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, p. 5–16. Roberson, P.K., Shema, S.J., Mundfrom, D.J., and Holmes, T.M., 1995, Analysis of paired Likert data: How to evaluate change and preference questions: Family Medicine, v. 27, p. 671–675. Rozell, E.J., and Gardner, W.L., 2000, Cognitive, motivation, and affective processes associated with computer-related performance: A path analysis: Computers in Human Behavior, v. 16, p. 199–222, doi: 10.1016/S0747 -5632(99)00054-0. Ryan, R.M., and Deci, E.L., 2000, Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being: The American Psychologist, v. 55, p. 68–78, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68. Schmitz, B., 2006, Advantages of studying processes in educational research: Learning and Instruction, v. 16, p. 433–449, doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc .2006.09.004. Schnall, S., Jaswal, V.K., and Rowe, C., 2008, A hidden cost of happiness in children: Developmental Science, v. 11, p. F25–F30, doi: 10.1111/j.1467 -7687.2008.00709.x. Silvia, P.J., 2008, Interest—The curious emotion: Current Directions in Psychological Science, v. 17, p. 57–60, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00548.x. Simón, J.L., 2004, Superposed buckle folding in the eastern Iberian Chain, Spain: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 26, p. 1447–1464, doi: 10.1016/ j.jsg.2003.11.026. Snow, R.E., Corno, L., and Jackson, D., 1996, Individual differences in affective and conative functions, in Berliner, D.C., and Calfee, R.C., eds., Handbook of Educational Psychology: New York, Macmillan, p. 243–310. Snyder, K., 2003, Ropes, poles, and space—Active learning in business education: Active Learning in Higher Education, v. 4, p. 159–167, doi: 10.1177/ 1469787403004002004. Stokes, A., 2008, What can social learning theory tell us about fieldwork?: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 6, p. 365.
311
Storbeck, J., and Clore, G.L., 2005, With sadness comes accuracy; with happiness, false memory: Mood and the false memory effect: Psychological Science, v. 16, p. 785–791, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01615.x. Taber, K.S., 2000, Case studies and generalizability: Grounded theory and research in science education: International Journal of Science Education, v. 22, p. 469–487, doi: 10.1080/095006900289732. Tal, R.T., 2001, Incorporating field trips as science learning environment enrichment—An interpretive study: Learning Environments Research, v. 4, p. 25–49, doi: 10.1023/A:1011454625413. Tobin, K., 1998, Qualitative perceptions of learning environments on the World Wide Web: Learning Environments Research, v. 1, p. 139–162, doi: 10.1023/ A:1009953715583. Trigwell, K., and Prosser, M., 1991, Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes: Higher Education, v. 22, p. 251–266, doi: 10.1007/ BF00132290. Turner, P., and Curran, A., 2006, Correlates between bioscience students’ experiences of higher education and the neurobiology of learning: BEE-j (Bioscience Education e-Journal), v. 7, http://www.bioscience.heacademy .ac.uk/journal/vol7/Beej-7-5.htm (accessed July 2008). Vygotsky, L.S., 1978, Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes: Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 159 p. Whang, P.A., and Hancock, G.R., 1994, Motivation and mathematics achievement: Comparisons between Asian-American and non-Asian students: Contemporary Educational Psychology, v. 19, p. 302–322, doi: 10.1006/ ceps.1994.1023. Zull, J.E., 2002, The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching Teaching by Exploring the Biology of Learning: Sterling, Virginia, Stylus Publishing, 263 p.
MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
External drivers for changing fieldwork practices and provision in the UK and Ireland Alan P. Boyle Department of Earth & Ocean Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GP, UK Paul Ryan Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland Alison Stokes Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) Experiential Learning in Environmental and Natural Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK
ABSTRACT This paper looks at general and specific external drivers from a variety of national and supranational organizations (professional associations and accreditation authorities, government agencies, government legislation, European Union) that have produced a range of codes, regulations, and educational requirements that affect the way field training is run, provided, and assessed in Ireland and the United Kingdom. The effects of these driving factors on fieldwork provision in the UK and Ireland are illustrated through the experience of three earth science departments that have (re)designed their field class planning to ensure: (1) compliance with new and continuing government legislation; (2) compliance with the requirements of accrediting bodies and government auditing agencies; and (3) the needs of students and employers for appropriate field class learning outcomes and associated assessment strategies. INTRODUCTION Fieldwork has always been an important part of any geosciences training, but, at least in the UK and Ireland, it has undergone a number of significant changes over the last few decades due to the influence of external drivers. These drivers can be grouped under four headings: general guidance from professional associations for working in the field; educational guidance (including accreditation); employer needs; and government legislation. This paper will discuss each of these in turn using short experiential accounts to show how fieldwork provision has evolved as a result, after which their overall impact on fieldwork will be considered. Much of this is now tied up in the Bologna Declaration of 1999, which became a trans-European project aiming to produce a
European-wide “Higher Education Area” by 2010. Much activity in Europe is aimed at compliance with Bologna, and this will be discussed in greater detail later in this paper. The paper will not concern itself with the many factors that are putting pressure on fieldwork, but instead we discuss the relationship between the drivers that are the main focus of this paper and the drivers that seek to diminish fieldwork teaching. Before going further, it is worth emphasizing that provision of fieldwork in UK and Ireland degree programs differs significantly from the norm in North America. Geoscience fieldwork provision in the UK and Ireland is incremental. In a typical threeyear program in England or Wales, students will have 10–14 days of introductory training in year one, 10–14 days of mapping training in year two, followed by 10–14 days of detailed
techniques training before students commence independent geological mapping projects involving 20–35 days of fieldwork in year three. Later in year three, many students will complete a synthetic field class in which regional geology is addressed (e.g., tectonics of the European Alps, geology of a major sedimentary basin). Ireland and Scotland operate a four-year degree program, where the first year is often devoted to providing a basic training in relevant sciences, and the fieldwork component of this year is variable. However, the other years generally follow the model applied in England and Wales. This approach allows development of fieldwork skills and understanding to develop in parallel with general geoscience skills and understanding throughout the three or four years of the program. GENERAL GUIDANCE FROM PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS FOR WORKING IN THE FIELD General guidance on how to behave in the field has long been provided by the Geologists’ Association through its freely available Geological Fieldwork Code, first published in 1975 (http:// www.geologists.org.uk/publications.html). The code provides general advice about behavior in the countryside, such as seeking prior permission to enter onto private property, how to conserve geological exposures (e.g., “Students should be encouraged to observe and record and not to hammer indiscriminately”), working in quarries, and so on. The history behind its development is given by Green (2008). Most, if not all, UK and Irish geoscience departments issue a copy of this code, or one similar, to new students at the start of their degree courses and follow its guidance in the field. Geoconservation is becoming increasingly important (e.g., Burek and Prosser, 2008; http://www.geoconservation.com; http:// www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/groups/geoconservation), and changing practices are perhaps best summed up by the marked decrease in the use of hammers at outcrops, such that it is unusual for one to be used by most field classes. More recently, in April 2007, the British Standards Institute published BS 8848: A Specification for Adventurous Activities, Expeditions, Visits and Fieldwork Outside the UK (British Standards Institute, 2007), which addresses consumer concerns about the risks associated with adventurous holidays, fieldwork, expeditions and other visits and the participants’ variable levels of competence, training, and fitness. The standard is a voluntary specification that builds on existing good practice. For fieldwork, everyone from staff to undergraduates needs to be fully aware of the formal structures that are in place to ensure safety, including risk assessments, individual training and preparation, dealing with incidents, and insurance coverage. Although the specification applies to fieldwork outside the UK, it will undoubtedly also inform fieldwork practices within the UK. Some of the issues have been discussed by Neild (2007) and Butler (2008). In Ireland, specific codes of practice for geological fieldwork, separate from those within the UK, have not been formally established. However, countryside codes do exist that should be adhered to. These codes espouse similar values to those in the UK.
The National Countryside and Recreation Strategy (Comhairle na Tuaithe, 2006) requires that users of the countryside “leave no trace.” EDUCATIONAL GUIDANCE Educational guidance has come from a range of organizations and has provided a means of both safeguarding fieldwork and improving it as a learning environment. Geological Society of London The Geological Society of London launched its accreditation scheme for UK geoscience degrees in 1997; an accredited degree counts toward attaining Chartered Geologist or Chartered Scientist status, professional qualifications recognized for employment Europe-wide. Over 80 UK degree programs are accredited. Accreditation has played a major part in safeguarding fieldwork programs in UK geoscience courses by specifying a minimum number of days that students must spend in the field. In the 2008 update to the accreditation process (http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/ gsl/op/
External drivers for changing fieldwork practices and provision in the UK and Ireland designing assessments to test their attainment has been generic in UK higher education for some time, as epitomized by Biggs’ (1999, 2003) books on constructive alignment. At Liverpool, these pedagogical developments gave rise to a radical change in the way year one and two field classes were run. These classes are all training classes that aim to provide students with the field skills necessary for undertaking independent fieldwork. The classes used to consist of a set of field days in which students recorded information in notebooks, sedimentary log sheets, etc., which would all be collected at the end of the field class and assessed. Sometimes students were required to write an essay summary of the class. A departmental review of field training decided that the best way to improve field training was to map field class activities to a set of required competences, set up appropriate tasks for students to investigate and complete in the field, and undertake all marking and feedback on the field class. The emphasis had to be on assessing student demonstration of field skills, not their overall knowledge of geology. Thus, students would have a set of activities to complete in a field day, and their outputs (notebooks, logs, etc.) would be collected at the end of the field day and marked that evening to provide feedback to the students before commencing the next day’s fieldwork. For higher-level field classes, students would typically engage in a project over two or three days, which would then be collected in, assessed, and returned before commencing the next project. While this was (and is!) undoubtedly hard work for the teachers, it produced great improvements in field classes. Key advantages include (Hughes and Boyle, 2005): (1) students can learn from their initial work and use this experience to inform their future work in the same class; (2) students get used to doing the work in the field (including things like stereonets on tracing paper), and plagiarism is more difficult; (3) staff can recognize what is and is not working; and (4) all assessment is finished when the field class ends so staff do not go away with a box-load of marking. Field notebooks are commonly assessed by a short interview with the student in the field. One member of staff can typically deal with the whole cohort on a particular day. The advantages of this method of assessment for the notebooks include (Hughes and Boyle, 2005): (1) formative feedback is instant and personalized; (2) the student can clarify misunderstandings in the notebook; (3) the staff member does not have to keep writing the same comment in every notebook (e.g., missing scale, orientation, caption, annotation, etc., on sketch); and (4) the student gains experience of a viva voce–style assessment. Close coupling of the teaching, learning, and assessment modalities is important for engendering positive attitudes in the students and helping them learn better during fieldwork (Boyle et al., 2007). Plymouth’s response to the QAA benchmarks has been to alter field activities rather than delivery, in order to ensure that
315
graduating students meet the benchmark criteria for subject knowledge and key skills. Central to fieldwork provision at Plymouth is very clear progression over the three (or four) years or stages of an undergraduate degree program based around the following key areas: (1) Students are subjected to increasing complexity—geologic, social, and logistical. (2) Fieldwork becomes increasingly “hands on” and independent—the students do more for themselves, by themselves. (3) Fieldwork does not operate as a “stand-alone” process, but is integrated with other aspects of the curriculum (e.g., lecture and lab programs). (4) Fieldwork is integrated with the development of more generic, transferable (and professional) skills that are valued by employers (e.g., project management, risk analysis, team working). As such, the emphasis of fieldwork at each academic stage is as follows: Stage 1: visits to a series of “type sites” to familiarize students with the main types of geology; the development of a “toolbox” of field techniques; Stage 2: training for independent project work, i.e., geologic mapping; further development of field competencies and techniques; Stage 2/3: carrying out independent field mapping over the summer; and Stage 3/4: “regional synthesis” enabling integration of knowledge and skills. Perhaps a more significant driver for Plymouth has been the need to meet the requirements for accreditation by the Geological Society of London. This has seen a shift away from the preceding model of independent projects, which did not have a compulsory fieldwork component and hence were often based around laboratory work or secondary data, to a “field camp” model, whereby students spend up to 6 wk collecting field data and producing a geologic map. This is in direct response to the previously quoted statement from the accreditation guidelines, which sets out the expectation that graduates will be trained in geologic mapping. Quality Assurance in Ireland Irish universities are required to conduct a review of the effectiveness of their quality assurance procedures (Section 35[4] of the Universities Act [1997]—copies of Irish Acts and Statutory Instruments are available from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie). The governing authorities of the seven Irish universities have delegated this role to the Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB). The board approves the agencies that conduct these periodic reviews. Reviews of academic programs within universities occur every five to seven years and involve the preparation of a self-assessment report by the course team, which is then validated by an external review panel working under the particular university’s Quality Committee. The “fitness for purpose”–style reviews have assured quality in the delivery of programs, but they have not been as strong a driver of pedagogical reform as the
316
Boyle et al.
UK QAA benchmarks or the Bologna Process (see following). However, Ireland is an excellent area for field studies, attracting many overseas parties from the UK, United States, and mainland Europe. These often involve Irish academics as co-leaders, promoting an exchange of field teaching and learning techniques. The same is true for UK universities conducting field training in the classical areas for geology, such as the Highlands of Scotland, North Wales, southwest England, etc. Academic reorganization has also acted as a significant driver in Ireland for the reform of curricula, including field programs. National University of Ireland Galway began to review its academic structures in 2000. This review culminated in a European University Association (EUA) report (European Union Association, 2004), which recommended on p. 17 that “the review of the internal organisational structure must continue melding smaller units into larger ones.” At this time, there were 54 separate departments, the majority of which had five or fewer staff members. As the first step in this process, the Departments of Geology, Oceanography, and the Applied Geophysics Unit merged to form the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences (EOS) in 2003. One of the primary drivers behind this merger was the need to develop a modularized, Bologna-compliant, multidisciplinary bachelor’s degree in earth and ocean sciences involving four streams: geology, geophysics, environmental geology, and ocean science. This was in response to Ireland’s need to manage and conserve both its onshore and considerable offshore territories, which combined exceed the surface area of Spain. To avoid early fragmentation of the class, it was decided to develop compulsory field programs suitable for all students, which would concentrate on both the generic and specific competences required for successful field study in all aspects of the earth and ocean sciences. For example, the 10 ECTS (European Credit and Accumulation Transfer System) credit course for second-year students covers such competences as: basic navigation; map and chart reading; aerial photographs and satellite images; use of handheld global positioning system (GPS); sampling of water, soils, and rocks; introduction to the various methods of geophysical sounding; basic geological mapping including drift mapping; manual and digital presentation of data; and fieldwork safety. Students work in interdisciplinary teams to complete assigned tasks to develop the competence of teamwork. The final (fourth) year synthetic field class to Cyprus again involves all students and looks at not just the classic geology of this region, but the effects its exploitation over millennia has had on both the onshore and offshore environment. Other trips concentrate on the specific competences required by each subdiscipline. The Bologna Declaration The Bologna Declaration of June 1999 (Bologna Declaration, 1999), a response to the widely held belief that the European Higher Educational System was underperforming with respect to its main competitors, started a European-wide process to ensure comparability of education awards between different European Union
(EU) nation states. The process is embodied in this quote from the European Commission Education and Training Web page at http:// ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc1290_en.htm:
The Bologna Process aims to create a European Higher Education Area by 2010, in which students can choose from a wide and transparent range of high quality courses and benefit from smooth recognition procedures. The Bologna Declaration of June 1999 has put in motion a series of reforms needed to make European Higher Education more compatible and comparable, more competitive and more attractive for Europeans and for students and scholars from other continents. Reform was needed then and reform is still needed today if Europe is to match the performance of the best performing systems in the world, notably the United States and Asia.
The “Tuning Educational Structures in Europe” project (http://tuning.unideusto.org/tuningeu/) commenced in 2000, and earth science was one of the nine subjects investigated for comparability of curricula in terms of the structures, programs, and actual teaching in institutions across Europe. A key statement for earth science from this group is:
…it is impossible for students to develop a satisfactory understanding of Earth Sciences without a significant exposure to field-based learning and teaching…fieldwork trains Earth Science students to formulate sound conclusions on the basis of (necessarily) incomplete data. Students and employers consider this an important aspect of their training…field-based studies allow students to develop and enhance many of the Graduate Key Skills (e.g., team-working, problem-solving, self-management, interpersonal relationships) that are of value to all employers and to life-long learning. (Tuning Members, 2005, p. 4)
This process involves a far-reaching reform of higher education in Europe which, especially through the Tuning Project, has now spread to over 65 countries worldwide. To produce “comparable and compatible” awards, it is essential for programs now to be designed upon internationally recognized educational theory, rather than local tradition. This necessitates a change in emphasis from inputs (curricula) to outcomes (student-acquired competences, learning outcomes, student workload, and degree profiles). UK and Irish universities are consequently moving away from a model of fieldwork as something that was done in the vacation to support the curriculum to that of properly defined and accredited modules. The need to develop national qualifications frameworks has led to the Irish and Scottish three-year B.Sc. ordinary/general degrees being given a lower status compared to their four-year B.Sc. honors degrees. This has placed an emphasis on the added value in the fourth-year curriculum and consequently the fourthyear field-based project. The move in Europe to develop sectoral qualifications frameworks will provide an opportunity for the geoscience community to define its requirement for field training at all levels.
External drivers for changing fieldwork practices and provision in the UK and Ireland EMPLOYER NEEDS Part of the educational program redesign process required by the Bologna Process involves the consultation of stakeholders, especially the geoscience industry, to define key competences that should be developed during field training. However, few reliable surveys exist. UK-based surveys into the competencies required by graduate employers (e.g., Brennan et al., 2001; Harvey et al., 1997) have identified a number of generic skills known to be developed through fieldwork, e.g., teamwork, independent work, adaptability, and initiative. Interestingly, several competencies identified as desirable (and again developed through fieldwork) are also identified as shortfalls between what employers want, and what graduates offer, e.g., working under pressure, time management, planning, and taking responsibility (Gedye and Chalkley, 2006). Penn (2001) identified further competencies that are desirable in geoscience-related careers, including numeracy, innovation/creativity, project/task management, research/investigative skills, and professional skills/knowledge. The more recent “Graduate and Industry Survey” by the Institute of Geologists in Ireland (Meehan, 2004) asked employers which geology courses at university they considered to be most useful in readying graduates for employment with their own respective companies. Field mapping skills was the highest placed with 64% of respondents identifying it as an essential competence. Tuning Higher Education Structures in Europe Phase IV carried out a survey of generic and specific competences required within all nine disciplines including earth sciences; the results will soon be available from the Tuning Web site. An early result relevant to field studies is that all employers (not just geoscience employers) placed “the ability to apply knowledge in practical situations” as a competence that was highly important, but in which graduates had low achievement. The Tuning Phase I report (González and Wagenaar, 2003) reported a survey covering the
subject areas of chemistry, education science, geology, physics, business, history, and mathematics, and involving 998 academics at 101 universities, 5108 graduates, and 944 employers. Table 1 (from Table 13 of González and Wagenaar, 2003) summarizes the rankings of generic competences and shows a remarkable correlation between graduate and employer rankings. Notable differences in the academic rankings of competence are for basic general knowledge and interpersonal skills. An informal discussion “teaching fieldwork” took place in September–October 2007 on the Geo-Tectonics listserv at http:// www.jiscmail.ac.uk. Butler ( 2007) compiled a PDF summary of the discussion as “The Fieldwork Discussion.” In this discussion, there was an “impassioned plea supporting the unique role of field teaching in developing the 3D spatial awareness that underpins all sound geological modelling” (Butler, 2007, p. 14). Another industrial contributor wrote: “Field outcrops are reality, imparting scale and complexity to simple models—all staff need to go in the field to be reminded of reality, as otherwise the work process becomes model driven and not fixed in reality” (Butler, 2007, p. 4). In short, field experience is highly valued by employers in geoscience industries, and it is considered more or less mandatory regardless of whether a job is desk or field-based.
If [universities] can provide subject knowledge and grounding in attitudes/behaviours and skills, then when [graduates] come into companies they are receptive to the “specific training and development” that companies provide. The use of fieldwork...is very important because this is one of the best routes for integrating [knowledge, attitudes and skills]. (A. Thomas, 2007, personal commun.)
This statement, from a UK industry representative, implies that the value of fieldwork lies in its ability to provide an environment in which knowledge, attitudes, and skills (i.e., learning in
TABLE 1. RANKINGS OF VARIOUS GENERAL COMPETENCES IN ACADEMIC, EMPLOYER, AND GRADUATE SURVEYS COLLATED BY GONZÁLEZ AND WAGENAAR (2003) Label imp1 imp2 imp4 imp5 imp6 imp7 imp8 imp9 imp10 imp12 imp13 imp14 imp16 imp18 imp20 imp22 imp28
317
Competence description Capacity for analysis and synthesis Capacity for applying knowledge in practice Basic general knowledge Grounding in basic knowledge of the profession 8 Oral and written communication in native language Knowledge of a second language Elementar y computing skills Research skills Capacity to learn Critical and self-critical abilities Capacity to adapt to new situations Capacity for generating new ideas (creativity) Decision-making Inter personal skills Ability to work in an interdisciplinary team Appreciation of diversity and multiculturality Ethical commitment
Academic
Employer
Graduate
2 5 1 11 9 15 16 11 3 6 7 4 12 14 10 17 13
1 3 12 14 7 14 4 15 2 10 5 9 8 6 13 17 16
3 2 12 13 7 15 10 17 1 9 4 6 8 5 11 16 13
318
Boyle et al.
the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains) can be integrated. An interesting question, within the UK at least, is to what extent do benchmarking and accreditation procedures meet the needs of industry, as ranked in Table 1, for example? Do these procedures really produce students with the requisite skills and competencies for a career in geoscience industry, or is further provision required? GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION Evolving legislation has had an effect on fieldwork provision; particularly the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Act 2001 (SENDA, Great Britain, 2001) and general Health and Safety law, in addition to legislation affecting land access. SENDA was introduced in order to ensure educational opportunity for all citizens. For higher education, this is embodied in the Quality Assurance Agency’s expectation that:
Institutions should ensure that, wherever possible, disabled students have access to academic and vocational placements including fieldwork and study abroad. (Precept 11 in Quality Assurance Agency, 1999)
Clearly, fieldwork teaching and learning outcomes need to be formulated and delivered in a way that is inclusive, which requires some long-term planning and perhaps rethinking of existing fieldwork programs. In Ireland, the Higher Education Authority is responsible for ensuring “equity of access,” including support for students with disabilities to all university courses. Health and Safety legislation has loomed large for some time and has led to consistent approaches to the issues of fieldwork safety in the UK and Ireland via the Committee of Heads of Geology Departments (CHUGD, http://www.chugd.ac.uk). All departments have written Codes of Safety that include fieldwork. Students have to read and sign the code to pledge that they have understood and will abide by the code. Two examples can be seen on the CHUGD Web site. In 1998, the UK Earth Sciences Courseware Consortium (http://www.ukescc.co.uk) published an interactive, e-learning module on fieldwork safety based largely on CHUGD guidelines. The module covers basic safety awareness for students undertaking geological fieldwork, an awareness of the likely hazards that may be encountered in different field settings, and the precautions that can mitigate or eliminate risks. At Liverpool, students complete relevant parts of this module as part of their safety training prior to undertaking their first major residential field class at Easter of their first year. In addition, they complete an “orientation” exercise in which they are given topographic maps of the areas to be visited together with critical waypoints. They have to locate routes to be taken on the topographic maps and identify potential risks and actions required to mitigate or eliminate them, including the appropriate equipment that they should have for the situations. The “orientation” exercise is assessed before students are
allowed on the field course, they must pass it satisfactorily, and it counts for 10% of the course marks. Each day in the field, students have to identify risks in a whole group activity before commencing work at a locality or moving to a new locality. All identified risks are logged by students in their notebooks (each day starts with a diary section) and in a field-class safety-notebook by someone allocated the job of safety officer, who will also log any incidents. Approaches to field safety and mitigation of risk continue to develop, and BS 8848 (British Standards Institute, 2007) will continue this trend. One area in which this is particularly important and where practice diverges is with independent project work. In the UK and Ireland, this typically involves students visiting a field area where they make a geological map and collect relevant data so that they can write a thesis on the geological evolution of the area. At Liverpool, students still work independently on their own areas, though this will typically involve a group of students using the same base camp and working on adjacent areas. For example, in summer 2008, Boyle supervised five students in the Entraunes area of the French Alps. The students all stayed on the same camp site in Entraunes and worked on adjacent areas. Every day, each student left detailed instructions of the areas of ground they were working on, together with expected times of return. The other students would then act accordingly if the student did not return. The students used walkie-talkie radios to facilitate communication. It is incidents such as the 1993 canoeing tragedy at Lyme Bay, Dorset, in which negligence by an outdoor activities center cost four teenagers their lives (see http://www.aals.org.uk/ lymebay01.html) that have driven changes in UK Health and Safety legislation. One of the most significant changes to Health and Safety procedures at Plymouth has been to make risk assessment a much more prominent and detailed process for both students and academic faculty/technical staff. Safety handbooks covering all aspects of geological science programs (including fieldwork and laboratory work) are issued to all students at the beginning of each academic year, which they must sign to say that they agree to adhere to the requirements. Further independent risk assessments are produced for all field courses (regardless of length) detailing the specific risks associated with the fieldwork, which again students must read and sign. An additional requirement of the risk assessment for European fieldwork is that students must carry a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC), which provides access to reduced-cost medical treatment in many (but not all) European countries. Travel insurance to cover all students on overseas fieldwork is carried by the university. All academic faculty and students are required to complete a two-day “mountain” first-aid training course (i.e., one that focuses on dealing with incidents in outdoor and remote areas). Faculty staff are required to update their training every three years to ensure that they are adequately skilled to respond to incidents. Training for students is timed specifically to coincide with their independent project, and it takes place toward
External drivers for changing fieldwork practices and provision in the UK and Ireland the end of their second academic year before they embark on their independent fieldwork. It is for reasons of student safety (and cost) that independent mapping projects initially went into decline amongst UK universities. Previously, it was common practice for students to work completely independently, or in pairs, in whichever location they chose. Although arguably less “independent,” the current model of field camps followed by many universities, including Plymouth, addresses many of the issues relating to health and safety and requires students to take collective responsibility for risk assessment. In relation to BS8848 (British Standards Institute, 2007), investigations are currently under way at Plymouth into the ways in which current risk assessment procedures need to change in order to meet the relevant guidelines. The intention will be to ensure that the standards set by the university exceed the minimum requirements laid down by BS8848. In Ireland, the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act (2005) places a statutory onus upon universities to conduct all student activities, including fieldwork, in a safe manner. It is normal for both students and staff to: perform a risk assessment of any field program; undergo safety training; and to be required to understand and mitigate risks. Formal training is provided for the staff as part of the universities’ staff training programs, and academic credits are often associated with student engagement in the safety culture. In many cases Codes of Practice are based upon or similar to those used in the UK. The system is policed by University Safety Offices. At Galway students conduct their final year mapping project work independently but in adjacent areas from a common base camp. Similar safety procedures to those employed in Liverpool are practiced. In Ireland, mobile phones are the most common method of communication, and care is taken to avoid the few remaining areas that do not have adequate coverage. In addition field safety, shore safety, small boat handling, and safety at sea courses audited by external bodies are an integral part of relevant modules and are awarded academic credits. The Geologists’ Association fieldwork code identified the key issue of access to land. In the UK, “right to roam” legislation under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 has improved walking access to open uncultivated countryside in England and Wales, but it did not include the (geologically important) coastlines of England and Wales; though around 70% of the English coast is currently accessible. A draft Marine Bill issued in April 2008 seeks to address coastal access rights in England and Wales. Similar legislation in Scotland, The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, has formalized previous de facto rights of land access. These legislation changes have made is easier to organize field classes in open, uncultivated parts of Great Britain, though it is still good practice to check on access beforehand. There is no similar “right to roam” legislation in Ireland. Instead, access is limited to relatively few statutory rights of way and to permitted access onto public and private lands. Buckley et al. (2008) provided an excellent summary of the provision of public access to land in Ireland and other countries. The Irish
319
Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs published a National Countryside and Recreation Strategy in 2006 that addresses various issues in regard to land access. There is a public right of recreation along the foreshore. However, shore access is often across private land and may be challenged (Cregan, 2006). There is also legislation concerning potential liability of landowners for injuries to individuals crossing their lands; owners have a duty of care to those entering their lands, including trespassers, and despite some clarification of the liability situation by The Occupiers Liability Act of 1995, there is continued and increasing difficulty with land access in parts of Ireland. Liverpool has run geological and geomorphological mapping field classes in the west of Ireland for over 30 years. Our first significant issue was in 1995, at the time the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 was in the news, when a mapping exercise on the Omey Granite in Connemara was curtailed by refusal of access to part of its southern contact. Discussion with the landowner could not resolve the issue. More recently, in southern County Mayo, access has been removed in part of the Erriff valley where glacial landforms are mapped and the Kilbride Peninsula where the main geological mapping training took place. The upshot of this is that the mapping training field class moved in 2008 to an area in the French Alps where access is less of an issue. However, financial concerns arising from the current global “credit crunch” and the fall in value of the UK currency mean that 2009 may be the last year the course runs in France. The proximity of Plymouth to both Dartmoor National Park and the coastline of southwest England means that students have easy access to some of the most outstanding exposure in the UK. Extensive access is also available to local quarries (see Scott et al., 2007), which provide excellent examples of man-made exposures, and enable observation of industrial processes such as blasting and extraction. In addition, voluntary bodies dedicated to the conservation of regionally important geological and geomorphological sites throughout the UK (see, for example, http://www.devonrigs.org.uk) provide information to interested parties about contacts needed in order to gain access to locally significant sites. THE 2001 FOOT AND MOUTH EPIDEMIC Perhaps the biggest nonlegislative issue to affect access to land in the UK and Ireland was the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic (a highly contagious disease affecting cloven hoofed animals, including cattle, sheep, and pigs), which resulted in access being withdrawn to many parts of the UK and Irish countryside. This meant that many universities were faced with finding alternatives to UK or Irish-based field courses where access was no longer possible, or in some cases withdrawing fieldwork provision altogether—albeit temporarily (see Fuller et al., 2003; Scott et al., 2006). The main field course affected at Plymouth was the stage-two mapping course, which was held in Argyll, on the west coast of Scotland; it was moved to the Teruel region of Spain. This presented a very different, but no less challenging mapping loca-
320
Boyle et al.
tion (see Stokes and Boyle, this volume), which provided relative freedom to roam compared to some other overseas locations. At Liverpool, a year one field class to southwest Wales was relocated to Cyprus and a year three field class to Donegal in Ireland was relocated to SE Spain. Many final year independent mapping projects were relocated to various parts of mainland Europe, especially Spain. Although there are no longer access restrictions relating to the foot and mouth outbreak, the threat of infectious disease amongst livestock is an ongoing concern within the UK, and it is a potential future threat to access to land. DISCUSSION The evidence presented here illustrates that the last decade and a half have seen a number of developments that have impacted the provision of fieldwork in UK and Irish geoscience degree programs, and that such developments are likely to continue as Europe-wide harmonization proceeds. At the same time, there have been increasing pressures on fieldwork that militate toward decreasing its importance in geoscience degree programs. Boyle et al. (2007) listed a number of potentially detrimental factors: (1) the cost to students raises questions about whether field courses are equitable: Kent et al. (1997) found that they can be “manifestly unfair”; (2) the cost to institutions can be high; (3) the time burden on staff can detract from their ability to conduct research and thus progress their careers, particularly in research-led universities that focus on the recurring UK Research Assessment Exercise first run in 1986—a good research record is more important to the university than teaching students in the field; (4) there can be problems accommodating students with special needs and/or disabilities; (5) there is fear of litigation; and (6) there is a perception that there are technological alternatives to fieldwork, including remotely sensed data, geographic information systems (GIS), and virtual “field” exercises. The last in the list has the theoretical potential to solve most if not all of the first six issues. Much effort has been expended in the development of virtual environments, but, as Boyle et al. (2007) and Butler (2008) pointed out, there is no substitute for the real thing. The requirement for real fieldwork experience by Geological Society of London accreditation and the QAA subject benchmark statements means that virtual fieldwork is unlikely to replace real fieldwork for the foreseeable future. While developments described in this paper have placed mostly unwelcome extra bureaucratic burdens on academic and support staff, they have had a significant number of positive effects. As noted already, accreditation and subject benchmarking have placed an effective ring-fence around the time devoted to geoscience fieldwork. Prospective students expect to undertake an accredited degree program, with its specified fieldwork component. Since accreditation became the norm for UK geoscience degrees, no significant UK geoscience department has
tried offering unaccredited courses, presumably fearing it could be departmental suicide for undergraduate recruitment. The field project is still seen as an essential part of the Irish and Scottish four-year degrees, which is underpinned by their higher status in the national qualification frameworks. Increasing concerns about safety have resulted in much better organized and thought-out field classes and have produced students who are better versed in the procedures of risk assessment and management, which will stand them in good stead when they proceed into employment. The educational guidance provided through accreditation, subject benchmarking, and the move to a learning outcome pedagogy has not had the feared outcomes of making all geoscience degree programs the same. Diversity of provision is as wide as ever, and field programs are better thought out and delivered. The latter is supported by anecdotal discussions with colleagues who graduated at a range of UK universities in the 1970s, when lectures at outcrops or just being left alone in the outdoors somewhere were common experiences. Fieldwork is now very much a student-centered active-learning experience rather than a series of illustrated lectures in the outdoors and is all the better for it (Butler, 2008). SUMMARY Geoscience fieldwork in the UK and Ireland has been through a revolution in the last two decades, mostly driven by external requirements to fit in with changing pedagogy, informal guidance, employer needs, accreditation, subject benchmarking, and government legislation. For the most part, these have had positive effects on fieldwork provision by both improving it and retaining it as an important and required part of geoscience degree programs. REFERENCES CITED Biggs, J.B., 1999, Teaching for Quality Learning in University (1st edition): Buckingham, UK, Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press, 250 p. Biggs, J.B., 2003, Teaching for Quality Learning in University (2nd edition): Buckingham, UK, Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press, 309 p. Bologna Declaration, 1999, The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999: Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education: Brussels, European Union, 6 p. Available at http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/ 990719BOLOGNA_DECLARATION.PDF (accessed 24 August 2009). Boyle, A.P., Maguire, S., Martin, A., Milsom, C., Nash, R., Rawlinson, S., Turner, A., Wurthmann, S., and Conchie, S., 2007, Fieldwork is good: The student perception and the affective domain: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 31, p. 299–317, doi: 10.1080/03098260601063628. Brennan, J., Johnstone, B., Little, B., Shah, T., and Woodley, A., 2001, The employment of UK graduates: Comparisons with Europe and Japan: Report to the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE): London, The Open University–Centre for Higher Education Research and Information, 45 p. Available at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/ 2001/01_38.htm (accessed 24 August 2009). British Standards Institute, 2007, BS 8848:2007+A1:2009 Specification for the Provision of Visits, Fieldwork, Expeditions, and Adventurous Activities, Outside the United Kingdom: London, British Standards Institute. Available at http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Shop/Publication -Detail/?pid=000000000030185211 (accessed 24 August 2009).
External drivers for changing fieldwork practices and provision in the UK and Ireland Buckley, C., Hynes, S., and van Rensburg, T.M., 2008, Comparisons between Ireland and other developed nations on the provision of public access to the countryside for walking—Are there lessons to be learned?: The Rural Economy Research Centre, Working Paper 08-WP-RE-03, Dublin. Available at http://www.teagasc.ie/agresearchSearch/rerc/downloads/ workingpapers/08wpre03.pdf (accessed 24 August 2009). Burek, C.V., and Prosser, C.D., eds., 2008, The History of Geoconservation: Geological Society of London Special Publication 300, 312 p. Butler, R., 2007, Views on Field Teaching: Bristol, Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), 14 p. Available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ webadmin?A3=ind0710&L=GEO-TECTONICS&E=base64&P =402486&B=--Apple-Mail-10--592091000&T=application%2Fpdf;%20 name=%22viewsonfieldteaching.pdf%22&N==viewsonfieldteaching .pdf (accessed 24 August 2009). Butler, R., 2008, Teaching Geosciences through Fieldwork, GEES Learning and Teaching Guide: Plymouth, Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES), 56 p. Available at http://www.gees.ac.uk/pubs/guides/fw/fwgeosci.pdf (accessed 24 August 2009). Comhairle na Tuaithe, 2006, National Countryside Recreation Strategy: Dublin, Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, 45 p. Available at http://www.pobail.ie/en/RuralDevelopment/ComhairlenaTuaithe/ file,8590,en.pdf (accessed 24 August 2009). Corbett, R.G., and Corbett, E.A., 2001, Geology programs and disciplinary accreditation: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, no. 2, p. 130–134. Cregan, M., 2006, Ireland—Access to the coast, in Peter Scott Planning Services Ltd, ed., Coastal Access in Selected European Countries: Sheffield, Natural England, p. 115–120. Available at http://www .naturalengland.gov.uk/Images/Annex%204%20coastal%20access %20Europe%20partC_tcm6-9047.pdf (accessed 24 August 2009). Drummond, C.N., and MarKin, J.M., 2008, An analysis of the Bachelor of Science in geology degree as offered in the United States: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 56, no. 2, p. 113–119. European University Association, 2004, Quality Review of the National University of Ireland–Galway, Institutional Evaluation Programme: Brussels, European University Association (EUA), 20 p. Available at http://www .nuigalway.ie/quality/downloads/Final_Report_Galway_20041220.pdf (accessed 24 August 2009). Fuller, I., Gaskin, S., and Scott, I., 2003, Student perceptions of geography and environmental science fieldwork in the light of restricted access to the field, caused by foot and mouth disease in the UK in 2001: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 27, no. 1, p. 79–102, doi: 10.1080/0309826032000062487. Gedye, S., and Chalkley, B., 2006, Employability within Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, GEES Learning and Teaching Guide: Plymouth, Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES), 86 p. Available at http://www.gees .ac.uk/projtheme/emp/empguide.htm (accessed 24 August 2009). González, J., and Wagenaar, R., 2003, Tuning Educational Structures in Europe, Final Report, Phase One: Bilbao, Universidad de Deusto, 316 p. Available at http://www.tuning.unideusto.org/tuningeu/index.php?option=com _docman&task=docclick&Itemid=59&bid=17&limitstart=0&limit=5 (accessed 24 August 2009). Great Britain, 2001, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Act (2001): Elizabeth II, Chapter 10: London, The Stationery Office, 60 p. Available
321
at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2001/pdf/ukpga_20010010_en.pdf (accessed 24 August 2009). Green, C.P., 2008, The Geologists’ Association and geoconservation: History and achievements, in Burek, C.V., and Prosser, C.D., eds., The History of Geoconservation: Geological Society of London Special Publication 300, p. 91–102. Harvey, L., Moon, S., and Geall, V., 1997, Graduates’ Work: Organisational Change and Students’ Attributes: Birmingham, Centre for Research into Quality (CRQ), UCE Birmingham, 139 p. Available at http://www0.bcu .ac.uk/crq/publications/gw/ (accessed 24 August 2009). Hughes, P., and Boyle, A.P., 2005, Assessment in the Earth Sciences, Environmental Sciences and Environmental Studies, GEES Learning and Teaching Guide: Plymouth, Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES), 41 p. Available at http://www .gees.ac.uk/pubs/guides/assess/geesassesment.pdf (accessed 24 August 2009). Kent, M., Gilbertsone, D., and Hunt, C., 1997, Fieldwork in geography teaching: A critical review of the literature and approaches: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 21, p. 313–332, doi: 10.1080/03098269708725439. Meehan, I., 2004, Institute of Geologists of Ireland Graduate and Industry Survey: Dublin, Institute of Geologists of Ireland, 43 p. Available at http:// www.igi.ie/assets/files/Papers/IGISurvey.pdf (accessed 24 August 2009). Neild, T., 2007, Editorial. Safety first or safety cage?: Geoscientist, v. 17, no. 9, p. 2. Penn, I., 2001, What does the employer want? A British Geological Survey perspective on graduate employability: Planet, Special Edition One, p. 4–5. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 1999, Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education. Section 3: Students with disabilities: Gloucester, UK, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), 29 p. Available at http://www .qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeofpractice/section3/default.asp (accessed 24 August 2009). Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2007, Benchmark Statement for Earth Sciences, Environmental Sciences and Environmental Studies: Mansfield, UK, Linney Direct, 31 p. Available at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/ academicinfrastructure/benchmark/statements/EarthSciences.pdf (accessed 24 August 2009). Scott, I., Fuller, I., and Gaskin, S., 2006, Life without fieldwork: Some lecturers’ perceptions of geography and environmental science fieldwork: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 30, no. 1, p. 161–171, doi: 10.1080/03098260500499832. Scott, P.W., Nicholas, C., Turner, H., Roche, D., and Shail, R., 2007, Access and Safety at Geological Sites: A Manual for Landowners, Quarry Operators and the Geological Visitor: Exeter, David Roche Geo Consulting, 52 p. Available at http://www.sustainableaggregates.com/docs/theme3/miro_ma_5_2 _001c.pdf (accessed 24 August 2009). Stokes, A., and Boyle, A.P., 2009, this volume, The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience: Influencing factors and implications for learning, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(23). Tuning Members, 2005, Summary of Outcomes–Earth Sciences: University of Deusto, Bilbao, 6 p. Available at http://tuning.unideusto.org/tuningeu/images/ stories/template/Template_Earth_Sciences.pdf (accessed 24 August 2009). MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
Effectiveness in problem solving during geologic field examinations: Insights from analysis of GPS tracks at variable time scales Eric M. Riggs Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and Center for Research and Engagement in Science and Mathematics Education, Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA, and Department of Geological Sciences, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Dr., San Diego, California 92182-1020, USA Russell Balliet Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and Center for Research and Engagement in Science and Mathematics Education, Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA Christopher C. Lieder Department of Geological Sciences, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Dr., San Diego, California 92182-1020, USA
ABSTRACT Field instruction is a critical piece of undergraduate geoscience majors’ education, and despite its central importance, relatively little educational research has explored how students learn to solve problems during geological fieldwork. This study adds to work presented in previous studies by our group using global positioning system (GPS) tracking of students engaged in independent field examinations. We examined four students from our previous studies working in a new field area. We also applied a new variant of our polygon coding approaches for analyzing student navigation tracks to gauge the sensitivity of our method to the time scale of analysis. We captured position data at 1 min intervals and then coded the resulting data by generating 5 min and 15 min sequential polygons. Our analysis shows that the two methods are comparable at the coarsest scale, but that finer-scale coding reveals more detailed movements related primarily to identification of key features and lithologies, which lends insight into effective geologic problem solving in the field. Coherence of small-scale and large-scale coding is most useful for showing longer-range planning in problem solving as the large-scale movements average out small-scale investigatory moves. Our results also suggest that in detailed and difficult field areas with topography that permits easy reoccupation of critical areas, there is an optimum amount of relocation and back-tracking. Too much retracing indicates confusion, as found in our earlier study. However, too little reoccupation of key areas appears to accompany a failure to recognize important features. Our study offers additional refinement of instructional tools in gauging student skills in geologic field problem solving offered by GPS tracking.
INTRODUCTION Field-based instruction is widely acknowledged to be a central part of undergraduate education in the geological sciences; however, research into understanding and documenting the growth of problem-solving skills and cognition connected to learning gains in the field is only now realizing significant advances and widespread community effort. Studies demonstrating the value of the field environment and effective field pedagogy are increasingly numerous in geology and geography education. Kent et al. (1997) and Orion (2003) provide thorough overviews of the various types and styles of learning experiences that are encompassed under the term “fieldwork.” Of the many types, depth, and duration of fieldwork experiences, this study is primarily concerned with long-term fieldwork by advanced undergraduates in their capstone field coursework. Issues of problem solving, concept formation, and expertise in the creation of geologic maps are the main focus of this study. Other studies have addressed aspects of problem solving, notably Huntoon et al. (2001), who examined the effectiveness of a problem-based learning approach to field pedagogy for a mixed group of advanced undergraduate geology students and in-service teachers. Comparisons of field-based learning and classroom-based teaching (Kern and Carpenter, 1986; Tretinjak and Riggs, 2008), and examinations of the effects of field-based learning augmented or replaced by technological innovations and precursory exercises (Browne, 2005; Hesthammer et al., 2002; Kelly and Riggs, 2006) consistently show that fieldwork deepens problem-solving abilities and that well-designed preparatory exercises (field, virtual, or classroom) consistently aid students in constructing a fuller picture of key geoscience concepts in the field. The effect is similar to that observed by Libarkin and Kurdziel (2006) showing the increase in the sophistication of student ontologies and meaning-making related to geologic ideas and concepts. The work of Brodaric et al. (2004) is particularly helpful in understanding how fieldwork may increase conceptual understanding and ontological sophistication of geologic ideas, and, conversely, how student behavior and movement in the field and student-generated maps and notes can be used to understand conceptual depth and problem solving. Brodaric and coauthors proposed a knowledge construction model for geological ideas that relates conceptual models and scientific models of geological concepts to models of occurrence. Occurrence models are a combination of detailed, local observations situated within regional occurrences and regional context, as well as a recognition of the class and category of observations and data. A functional geological model, i.e., a conceptually complete model such as those field instructors strive to foster in their students doing mapping exercises and projects, is formed from the working combination of the conceptual model and the occurrence model. The challenge is to measure the functionality and correctness of students’ geological models, and to understand how students recognize the class and category of observations and link them to broader knowledge of regional context and history, such
that correct scientific geological models are properly linked to and created from this information. A few studies have directly worked to assess learning and concept development by students and working geologists in the context of these models (Brodaric and Gahegan, 2007; Novak, 1976; Orion and Hofstein, 1994; Orion et al., 1997), and have found that geologic mapping and conceptual interpretation of geologic data in the field are influenced by the data themselves, underlying geologic theory, and natural and human situations that are present at the time of the problem solving. These studies have helped to contribute valuable tools to understanding the characteristics of expert mapping and the stability of geologic interpretations developed by groups of trained geologists, and they also have contributed instruments that can measure the influence of fieldwork in secondary education and teacher education. However, there remain few tools that lead us explicitly toward an understanding of they ways in which students learn to solve problems where the human situations and regional contexts are controlled (i.e., organized field camp and field course curricula), and how advanced undergraduates proceed from a novice to an expert state as education progresses. We also, to date, have few tools that are potentially adaptable to real-time instructional interventions and improvements. The work presented here builds directly on one line of this research that has been pursued by the authors in recent years. Our work has sought to understand how geologic problem solving in the field can be understood from analysis of tracks of student navigation captured by passive global positioning system (GPS) receivers, combined with qualitative analysis of notes taken and maps made during independent field examinations in field-camp teaching settings. The intent is to measure the formation of geologic concepts by the choices students make in gathering and interpreting class and categorical data in the field. Work to understand the novice to expert transition in this type of geologic work is also currently under way in ongoing research (e.g., Baker et al., 2007; Petcovic et al., 2007, 2008). The outdoor field-based environment is not ideally suited for controlled tests of cognition as they would normally be carried out in laboratory or classroom educational setting because the variables involved are many and human factors (i.e., human response to terrain, exhaustion, discomfort, etc.) become involved. Therefore, the study of problem-solving skills needs to be treated by proxy measures, and needs to explicitly work with the study of problem solving and decision making as it happens in natural, real-world settings. We have developed a methodology (Lieder, 2005; Lieder and Riggs, 2004; Riggs et al., 2009) for analyzing navigational choices recorded on GPS units worn by students during field examinations, and we have demonstrated that this combined analysis of maps, notes, and navigational tracks reflects problem-solving stages as defined by some workers in the cognitive science research fields of naturalistic decision making (Endsley, 2000, 2001; Klein et al., 1993; Marshall, 1995). In this work, we extend our earlier work by analyzing additional data collected from the same students involved in earlier studies
Effectiveness in problem solving during geologic field examinations but who are now working in a new field area, and also collecting data with a different sampling interval for GPS tracking. This research explores the sensitivity of our track coding methodology to the time scale of analysis, and it also examines the influence of different types of geological complexity in field examination areas on student problem-solving strategies. BACKGROUND Field-Based Learning in Deformed Sedimentary Sequences Our research focuses on field education based on structural and sedimentological problems in sedimentary rocks because field problems of this nature are broadly used for the instruction of undergraduate geology majors and because sedimentary geology provides constraints that facilitate the study of student learning. These kinds of field problems tend to have a highly deterministic geometry, which allows prediction of subsurface structure from surface information, and prediction of the likely surface exposure in as-of-yet unmapped areas. This type of geologic problem lends itself well to testing by multiple working hypotheses (Chamberlin, 1890) that can be tested by planned traverses of a field area optimized to search for data that confirm or reject hypotheses. In the field area studied in this report, we have added the complexity of lateral facies changes to our analysis, described further in the section on Field Observations and Data Collection. The proposition that underlies our research approach is that the navigation decisions made by students while investigating this type of field problem reflect their internal problem-solving approaches as they fit testing and verification strategies derived from their mental models to traverse plans. PROBLEM SOLVING AND NATURALISTIC DECISION MAKING A detailed discussion of problem solving, geologic problem solving, and the rationale for adopting naturalistic decision making is presented in Riggs et al. (2009), and we present a condensed version of that discussion here. An issue in this research is what is problem solving, and what is geologic problem solving relative to other kinds of problem solving? Most importantly, what kind of observable signs of problem solving are we likely to see in navigational choices made by students, and how can we interpret these in light of other work in cognitive science? Geologic problem solving in the field involves a full range of navigational skills, including the ability to locate oneself in reality, as well as read and interpret topographic map representations of real landscapes (Chadwick, 1978; Kozhevnikov and Hegarty, 2001; Liben et al., 2008; Pick et al., 1995; Richardson et al., 1999; Schofield and Kirby, 1994), and many discrete skills related to spatial visualization (Ishikawa and Kastens, 2005; Kali and Orion, 1996; Orion, 2003). Even assuming a complete mastery of these requisite skills, problem solving in the field also involves operating in data-poor and underdetermined situations.
325
Geologists never have all the information they need to fully solve any given problem with the confidence of an analytical solution (Brodaric et al., 2004; de Caprariis, 2002; Frodeman and Raab, 2002). They must rely on the construction of multiple working hypotheses which can be pursued in order to gather more relevant data, which in turn improve the working hypotheses. Success at this depends on expertise and early pattern recognition, and also additional skills of planning and field navigation to optimize a path through likely data-rich regions in a field area given everpresent time constraints. Because of these additional features to problem solving in a geologic field context, it is clear that the act of problem solving is best studied in its naturalistic context and is impossible to study and duplicate in a fully controlled laboratory setting because so much of the problem-solving strategy is bound up in individual response to the real situation. This is what leads us to the research traditions of naturalistic decision making. This area of research deals with the class of problem-solving and decision-making situations embedded in data-poor situations, usually under time constraints, where the presence of expertise has a strong influence on moment-to-moment decisions made by problem solvers. Examples are firefighters, military commanders, air-traffic controllers, and many others. Expert problem solvers employ pattern recognition to make an educated guess at the “class” or “style” of a situation and make decisions for gathering additional data that quickly reduce the number of possible solutions and constrain the true nature of the problem. In a geologic setting, studies of teaching and learning in the field must also consider the complex interactions of factors that may have a bearing on an individual student’s actions, decisions, mental model formation, and ultimate learning outcomes. Many process models have been proposed within the naturalistic decision making tradition that can account for these factors (Klein et al., 1993; Lipshitz et al., 2001; Zsambok and Klein, 1997). Of the available published process models, we find the schema model of Marshall (1995) to be most productively adapted to geologic problem solving. This model recognizes that decision making involves the construction of mental models (schema) that are in turn constructed of subordinate schema that work together iteratively to provide the basis for decision making. Marshall’s research group worked primarily with naval tacticians whose interactions with battlefield tactical displays were monitored by eye tracking and qualitative analysis of active command and control communications. Marshall produced a model with four components that iteratively work together to construct problem solving in these types of data-poor, time-limited situations, called a schema model, based on the schema or mental submodels that had to go into the overall problem-solving process. The four components are: (1) identification knowledge—the ability to recognize relevant information and assess from clues in the environment when a situation is similar to prior experiences or education; (2) elaboration knowledge—the immediate associated recall of related facts and elements that aid in the confirmation or adjustment of the initial assessment of a situation from identification
326
Riggs et al.
knowledge, similar to the “chunking” of information common to experts reviewed in Bransford et al. (2000); (3) planning knowledge—the ability to draw inferences and estimates, and create goals and plans using the framework provided by identification and elaboration knowledge; and (4) execution knowledge—the ability to utilize skills and procedures as needed to provide further information or take additional action to further a solution. These are iterative, interactive portions of the larger mental model (schema) that a decision maker uses to recognize emerging situations and direct current actions and future data collection priorities, but the absence of any of them prevents effective problem solving. This is easily applied to geologic problem solving, especially in the context of the cognitive process model for field mapping and structural problem solving under time constraints as described by de Caprariis (2002). In the field, geologists (1) identify rocks and make relevant measurements, (2) elaborate through multiple working hypotheses that explain how these data are fit by larger-scale solutions, (3) make plans to traverse the landscape to most efficiently test these hypotheses, and then (4) execute the plans safely as terrain conditions allow. Clearly, these individual steps are repeated as needed at many temporal and spatial scales as new data are revealed during a field traverse. From the perspective of our research design, typically only the identification and execution steps are easily externalized. From checking completed geologic maps, notes, and other direct observations in the field, it is clear if an identification is correct, and by tracking navigation, the execution step is recorded. Close analysis of patterns in the navigation data, along with synchronized analysis of field notes, data station recording order, and accompanying notes and finished geologic maps can be used to infer the quality of elaboration and planning knowledge in a field teaching setting, and we will show in this study that navigational patterns can also be analyzed to shed light on these otherwise internal, mental processes that are manifested at different time scales. FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND DATA COLLECTION This study was conducted in an advanced field geology course for undergraduate geology majors, conducted in the contractional belt of the northwestern San Gabriel Mountains near Frazier Park, California. Students in this course had completed beginning and intermediate semester-length field courses and were all long-time residents of Southern California and were accustomed to steep topography, typical field conditions in the region, and the general geologic and tectonic history of the region. The first author was the also the instructor for this course, and had been the instructor for many of these students in their introductory field course, so care was taken to secure informed consent between the third author and student participants in compliance with our institutional review board approval. The first author had no knowledge of the specific students that had elected to participate in the study in advance, and no data analysis was
conducted by anyone on the research team until after the course was completed. We acknowledge that these authors did have insights into individual student histories and tendencies, which likely influenced some of our interpretations, although as will be shown later, efforts were made to reduce this effect by triangulating objective and subjective measures in forming conclusions. The students in this study are a subset of the individuals whose results were reported in Riggs et al. (2009) and were selected for comparison with that work because of data completeness. Students worked in pairs or groups of three for an exercise in a given region for a week, and then they completed an all-day independent field examination in a nearby location, in the same sequence of rock units exhibiting a similar structural and sedimentological style. The field area used for this study was located entirely within the Lower Miocene to Upper Oligocene Plush Ranch Formation, which is described in detail and mapped at 7.5′ quadrangle scale in the U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report authored by Kellogg and Miggins (2002). Their geologic mapping informed the choice of the weeklong project area and the examination area and, along with independent mapping by the authors of this report, provided the base map against which student work was evaluated. This composite map is presented in Figure 1. The Plush Ranch Formation is interpreted as a lacustrinefan-delta sequence formed in a high-relief basin, leading to major lateral facies changes along isochronous surfaces (Kellogg and Miggins, 2002). This results in interfingering geometries that are difficult to map and that place extra demands on students to understand convolved structural and sedimentary geometries. Especially once these interfingering units are deformed into folded structures, mapping and stratigraphic orientation becomes that much more complex. The area the students in this study mapped as a group involved one such deformed sequence, including a breccia unit that graded laterally into as sandstone and finally into a lacustrine siltstone in the middle of the stratigraphic sequence. This package (with relatively distinct over- and underlying units) had been folded into an asymmetrical and locally overturned syncline. This same lithology and geometry formed the essential basis of the examination area, however, with no overturning and with the addition of a basalt sill and rock avalanche megabreccia deposits within the lacustrine facies. As with most field examinations of this type, the test area was deliberately selected to have similar geology to the earlier group exercise area in order to minimize the novelty of the exam setting. Students were instructed not to communicate except in emergency situations or to follow one another, and they were monitored for compliance. Students had ~7 h to produce a geologic map from available field data in a bounded region roughly 1.5 km2 in size, shown in Figure 1. The area included sufficient exposure of deformed sedimentary rocks to find geological data, but it also had relatively steep exposures. The field area is bisected by a north-south–oriented dry river valley containing a dirt road, with many tributary canyons branching to the east and west. Many of these side canyons are formed along contacts
Effectiveness in problem solving during geologic field examinations
327
Figure 1. Generalized geological map (A) and cross section (B) of the field examination area. The geology presented here is a simplified version of mapping conducted by the authors and was adapted from Kellogg and Miggins (2002). Units are also from the published report; all are Plush Ranch Formation members. Tpb—basal breccia unit, Tps—sandstone, Tpl—lacustrine siltstone, Tpbx—megabreccia rock avalanche deposits, Tpba—basalt member.
328
Riggs et al.
between rock units, especially in the northern end of the field area. These features necessitated intelligent planning of traverses across this landscape to maximize data collection and interpretation, but they also made numerous pathways possible for students to use and many avenues of quick transit from one area to another along the central road and other dry canyons. Students were fitted with GPS units set to record their location every minute for the entire test period. They were allowed to look at these units, but their base maps deliberately had no coordinate (i.e., latitude and longitude or UTM) georeferencing information, rendering the units useless for navigation. Students were shown their start location on their test maps, and all started at the same time from the same location. Students were also instructed to make numbered stations at data collection locations or at locations where significant observations were made, and record raw data both on the base maps and in their field notes. By the end of the test period, the students were expected to hand in a completed geologic map and cross section of the region, along with notes containing their raw data and illustrating their ongoing thought processes throughout the exam. While we collected data from all 15 participants, our data suffered from localized data gaps due to poor GPS coverage in deep canyons. Since our goal in this study was to understand the relative influence of our coding time interval on coding interpretation, and to compare students’ performance in this field area with their performance in the examination area presented in the Riggs et al. (2009) study, we limited our analysis to those students for whom we had full and complete records for both field areas. Unfortunately the first study only yielded eight complete tracks out of 15 participants, and given the data gaps and GPS failures in this study, we are only able to directly compare the performance of four students who appear in both studies. However, these four students do represent a cross section of abilities for the group, and include high- and lowperforming students from our earlier study. FIELD NAVIGATION DATA ANALYSIS We scored all of the student maps against a traditional rubric constructed for evaluating geologic maps in field instruction, referenced to the map presented in Figure 1. We adopted an approach similar to Kelly and Riggs (2006) in the construction of this rubric, which is similar to many in widespread use in field instruction. The student map scores are reported in
Table 1, along with results of subsequent navigation track coding using both 5 and 15 min polygons as described later herein. Points were awarded for accurate recognition and placement on the map of key geologic features such as structural elements (e.g., fold axes, etc.), contacts between geologic units, and correct identification of formations. Decreasing amounts of points for each key feature were granted with decreasing accuracy of location or omission of that feature. However, because of the inherent difficulty of this map area, especially in terms of stratigraphic ambiguity, points were also awarded for constructing internally consistent and coherent geologic maps even if units were fundamentally misidentified. This led to many objectively poor geologic maps receiving high point totals (for internal consistency) and therefore reduces the variance in scores. The map scores do show some variance consistent with the ultimately quality of the maps, but a result of subjective adjustment of these scores for grading of internal consistency is that there is not much variance in the scores, reducing their usefulness for this analysis, especially compared with the map scoring used in our previous study area with this group of students. Map detail and quality are instead better discussed in the following narrative sections describing the results for each of the four students, presented as case studies. All complete GPS records were imported into ArcGIS for analysis. Density clustering was not conducted for these data as they were for the tracks in Riggs et al. (2009) because of the small number of subjects involved in this study. We instead constructed polygons of each consecutive 5 and every 15 GPS data points, representing, respectively, 5 and 15 min of work for that student. Adjacent polygons were strung together in a sequence to create time-series tracks. This data-processing approach enabled a comparison of results of the same coding scheme applied to tracks at two different time scales. This was done in order to understand the influence of tracking time scale on the interpretation of problem-solving behavior, and to see whether different types of behavior from different stages of the problem-solving sequence in Marshall’s schema model were resolved differently at different time scales. We had collected this data set at a finer temporal resolution than our initial study (1 min as opposed to 3 min intervals), and ongoing research is collecting data at 10 s intervals with continuous sampling schemes. The differential processing of our track data presented an opportunity to see if a temporal granu-
TABLE 1. COMPARISON BETWEEN STUDENTS’ MAP PERFORMANCE AND VARIOUS POLYGON MEASURES FROM TWO DIFFERENT STUDIES Name Map score-1 Polygon score-1 Codes % total-1 Map score-2 Codes % total-2 Codes % total-2 (15 min) (5 min) (15 min) Adrianne 34 47 12 46 51 44 Jay 24 50 25 44 55 62 Mark 12 44 28 44 20 22 Jesse 3 40 31 43 35 32 Note: Study 1 is a previous data set in a different area with the same students and only includes 15 min polygons and a polygon scoring method not used in the second study (for details, see Riggs et al., 2009). Area 2 is the subject of this study. Code percentages were calculated by dividing the number of codes by the total number of polygons for each individual student as summarized in Table 2.
Effectiveness in problem solving during geologic field examinations larity effect exists in human movement relative to our coding and interpretations of geologic problem-solving ability and processes, to establish coherence between prior and future studies, and to explore for an optimum temporal resolution for showing relevant geologic behavior. We also elected to construct polygons with crossbars between all points involved in the polygons constructed for this study. This has the effect of showing in a graphically simple way where students spent most of their time within a 5 min or 15 min time step, as more crossbars will appear on the side of the polygon where more 1 min time samples were taken. We applied the same coding scheme developed in Riggs et al. (2009) to these data with only minor modifications, presented in Figure 2. We decided to place less emphasis on “primary” travel speed codes and place more emphasis on our so-called “secondary” codes related to maneuver sequences. The seven secondary codes are related to sequences of polygons and reoccupation of sites in the field area. This approach enabled us to code track sequences such as “double-back” maneuvers or star-shaped sets of polygons with a common origin that suggested repeated investigatory forays from a single starting point in a region, called
329
a “touch and go.” We added one new code for a “zigzag” path across outcrops, which emerged with the shorter time-scale track coding. We coded these in time-series fashion from start to finish of the field examination and totaled the number of instances of each code for each student. These data are summarized in Table 2 and are included for each of our four students with their tracks, maps, and cross sections as combined figures. Student field notes were also analyzed with the maps and tracks to determine the timing of the creation and placement of each of their data stations, and to put their track movements in a temporal context. In all cases, significant insights into problemsolving approaches and challenges emerged from the close reading of notes coupled with simultaneous, polygon-by-polygon analysis of their coded tracks at both 5 and 15 min time scales. This combined analysis led to the following case study analyses presented on a student-by-student basis. FINDINGS Here, we present first a critical analysis of each student’s map and cross section, combined with a running narrative of
Field Navigation Coding Scheme description Linear - Participant’s movement is linear through the field area from point “A” to point “B”. This can be broken down into 3 subcodes based on the speed at which the participant moves: Fast, Normal, or Slow linear. Designation of the subcode is qualitative. Static - Participant shows little or no movement for a time span exceeding 15 min (1 polygon). Polygon is very small or nonexistent. Double Back - Participant retraces previous polygon; consecutive polygons overlap to a high degree. Back and Forth - Similar to a “Double Back”, but with an extra retrace, or several retraces; participant moves from “A” to “B”, “B” to “A”, and then back to “B”, and so on. All retraces occur on consecutive polygons. Retrace - Similar to a “Double Back”, but the timing is different. Participant retraces a previously occupied region, but not on consecutive polygons. Touch and Go - Participant “touches” a previously occupied area and on the consecutive polygon moves out (at an angle) to a new area. Branching - Participant moves to a point (A), moves ~90° linearly to “B”, immediately returns to “A” and then continues on a straight line (from “B” through “A”) to a new area/point “C”. Path Cross - Participant intersects or bisects a previous path perpendicularly and continues across it into a new area. Zigzag - Participant makes a coherent set of side-to-side moves while also moving forward. Many of these maneuvers are observed along ridges and while climbing hills. Qualifying notes used in coding tables Overview - Participant moves to a topographical high point to survey region; timing of this move will depend on the field area. Out-of-Bounds - Participant moves outside the field area; can be associated with the “Overview” or “Completion” codes. Completion - Participant makes moves toward the designated starting or finishing point of field area. Duration of this move is subjective and can be associated with “Static” or “Out-of-Bounds” codes.
Figure 2. Dynamic codes and definitions for polygon navigation tracks. Numbered polygons in the secondary codes indicate temporal sequence.
330
Riggs et al.
TABLE 2. SUMMARY AND BREAKDOWN OF CODING FOR 5 AND 15 MIN POLYGON TRACKS FOR ALL STUDENTS Secondary codes 5 min Double Retrace Touch and Path Back and Branch Zigzag Total Total Student back go cross forth codes polygons Adrianne 11 18 3 4 8 44 86 Jay 15 15 5 12 2 49 89 Mark 5 2 3 6 16 82 Jesse 4 5 3 7 2 5 26 74
% of total 51 55 20 35
Secondary codes 15 min Double Retrace Student back Adrianne 5 3 Jay 3 9 Mark 3 1 Jesse 2 2
% of total 44 62 22 32
Touch and go
Path cross
Back and forth 3
2
2
1 3
their progress through the field area and the evolution of their solutions to the field problem as presented in the maps and notes. Following this discussion, we present a quantitative analysis of the coding, focusing on comparisons between the results of 5 min and 15 min polygon coding, comparisons with other students in this field exam, and comparisons with performance from an earlier field examination during this same course. Individual Track Results—Link to Maps and Field Notes We present all the individual results from this investigation, including the completed map, cross section, each complete polygon track at both time scales, and the corresponding coding for the time series at both the 5 and 15 min scale. Unfortunately, the print medium does not permit the dynamic presentation of all students’ polygon tracks accompanied by real-time coding illustration. To augment this static presentation of our data, we have posted animated versions of these figures on the Internet that show the temporal progression of each student’s traverse . These animations are available by navigating to links for Research/Field Navigation Studies available at the Riggs Group Web pages at http://www.purdue.edu/eas/riggslab/ fieldnav/index.html. Next, we attempt to provide a relevant summary narrative for each student in the study, along with analysis of relevant major points observed in each students’ behavior in the field and insights revealed from close reading of the notes keyed to the polygon tracks. All student maps, cross sections, and tracks are shown grouped together for comparison in Figures 3, 4, and 5, respectively, for ease of comparisons. Data stations shown on their completed maps are also shown on their 5 and 15 min polygon tracks in Figure 5. Coding for both 5 and 15 min tracks is shown for all students in Figure 6, which also shows the interpreted time for data station formation, and in some cases pre- or reoccupation of these sites where relevant, for ease of comparison to tracks, maps, and animations. The animations of these tracks also show a running coding chart that illustrates the assignment of codes in real time with student navigation decisions and station formation.
Branch
Zigzag
Total codes 11 16 5 7
Total polygons 25 26 23 22
Mark Mark’s map had poorly distributed structural measurements and in general reflected a correct but unsophisticated interpretation of the field area geology. This was especially true in the northern portion of the area, where his resulting map ignored all of the sedimentological and structural detail in that region. A comparison of Mark’s field notes with the data station numbering and the track sequences shown for both the 15 and 5 min polygons yields interesting insights into his approach to the field area in general, but it also helps to pinpoint the geographic and temporal points where difficulties in problem solving arose. We find that with this track, the 5 min polygon analysis in particular is useful for highlighting moments of intensive investigations by Mark in small regions, when his notes show him actively considering different identification possibilities for rock units and contacts. His elaboration strategies (as illustrated in his field notes) are expressed equally well in both the 5 and 15 min polygon tracks. Mark’s field day started at a measured pace, taking advantage of good outcrops near the south entrance to the field area. Within the first hour, he had made five data stations complete with attitude measurements and accurate rock identifications. His notes also reflect preliminary model construction, and his movements as recorded in both sets of polygon tracks show him executing this plan to collect additional data and test his stratigraphic and structural hypothesis. As he entered the second hour of his field day, Mark encountered the prominent basalt sill that traverses the field area. He spent almost the next hour working his way up to the topographic high within the basalt on the west side of the central canyon, collecting attitude data but making very poor rock identifications, mistaking the basalt for a sedimentary breccia unit. His notes show that he continued making structural hypotheses during this time, focusing on the syncline visible from this vantage. He also wrote that he was looking for evidence of overturning, which was the case for the syncline structure along strike in the previous project area, but which was not present in this field area. A tone
Effectiveness in problem solving during geologic field examinations
Figure 3. Final geologic maps for each student.
331
Figure 4. Final geologic cross sections for each student. Note that students were allowed to select their own cross-section orientation and location, which are indicated on their completed maps, to allow them to highlight their structural interpretations.
332
Figure 5. Final 5 min (left) and 15 min (right) polygon tracks for each student. Numbered circles are student-created stations recorded in notes and on geologic map. See narrative and posted animations for sequences (http://www.purdue.edu/eas/riggslab/fieldnav/index.html).
333
334
Riggs et al.
Figure 6. Coding for both the 5 and 15 min polygon tracks for each student. Sequential numbers refer to 1 min global positioning system (GPS) track points; 5 min polygons were constructed from overlapping sets of 5 track points each, while 15 min polygons incorporated 15 track points. Scale refers to the relative size of the polygons involved in the 5 min codes. The added notation S1, S2, etc., shows the approximate time that students created data stations as interpreted from close reading of notes combined with analysis of animated polygon tracks.
of frustration creeps into his notes here, and he continues north after finally realizing that the unit near station 8 is basalt. Mark continues north in the sedimentologically complex northern section of the field area, where the lacustrine facies of the Plush Ranch Formation contains 10–100-m-scale lenses of a megabreccia (Tpbx). Mark spends ~2 h in this region, pausing often (as seen in the 5 min polygon track), but he records
no attitude data nor makes any data stations in this region. He roughly identifies the whole region as the megabreccia on his map and carries the central fault into this region tentatively. His notes complain of physical exhaustion, and he states that he is making a guess as to the rock type and structure of the outlying areas within the northern section of the field area. His cross section is also incomplete down section and to the north, further
Effectiveness in problem solving during geologic field examinations showing his confusion as to how to resolve the northern end of the field area. His traverse takes him back down the eastern side of the field area, and he adds data to constrain the mapped syncline, and he eventually tracks back to the southern entrance (start/finish) for this field exercise. His map contains two data stations, numbers 6 and 7, which were apparently constructed on this later traverse (according to the GPS tracks), but which are out of order with the other stations (9, 10, 11). There may be some mislocation on his part of these data, or mislabeling in his notes and map. In any case, this adds some ambiguity in the interpretation of his intentions and sequence through this southeastern section of the map area. In any case, it is clear that any testing of detailed structural and stratigraphic hypotheses ended for Mark mid-day, roughly between hours 3 and 4, and the end of his field day simply consisted of collecting confirmatory data for the southern section, which he felt he understood better.
335
on his map (but added in the notes out of order, possibly after looking back across the valley from station 9). In any case, at this stage, the notes show confusion about this small fold and the implications for this to the larger-scale structures. He resolves this with an odd solution on the cross section and basically fails to solve this problem. Jesse’s note taking ceases after data station 10 for the remaining 80 min of the examination day. However, Jesse’s 5 min polygon track shows that after this time he makes a zigzagging traverse over an area that he maps as the trace of the larger syncline in the south. He also traverses back across the valley in the south to confirm the location, and presumably lithology of the Tps/Tpb contact. He also maps in another part of the Tps unit above this, and while these units do interfinger sedimentologically in this area, he makes no attempt to justify or explain this apparent contradiction in his cross section. Jay
Jesse Jesse’s map shows reasonably well-distributed measurements but distinctly more detail in the northern end of the field area. The southern end shows incomplete contacts and a poorly constrained syncline axis. His map in the northern region is detailed, but it also has a significant misidentification of lithology, which ultimately greatly complicated the structural interpretation required. This is reflected in internal inconsistencies in the north end of his cross section for the field area. His traverse starts with a long reconnaissance overview, traveling the entire length of the field area toward the north and circling around and up to the west to a vantage point. This strategy leads to an early identification of the basalt intrusion and the megabreccia in the northern portion of the field area. He also attempts to sight in some attitude data but then must descend into the valley and traverse into the northeastern quadrant to collect genuine measurements and make lithological determinations. The 5 min polygon track shows the pauses in his traverse that correspond to data station sites on his finished map. This additional loop and eventual detailed retracing of some of the initial loop to the west does leave his map with good detail in the megabreccia outcrops, but it did not provide sufficient time (or insight) in this area to change his mind about the misidentified basal breccia unit (which should have been mapped as the lacustrine facies). This looping doubled traverse and the partial large-scale retracing (shown well in the 15 min polygon track) took roughly 4 h at the beginning the examination time, leaving Jesse short on time to complete the southern part of the examination area in appreciable detail. His notes early in the field day reflect traverse planning and execution, but this plan does not seem to extend beyond the ~2 h reconnaissance traverse. He does seem to recognize early the large-scale structure and attitude of the beds, but he makes no clear predictions or tests of his conclusions. This leads him to get easily distracted by a small-scale fold located near station 7
Jay’s map reflects a relatively low level of sophistication and detail, especially in the northern region, where his track data show him to actually have spent the bulk of his time in the field area. The southern portion of his map shows relevant structures, but has little supporting data for the location and type of the mapped fold. His cross section of the field area also reveals a basic lack of a coherent structural model developed for this field area altogether, and it implies a significant fault or angular unconformity in the northern portion that is not supported by map data. Jay’s notes reveal persistent confusion with the sedimentology and lithology of the field area, and his track data indicate that he spent most of his field day attempting to resolve these issues in the north of the field region, which prevented him from developing testable structural hypotheses and any coherent plans for investigating the southern portion of the field area in more detail. The time spent with his attempts to resolve basic lithology issues in the northwestern portion of the field area prevented him from investigating the northeastern portion of the area at all. Jay’s field traverse started with time developing initial observations and taking lithological and attitude measurements at the south end of the field area near the starting point. He makes four complete data stations over the first 40 min of the examination period and then moves steadily northward, investigating as he travels. The measured pace of the northward traverse shows up particularly well in the 5 min polygon tracks. Upon reaching the branch in the canyon in the northern portion of the area, he appears to make a quick reconnaissance sweep of the areas that will eventually become his data stations 5 and 7/8, and then returns to station 5, where he spends ~80 min collecting data in that small region. His notes reflect a certain amount of structural and lithological confusion as he attempts to sort out the geometry of the Tpl and Tpb units here. Oddly, the detail in his notes never appears on his map for this location. The area he is working in at this point is the lower contact of the large megabreccia lens contained in the surrounding lacustrine unit.
336
Riggs et al.
He decides to ascend to higher ground at this point to gain a better vantage point on the geometry of this area, but his notes contain no observations from this point, nor does his map have any data from this location. He descends off the hill and makes a very short excursion back to the northeast where he records data at station 6. Interestingly, his notes record the correct rock type for this locality (the lacustrine unit), but his map shows that he is in the megabreccia at this point. In general, this reflects a failure to understand the lens-like geometry of megabreccia rock avalanche deposits within the lacustrine facies. This interpretation is supported by his next navigation move, which takes him to the northern (upper) contact between the megabreccia and the lacustrine facies, where he spends 20–30 min but records no data or notes during this time. Jay then returns to the region previously occupied roughly 3 h earlier and records data at stations 7 and 8. He stays basically stationary at this location for the next 25 min. At this point, he begins two complete loops through this northwestern region, reoccupying sites for station 5, stations 7/8, and the no-data station in the extreme northwest. He spends roughly the next 2.5 h looping through these areas, collecting no new data and retracing his steps again and again. The 15 min polygon track shows this the best at the large scale, and the 5 min polygon track shows that he slows down and reinvestigates his formerly investigated region around his earlier data stations with each loop. This is a classic example of problem-solving failure and confusion as seen in eye-tracking data and reported in other tracks in Riggs et al. (2009). His notes echo this confusion as he mentions that the lacustrine and breccia units are difficult to distinguish, and he also constructs a generalized stratigraphic column in an attempt to understand the outcrops he is seeing. He eventually leaves this area with no additions to his map, making a measured and zigzagging traverse back toward the finish area, presumably filling in whatever detail possible for the southern end as he was out of time for the examination and needed to exit the field area. This set of polygon tracks is a good example of confused behavior and a lack of systematic investigation, in this case, largely derived from a failure in the identification phase of problem solving, which in turn prevented any useful elaboration toward more comprehensive solutions. While his map was to a first order loosely correct despite this, his cross section reveals his lack of any deeper understanding of the outcrops he was investigating. Adrianne Adrianne’s map is one of the best in this cohort of students in that it captured the lithological variation with the most accuracy and also did the best job of finding and demonstrating small-scale structures. Her traverse is, despite the numerical classifications given by our coding scheme, also one of the most functional and effective, with few maneuvers that were truly unnecessary to advance her understanding of the geology she was investigating. At no point did she ever exhibit any overt signs in her notes or in
her GPS tracks of confusion. At all times her pace is measured, and her measurements and observations are well distributed throughout this field area. Her map does lack some large-scale features, like a large syncline to the south and details of interfingering units there, but by and large, hers is one of the most successful maps in the group. After a very short excursion out of the field area to the southwest, probably on personal business, she begins her field day with a careful and measured traverse north and west, documenting detailed lithological information in her notes and also a minor anticlinorium (parasitic folds in the main syncline axial region). The 5 min polygon tracks record many small secondary codes, but these can be discounted as being due to investigating around structures because of the lack of any corresponding secondary codes in the 15 min track data. After 2 h in this field area, she had mapped up through her data station 6 and made an observation station (2—marked with a triangle on her map), just into the basalt sill. From this point, she embarks on a 1 h reconnaissance traverse into the northwestern and northeastern branches of the field area. Her notes indicate that she was mapping contacts at this point tentatively and identifying lithologies systematically. Her identification approach in her notes is very systematic and incorporates multiple hypotheses and independent lines of evidence leading to firm conclusions on lithologies. This seems to be a key step to understanding this field area. She reports spending time at her observation station 3 (another triangle marking on her map) and relocating a series of contacts from this vantage point. She retraces her steps from here and maps in data stations 7 through 9 over the next hour and travels to reoccupy her earlier observation station at triangle location #2. It is unclear what this ½ hr of time was spent doing, but she did retrace her steps northward to create data station 10 after this, suggesting she spent this time pinpointing the details of the offset in the basalt. Her map representation of this is one of the only genuine problems with her map, as she implies significant thickness and offset discrepancies. It suggests that locations may have been hard for her to verify, supported by other discussion of location ambiguity in her notes and other slight mismatches between station locations and GPS locations throughout the field area. This is possibly a manifestation of location errors common in topographic map reading (Pick et al., 1995; Schofield and Kirby, 1994), even by students such as these in this study who were relatively experienced with map reading and location. After this last large-scale retracing of her steps, she makes steady progress southward, mapping in her final data stations at 11–14. Despite having data and structures plotted in the southeastern quadrant of the field area, her GPS data do not support her station placement, suggesting some minor location confusion. She also fails in this last traverse to resolve the contact geometry between the Tpb and Tps units. She reaches the finish region of the field area rather early (~1.5 h before the end of the allotted time) and makes only very small movements around this point for the remainder of the day. She may have used this time for cross-section construction, as her
Effectiveness in problem solving during geologic field examinations
Code percentages for 5 and 15 min polygon tracks % total 15 min
cross section is one of the better ones turned in for this map exercise. Altogether her mapping errors are relatively small and do not seem to be connected to problem-solving failures as much as representational (i.e., artistic, drafting-related) and location difficulties. Her traverse is ultimately very efficient, with only three instances of large-scale retracing, one of which can be explained as a quick reconnaissance traverse. While this may seem inefficient in terms of ground coverage, it is likely to have contributed to her overall solution to the field area and was clearly a planned action and was ultimately quite effective compared with that of our other three case studies, which raises other issues in the simplistic interpretation of our numerical results derived from our coding approach.
337
0.70 0.60
R2 = 0.8769
0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
% total 5 min
Figure 7. Comparison of code percentage between 5 and 15 min polygons. The R2 value shows that percentages are similar regardless of the time resolution and therefore do not affect the coding analysis.
Quantitative Results Table 1 summarizes the results of this study, as well as the results for these particular students from Riggs et al. (2009). The students are similarly rank-ordered by score in this study (map score 2) as before (map score 1), and the earlier point about the map scores not having a large amount of variance is easy to see in these data. However, the total number of secondary codes accumulated does vary much more among these students and, as described already in the narratives, is related more to their actual problem-solving strategies and difficulties. We have tallied the total number of secondary codes appearing in both the 5 and 15 min coding for this map area (indicated by “-2” in the column headings) and have completed this same calculation for the earlier map area (1), which was only coded at a 15 min interval. We divided the number of secondary codes by the total number of polygons created for each student and present this as a percentage. This calculation was performed to allow normalization of our data between the two field areas and between individual students with slightly different track lengths in both studies. We see in the earlier results a trend consistent with the conclusions of Riggs et al. (2009), namely, that a lower amount of secondary codes is correlated positively with a higher map score and is the best predictor of performance in this study. In the current field area, this correlation does not seem to hold simply at either coding time scale, as seen in the last two columns of Table 1. This apparent contradiction will be discussed next. Table 2 breaks down each student’s polygon coding into separate maneuvers on both time scales of coding, and then also summarizes the totals and as percentages of total codes compared with total numbers of polygons. The 5 and 15 min codes are very similar in this analysis, with notable exceptions in the Back and Forth code. The 5 min polygons are evidently particularly sensitive to small-scale motions around an outcrop, and in Jay’s case, this is especially evident in light of his confused behavior noted in the narrative. We also directly compared the total codes generated by the 5 and 15 min coding approach by plotting the percentage of secondary codes out of all polygons for each student at the 15 min time scale versus the same quantity for the 5 min polygon coding. This is presented in Figure 7. We found a very good
agreement between the overall, composite results generated by each method, suggesting the two methods are quite comparable at the coarsest scale, but they nonetheless show different aspects of problem solving as described in the narrative and discussed in more detail next. DISCUSSION OF TRACK ANALYSIS AND CODING Our coding data as presented in Figure 7 implies that from a sensitivity perspective, coding at 5 or 15 min generates essentially the same result, especially at the coarsest scale. However, the question remains as to how the overall interpretations differ at these time scales? What do we see at differently at different time scales? From the polygon-by-polygon analysis we conducted by comparing GPS tracks at both scales with the students notes and maps, we conclude that the 5 min track coding shows smaller movements around individual outcrops. The GPS tracks for all students at this time scale clearly show them slowing down their overall traverses in locations where they usually gather critical data and make significant notes (or show significant confusion). In the context of Marshall’s schema model, this detail in the 5 min tracks is related primarily to the identification step. It was very instructive to look at the 5 min tracks with the notes, and then compare the student map with the instructor/published map. This type of constant comparison allowed us to understand specifically what kinds of structures and geological features were creating difficulties for students. The most common difficulties of this nature in this field area were related to the lenses of rock avalanche material embedded in the lacustrine deposits and now exposed on end due to folding and erosion. The northern end of the field area definitely was the source of most secondary codes for students in the 5 min tracks. Side-by-side comparison of the 5 and 15 min tracks reveals longer-term strategies and appears to show the elaboration, planning, and execution phases more clearly. Hints to elaboration came from the student notes, but their larger-scale traverse trajectories across the field area related to planning and data collection to test their elaborations really come through in the 15 min data.
338
Riggs et al.
However, comparison of both time-scale data sets was required to better understand the overall flow of student thinking and evolution of their plans. In all cases, just the GPS tracks alone were not sufficient to fully diagnose problem solving—detailed and reflective field notes were also necessary, and all data sources together provided the most insight into the total problem-solving sequence. Clearly, more information could be gathered that would shed additional light on student intent. For this study, we have only detailed student reflective and data-gathering notes, but in previous and subsequent studies, we have also included reflective interviews where students relay their interpretation of their own maps and codes. The interpretations presented in our previous studies were strongly informed by these reflective interviews. Other researchers (Baker et al., 2007; Petcovic et al., 2007, 2008) have employed lightweight digital voice recorders used by subjects to record thoughts and additional notes from novice and expert geologists as they worked in the field, and we have also employed real-time, in-field observations of subjects at key locations. It is likely that all of these methods will result in much finer interpretations of mapping and problem-solving intent and difficulties as studies of this nature move forward in coming years. As mentioned earlier, there is a lack of large variance in map scores in this study and a weak correlation between map scores and secondary codes. This is initially disconcerting until two factors are considered. First, as discussed already, the maps were scored on more factors than just raw accuracy. This was a combination of the basic difficulty and of the field area and range of interpretations (in detail) of features in the northern end of the field area. One could argue, for example, that closing off a lens of the megabreccia on a map as the edge of a deposition lens is just a valid an interpretation as showing it truncated by a small splay of the central strike-slip fault in the region—indeed such disagreement exists between the published maps and the instructor’s maps. This prevents a completely analytical score from being developed for this area. Scoring was driven also by internal consistency of recorded data and the ultimate interpretation, even if those data were essentially incorrect, e.g., misidentified lithologies, etc. Students were not placed in a situation of double jeopardy for grading, which is also common practice in many geological instructional field camps and in our ongoing studies. This leads to higher map scores when a completely objective comparison of maps would yield a much bigger spread. A more significant factor emerging from our analysis is the fact that the most efficient traverse was not necessarily the best one, in the sense that covering the most amount of ground in the least amount of time does not guarantee good geologic problem solving. With this small sample of students, the detailed close analysis of their tracks, notes, and maps indicates that there may in fact be an optimum level of “efficiency” that is somewhere in the middle of our coding as currently constructed. Adrianne’s case is particularly instructive in this case, in that her targeted use of iteration and revisiting of certain sites for reinterpretation was very fruitful and contributed to her winnowing and refinement of multiple working hypotheses. Accounting for her early
finish to the field problem and subtracting all the polygons accumulated after the conclusion of her navigation track at the finish area as a result (all subsequent movements were not related to data collection, but rather milling about the finish area instead), one could argue that her 5 min codes could be reduced to 41% of her total and her 15 min codes could be reduced to 37% because her polygon totals and code totals would also come down. This puts her near Jesse’s coding figures. While his map had more problems than hers and his traverse approach had significant difficulties compared with hers, his map is arguably second only to hers in terms of details and subtlety of interpretation. Mark’s map is very coarse in its detail, and his percentage of codes to polygons is also lowest. Jay’s map is also relatively coarse in the resolution of detail and completeness of interpretation, and his percentages show the highest number of codes relative to polygons at both time scales. His tracks also show the most obviously confusion-related features, which greatly increased his secondary code count, especially in the 5 min track. This suggests, but certainly does not conclusively demonstrate, that there may be an optimum level of “inefficiency,” as seen in strict path coding, in complex areas like this field examination. Too much complexity in a track at any time scale likely indicates real inefficiency and ineffectiveness of thought, geologic model formation and action, as we found in our previous study with this same group of students. Too little complexity in a track likely shows a lack of detailed investigation that leads to an overly simplistic interpretation of the geology. Somewhere in the middle is the right balance between back-tracking inefficiency as students reinvestigate problem areas in the light of accumulating data. In this field area, this is possible because there are easy paths to key outcrops that do not involve intense physical investment climbing hills or traveling long distances on foot. Our earlier field area, reported in Riggs et al. (2009), had a strong topographic bias that encouraged students to think carefully before ascending very steep slopes for limited gain in geological understanding. As a result, the students who did the thinking in advance (Adrianne in particular) had a very efficient traverse with almost no back-tracking. In the field area used in this study, very selective back-tracking was rewarded by enhanced detail and understanding, making the tradeoff in navigational efficiency worth the effort. These four case studies and their supporting data sets are only suggestive. This argument must stand only as an assertion at this stage, and we are in the process of collecting data at much higher temporal resolution over a variety of field problems and topographic settings with larger numbers of students. As this new data is analyzed, this assertion is now high on our list to test further. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS The general conclusions we reached in Riggs et al. (2009) state that, in general, more efficient traverses generate better results, and while this is still true, the concept of efficiency is perhaps better replaced by effectiveness, in that a speedy and direct traverse (efficient by geographic terms) is not necessar-
Effectiveness in problem solving during geologic field examinations ily the best approach for successful geologic problem solving in complex areas that require iterative or repeated investigation to understand the geology. This study also shows that navigation analysis at multiple time scales yields the ability to take fully into account the student’s own individual progression through a field examination as seen in field notes, the order of recording of data stations, and observations and direct reports of reasoning difficulties. The occurrence of certain codes (back and forth, especially at larger spatial and temporal scales), or the repetition of a code, may indicate a decrease in problem-solving ability. For instance, Jay executed several back and forth maneuvers in the same area in the northern portion of the field area, suggesting that he was struggling with the geology in that area; this is supported by the lack of structures and inaccuracy of his map in this area. According to Marshall (2002, and 2004, personal commun.), this type of rapid back-and-forth movement in eye-tracking studies is also indicative of confusion, which further strengthens the parallels between her studies of behavior and cognition and this work. We understand from this new, additional analysis that multiple time scales of coding are preferable to just one, and that different time scales show different stages of problem-solving behavior. Our analysis shows that the 5 min and 15 min polygon track analyses are comparable at the coarsest scale, but that finerscale coding reveals more detailed movements related primarily to identification of key features and lithologies. Also, analysis of the coherence of small-scale and large-scale coding is most useful for showing longer-range planning in problem solving as the large-scale movements average out small-scale investigatory moves. Our results also suggest that in detailed and difficult field areas with topography that permits easy reoccupation of critical areas, there is an optimum amount of relocation and backtracking. Too much retracing indicates confusion, as found in our earlier study. However, too little reoccupation of key areas appears to accompany a failure to recognize important features. This assertion needs to be tested much more, and we are continuing work to understand the effects of topography on navigation choices in light of different geological problems. This style of study raises many potentially confounding variables beyond efficiency versus effectiveness and detailed intent at any given time step. We also need to understand how prior educational and personal background influences decision making in the field, how relevant issues of novelty space (as outlined in Orion, 1993; Orion and Hofstein, 1994) and spatial visualization skill affect tracks and navigation, how human factors, athleticism, and terrain difficulty influence movement across the landscape, and the interaction of all these factors. Ongoing and planned work is beginning to address these issues with careful application of quantitative instruments and qualitative approaches. Variants on data processing and coding are also being explored, including alternate representation of tracks (linear tracks versus polygons and variants on polygon size), analysis of dwell time at key locations, and clustering of student-made measurements versus occupied locations. Groups working in this area are actively col-
339
lecting much larger volumes of data that will build on this work and other early work to create a much more complete picture of the link among human cognition, geologic problem solving, and physical movement and navigation in the coming years. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to recognize the San Diego State University Department of Geological Sciences and the Purdue University Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences for their support of this work. We also thank Dave Mogk, Joe Elkins, and an anonymous reviewer who all provided detailed and insightful comments and encouragement that have greatly improved the quality of this manuscript and the clarity of our arguments and interpretations. REFERENCES CITED Baker, K.M., Libarkin, J.C., and Petcovic, H.L., 2007, Geologic mapping strategies of novices and experts as evidenced through GPS track and map analysis: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 6, p. 557. Bransford, J., National Research Council (U.S.), Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, and National Research Council (U.S.), Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, 2000, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 374 p. Brodaric, B., and Gahegan, M., 2007, Experiments to examine the situated nature of geoscientific concepts: Spatial Cognition and Computation, v. 7, p. 61–95. Brodaric, B., Gahegan, M., and Harrap, R., 2004, The art and science of mapping: Computing geological categories from field data: Computers & Geosciences, v. 30, p. 719–740, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2004.05.001. Browne, J., 2005, Learning Outcomes of Virtual Field Trips Used for Geoscience Education [M.S. thesis]: San Diego, California, San Diego State University, 43 p. Chadwick, P., 1978, Some aspects of the development of geological thinking: Journal of Geology Teaching, v. 3, p. 142–148. Chamberlin, T.C., 1890, The method of multiple working hypotheses: Science, v. 15, p. 92–96, doi: 10.1126/science.ns-15.366.92. de Caprariis, P.P., 2002, Developing successful learning strategies in structural geology: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 50, p. 145–149. Endsley, M.R., 2000, Situation Awareness: Analysis and Measurement: Mahwah, New Jersey, Erlbaum, 383 p. Endsley, M.R., 2001, Designing for situation awareness in complex systems, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Symbiosis of Humans, Artifacts and Environment: Kyoto, Japan, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, p. 176–190. Frodeman, R., and Raab, T., 2002, What is it like to be a geologist? A phenomenology of geology and its epistemological implications: Philosophy and Geography, v. 5, p. 69–81, doi: 10.1080/10903770120116840. Hesthammer, J., Fossen, H., Sautter, M., Sæther, B., and Johansen, S., 2002, The use of information technology to enhance learning in geological field trips: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 50, p. 528–538. Huntoon, J.E., Bluth, G.J.S., and Kennedy, W.A., 2001, Measuring the effects of a research-based field experience on undergraduates and K–12 teachers: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, p. 235–248. Ishikawa, T., and Kastens, K.A., 2005, Why some students have trouble with maps and other representations: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, p. 184–187. Kali, Y., and Orion, N., 1996, Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geologic structures: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 33, p. 369–391, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199604)33:4<369 ::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-Q. Kellogg, K.S., and Miggins, D.P., 2002, Geologic Map of the Sawmill Mountain Quadrangle, Kern and Ventura Counties, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-406, 16 p.
340
Riggs et al.
Kelly, M.M., and Riggs, N.R., 2006, Use of a virtual environment in the Geowall to increase student confidence and performance during field mapping: An example from an introductory-level field class: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 158–164. Kent, M., Gilbertsone, D.D., and Hunt, C.O., 1997, Fieldwork in geography teaching: A critical review of the literature and approaches: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 21, p. 313–332, doi: 10.1080/03098269708725439. Kern, E.L., and Carpenter, J.R., 1986, Effect of field activities on student learning: Journal of Geological Education, v. 34, p. 180–183. Klein, G.A., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., and Zsambok, C.E.E., 1993, Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods: Norwood, New Jersey, Ablex Publishing, 480 p. Kozhevnikov, M., and Hegarty, M., 2001, A dissociation between object manipulation spatial ability and spatial orientation ability: Memory & Cognition, v. 29, p. 745–756. Libarkin, J.C., and Kurdziel, J.P., 2006, Ontology and the teaching of earth system science: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 408–413. Liben, L.S., Myers, L.J., and Kastens, K.A., 2008, Locating oneself on a map in relation to person qualities and map characteristics, in Freksa, C., Newcombe, N.S., Gärdenfors, P., and Wölfl, S., eds., Spatial Cognition VI. Learning, Reasoning, and Talking about Space: International Conference Spatial Cognition 2008, Freiburg, Germany, September 15–19, 2008: Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 5248/2008: Heidelberg, Germany, Springer, p. 171–187. Lieder, C.C., 2005, Problem Solving Strategies of Geology Students during Independent Field Examination Shown by GPS Tracks: San Diego, California, San Diego State University, 76 p. Lieder, C.C., and Riggs, E.M., 2004, Problem solving strategies of geology students during independent field examinations shown by GPS tracks: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 5, p. 554. Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., Orasanu, J., and Salas, E., 2001, Taking stock of naturalistic decision making: Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, v. 14, p. 331–352, doi: 10.1002/bdm.381. Marshall, S.P., 1995, Schemas in Problem Solving: New York, Cambridge University Press, 424 p. Marshall, S.P., 2002, The index of cognitive activity: Measuring cognitive workload, in Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE 7th Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants: Scottsdale, Arizona. Novak, J.D., 1976, Understanding the learning process and the effectiveness of teaching methods in the classroom, laboratory, and field: Science Education, v. 60, p. 493–512, doi: 10.1002/sce.3730600410.
Orion, N., 1993, A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the science curriculum: School Science and Mathematics, v. 93, p. 325–331. Orion, N., 2003, The outdoor as a central learning environment in the global science literacy framework: From theory to practice, in Mayer, V.J., ed., Implementing Global Science Literacy: Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State University Press, p. 53–66. Orion, N., and Hofstein, A., 1994, Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 31, p. 1097–1119, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660311005. Orion, N., Hofstein, A., Tamir, P., and Gidding, G.J., 1997, Development and validation of an instrument for assessing the learning environment of outdoor science activities: Science Education, v. 81, p. 161–171, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199704)81:2<161::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-D. Petcovic, H.L., Libarkin, J.C., and Baker, K.M., 2007, Behavioral cognitive processes of novices and experts during field mapping activities: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 6, p. 579. Petcovic, H.L., Libarkin, J.C., and Baker, K.M., 2008, Problem-solving in the field: Novice to expert geologic mapping strategies, behavior, and cognition: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 6, p. 351. Pick, H.L., Heinrichs, M.R., Montello, D.R., Smith, K., and Sullivan, N.C., 1995, Topographic map reading, in Hancock, P.A., Flach, J.M., Caird, J., and Vincente, K.J., eds., Local Applications of the Ecological Approach to Human-Machine Systems: Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum, p. 255–284. Richardson, A.E., Montello, D.R., and Hegarty, M., 1999, Spatial knowledge acquisition from maps and from navigation in real and virtual environments: Memory & Cognition, v. 27, p. 741–750. Riggs, E.M., Lieder, C.C., and Balliet, R.N., 2009, Geologic problem solving in the field: Analysis of field navigation and mapping by advanced undergraduates: Journal of Geological Education, v. 57, p. 48–63. Schofield, N.J., and Kirby, J.R., 1994, Position location on topographical maps: Effects of task factors, training, and strategies: Cognition and Instruction, v. 12, p. 35–60, doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1201_2. Tretinjak, C.A., and Riggs, E.M., 2008, Enhancement of geology content knowledge through field-based instruction for pre-service elementary teachers: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 56, p. 422–433. Zsambok, C.E., and Klein, G., 1997, Naturalistic Decision Making: Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 414 p. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009
The evaluation of field course experiences: A framework for development, improvement, and reporting Eric J. Pyle Department of Geology and Environmental Science, James Madison University, MSC 6903, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, USA
ABSTRACT There is little argument that field course experiences are both complex and unique in the range of learning experiences provided to students. Conversely, they offer logistical and cost challenges that might cause one to question whether they provide a sufficient cost-benefit ratio to warrant continuation, particularly in a climate where resources have become scarce. In such a climate, it is important to have on hand rigorous data that support assertions of learning effectiveness. Many of the data supporting the evaluation of field course experiences can come from an analysis of assessments of student performance relative to course goals, but these data alone may not provide sufficient support. A close examination of faculty actions relative to student learning outcomes, as well as a researchbased analysis of course curricula designed to best support student learning, can provide two additional sources of data. When used in concert with student assessment data, evaluative success can be triangulated. A consistent set of tools in this evaluative framework also provides information on specific areas for maximizing student learning. This chapter outlines such a set of tools, using a specific field course experience that is in transition as a model. Pilot data collected within the existing field course experience structure are discussed in a manner that informs the development of performance assessments, instructional actions, and curricular organization. Using data derived from these sources, evaluations of field course experiences can be used to better articulate the cost-benefit ratio in terms of student learning in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. INTRODUCTION There is little doubt that field camp experiences, or field course experiences, are intensive of financial, faculty, and material resources. As costs have risen, it is not an unreasonable question to ask if the investment is worth the outcome. A cursory review of the intended outcomes of field course experiences, as posted online (Baker, 2006; King, 2009) provides a generally consistent view that field course experiences serve to hone students’ skills, prepare them for the workplace, allow them to apply classroom-based learning to real situations, serve as a capstone learning experience, or immerse them in the conventions and expectations of professional geoscientists. These outcomes
and values are universally valued within geoscience departments (Baker, 2006). However, outside of geoscience departments, the challenge is to provide administrators with a justification for the resource-intensive nature of field course experiences, especially in a climate of budget shortfalls and (relative to other departments) lower enrollments in geoscience programs. Academic freedom lasts right up to financial exigency, and then the need for clear justification becomes paramount. Field Course Experience There is a considerable body of research literature focusing on the nature of effective science learning experiences that
indicates learning is constructed by students as facilitated by their instructors and instructional environments (Resnick, 1983; Anderson, 1987; Mestre and Cocking, 2000; Bybee, 2002). This concept is not alien to the geosciences, as was suggested by T.C. Chamberlin. In his mind, an important consideration in Earth inquiries is that students should create “by [their] own effort an independent assemblage of truth” (Chamberlin, 1896, p. 848). What becomes apparent early in any inquiry in the earth sciences is that the questions are often based on incomplete information about complex, interactive, and (ultimately) uncontrollable events, and thus, these questions defy simple or discrete explanation through any single pathway of inquiry (Ault, 1998; Frodeman, 1995). Getting lost in the complexity is easy, so when instructors fall back on questions that are trivial or limited to confirmation of previous results, it is perhaps merely defensive and “safe” in instructional situations. Given the ambiguity and uncontrollability of geoscience phenomena, the conservative approach would favor instruction that demonstrates effectiveness in situations unsuited and not supportive of field course experiences, and yet students are placed squarely in these (at least to their perspective) complex and ambiguous situations. The complexity that is inherent in a field course experience is a unique learning experience that solidifies the knowledge, skills, and dispositions for professional growth (Stokes and Boyle, this volume). Keeping the complexity of the field course learning experience in mind, an evaluation framework that seeks to document the value-added nature of field course experiences, as well as a favorable cost-benefit ratio, should provide more information than student performance alone. Furthermore, evaluation should work complementarily with development, such that one informs the other. This manuscript examines the various aspects of student learning that could and should be examined in the context of a field course experience, the ways faculty interact with students to promote this learning, and the elements the curriculum should include to support the desired learning. Using the case of a field course experience in a developmental transition, the relationship of students, faculty, and curriculum to the field-based knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are developed in a field course experience are considered. Specific questions to be addressed by this paper are: (1) What should student performance assessment include to meet learning outcomes in the field course experience? (2) How can faculty involvement be documented that supports these learning outcomes? (3) What elements should be considered when designing instruction that can be employed by faculty to best promote student learning? Based on data collected during a recent field course experience, these data will be used to inform a set of tools that can be readily used by other field course experience providers to evaluate their own offerings for internal and external audiences. Furthermore, the definition of this evaluation framework sets the stage for implementation in the first, post-transitional, offering of the course. Through such a comprehensive approach to evaluation, the justification for field course experiences should be evident, not just to geoscientists, but also to academic administrators.
Assessment versus Evaluation It has been said that if one does not like evaluation, then education is the wrong business for them to be in. The terms “evaluation” and “assessment” tend to be used interchangeably in common practice, but for the purposes of this chapter, each will have a specific definition. Ebert-May (1998) defines assessment as “data collection with a purpose,” while Frechtling (2002, p. 3) defines evaluation as “the systematic investigation of the merit or worth of an object.” Assessment involves comparing information gathered from subjects relative to some established goal or objective (Kizlik, 2009). These goals, objectives, or outcomes are set in advance, and should be clear to both instructors and students. Through the use of a valid assessment that yields consistent results, the impact of instruction on students can be determined by the extent to which they have met or demonstrated these established goals. Thus, there is no “good” or “poor” as a part of assessment, only the difference between student performance on the task and the expectations established by the goal. Arguably, there is more familiarity with tasks tied to either cognitive (knowledge)-based objectives or, to a lesser extent, those tied to psychomotor (skill)based objectives. Affective outcomes that define dispositions or habits of mind are often overlooked because these outcomes are often more implicit and more difficult to measure. Evaluation allows us to establish and communicate the worth of an activity to internal and external audiences (Kizlik, 2009). To internal audiences, this worth can be determined by the extent to which decisions of instructional approaches, arrangements, organization, etc., are effective in aiding students to reach the desired outcomes. Such worth is determined by, but not limited to, the assessment data that are routinely collected. This, in essence establishes (or not) the validity of such choices. With respect to external audiences, “worth” can be determined by cost-effectiveness of effort relative to students meeting expectations, or through the establishment of the appropriateness of experiences to an overall curriculum model or larger set of expectations. These determinations become statements of “value-addedness” to student preparedness for future professional roles. Field Course Experience Outcomes As is implied in describing the general importance of field course experiences, the geosciences have a unique set of conventions and methodologies, supported by both general as well as specialized philosophies of science (Kitts, 1977; Frodeman, 2003). To experts in the field, these conventions and methodologies are largely transparent; they are just how things are done. However, as Gardner (1993) pointed out, once one becomes an expert, it is difficult to remember how it is to not be an expert and not know. Therefore, in considering the preparation and professional development of future geology professionals, it is useful to have a framework to “remember” how geoscientists come to
Field course evaluation know, act, and feel within their practice (see also Chi et al., 1981; Bransford et al., 2000). Explicitly, then, field course experiences are intended to reinforce the skills of a geologist at an early precareer stage:
Field camp is a tradition in the education of a geologist. It is an intensive course that applies classroom and laboratory training to solving geological problems in the field. Skills developed during field camp typically include: collection of geologic data, constructing a measured section, interpreting geologic structures, and geologic mapping. (King, 2009)
To view contemporary field course experiences relative to one another, Geology.com maintains a list of currently available field course experiences (King, 2009), as does American Geological Institute (AGI) (Baker, 2006). Sadly, relatively few field course experiences provide explicit goals and objectives as a part of the general description, nor do they often provide syllabi from which information may be drawn. From the available, explicit information, the following points of commonality are seen: 1. Recall or comprehension of facts is secondary to actually utilizing and applying facts, in that the “facts” are assumed to have been mastered by (or are at least familiar to) students, whereas the use of this knowledge through data analysis and synthesis of solutions is much more prominent. 2. Participants learn the use and application of equipment, tools, and techniques in field geology, focusing on the skill set necessary to function as an entry-level professional geologist. 3. Participants develop the habits of mind that govern the application of those knowledge and skills with integrity and attention to detail, valuing the conventions, techniques, and communication skills that make geology a rigorous science. 4. It is important to see each of these goals expressed in a variety of contexts, such that students’ development as geologists is enriched by their exposure to a variety of geologically interesting contexts. Many of these aspects of field course experiences are expressed as general goals rather than as specific objectives. As a result, they form the core statements that can be used to formulate not only specific objectives used in assessment, but also general questions for the evaluation of field course experiences. However, to do so, the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be learned in field course experiences must be made explicit by instructors to students and external audiences. (Please see Appendix 1 for a sample of field course experience outcomes.) A CASE STUDY: JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY’S FIELD COURSE EXPERIENCE The Department of Geology and Environmental Science at James Madison University (JMU) has operated a 6 wk geology field camp in the Connemara Peninsula of Western Ireland since 2005. This field course is conducted in cooperation with
343
the National University of Ireland–Galway, and was originally developed by Boston University. The explicit description of the field course experience is described in the syllabus as:
After completing the field course, you will be qualified to work for an industrial, governmental, or academic employer who needs you to make your own way to an isolated village in a foreign country, assess the local geology, natural resources, natural hazards, environmental conditions, etc., write a project report, draft a publishable map, generate a data base, and return home safely. The main objective is for you to become confident at scientific observation, interpretation, and solution of geological problems in the field. You will learn to recognize and interpret a wide variety of rock types, structures, and geomorphic features. We will place emphasis on methods of map-making, data recording, and report preparation. Projects from one to five days duration will be conducted in well-exposed igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks, ranging in age from Precambrian through Quaternary and correlative to rocks and sediments of the northern Appalachians.
The 2008 offering of the course was a transitional year because the administration passed fully over to JMU, while several new faculty members were added to the course. Much of the course structure and many of the exercises remained unchanged, although they were sequenced in a manner reflective of available faculty expertise. This created an opportunity to explore the development of an evaluation framework for the field course, such that the learning value and adherence to goals could be documented in a comprehensive fashion that would eventually not only justify the expense of the course, but also provide information on the efficacy of the particular scope and sequence of learning activities that make up the field course experience. The 2008 data collection, described herein, was not intended to provide these specific answers, but to generate ideas for a framework to be employed in future offerings for evaluation and continued development. Several primary sources of data were used during the 2008 course offering. First, each of the 29 students were asked to complete a brief questionnaire, outlining not only their prior course experience, but also their personal level of confidence with respect to that course, scored on a 0–5 scale, 5 being “very confident.” These two pieces of data were designed to capture crude information that could inform the development of evaluation questions on student preconceptions and metacognition. Fifteen students came from James Madison University, eight came from Boston University, and the remainder came from other institutions. Students were also asked about their prior use of geologic tools, such as compasses and global positioning system (GPS) units. The results of this questionnaire are found in Figures 1 and 2 below. Students indicated prior experience with traditional coursework in geology, including physical, historical, and structural geology, as well as mineralogy and petrology. Fewer students had taken stratigraphy and geomorphology, and fewer still had previously taken specialized courses such as tectonics, paleontology, and sedimentology. Only a few students had taken environmentally oriented courses. Interestingly, students expressed a
344
Pyle
Figure 1. Frequency of student course experience in prior geology coursework common to undergraduate geology programs; N = 29. GIS—geographic information systems.
Figure 2. Mean student confidence level with mastery in prior geology coursework common to undergraduate geology programs: 1—low confidence, 5—high confidence. GIS—geographic information systems.
confidence range that largely paralleled their prior experience, although not at a level that would reflect a belief in personal mastery of the material, as confidence never exceeded 3.5. During the progress of the course, students were also asked for responses on the specific exercises, reflecting on their experience with course exercises, on a 1–5 Likert scale (5 being “high,” “great,” or “very useful”). These were administered at the end of week 3 and again at the end of the field course experience (week 6). Students were asked about their prior experience with the material that made up the exercise, their perceived level of learning from the experience, and their perceptions of the utility of that learning. These data were plotted across the course sequence and are summarized in Figure 3. Additional narrative data were also collected for each exercise, drawing
from open (anonymous) comments as well as observational notes, personal reflections, and brief post–field course experience interviews. It was expected that the level of prior experience with the material at each site would start relatively low and then increase. Instead, it started relatively high, showed variation in the middle of the camp, and then returned to a lower level than the start. It was also expected that the students’ perception of learning after each exercise might start high and would show an increase over time, as the range of experiences increased. Overall, the level of learning did increase, but in a nonuniform manner, starting at a low level, peaking near week 4, and then decreasing. Finally, students perceived utility of the exercises were expected to start low and then increase. Instead, student perceptions of the utility of exercise started relatively high and decreased slightly as the course progress. These student reports are quantitative, but because they are self-reports and largely categorical data, they are of limited value in an evaluative sense. Furthermore, the written comments are anecdotal, reflecting specific episodes or narrow perspectives on interactions among faculty, students, and the curriculum. Thus, the questions that students were asked provide a limited basis for assessing skills and dispositions, but they do not comprise a true rubric for determining skills and dispositions changes. As a result, it was agreed that the data collected during the 2008 field course offering provided an appropriate basis for student assessment, but it was an incomplete data set for general evaluative purposes. The instruments were not constructed with broad generalizability in mind, nor were they necessarily meant to demonstrate reliability across course offerings. Rather, they were intended to provide a general student evaluation of instruction, with at least face validity and limited content validity. Taken as generative data (Goetz and LeCompte, 1984), however, they suggested strands that form the basis for the evaluation questions stated in the introduction. Solid inferences based on these results are difficult to make, but given the exploratory nature of this investigation, the results are suggestive of a number of commonalities that invite more detailed study. For example, it would appear from the quantitative data that the sequence of exercises could perhaps have been better matched to the particular set of students. There were little data to support the representativeness of this particular population of students, either in their prior knowledge, skills, or their capacity for professional self-awareness. The sensitivity of the instrumentation is insufficient at this time, but it has been adjusted for the next offering of the course. Already, the nature of the course has been restructured, such that student preconceptions and mastery of field-based inquiry are directed toward their interest in either general geologic problems or environmental techniques, with an aim to promoting a professional self-identity. The results underscore the future utility of the data in an overall evaluation framework, one that is demonstrably linked to goals. The documentation of these student data tied to their performance is a necessary component of additional data to sup-
Field course evaluation
Task
Week
1
1
Individual geologic map
2
2
Group glacial features mapping
345
Nature
3
2
Group metamorphic bedrock map
4
3
Group stream environmental analysis
5
3
Group digital mapping
6
4
Large-scale geologic structures memoir
7
4
Independent mapping
8
5
Regional geology memoir
9
5
Tectonic environments memoir
10
6
Individual karst terrain mapping
Figure 3. Changes in student reports of prior experience, perceived learning, and perceived utility of exercises across the span of the 2008 James Madison University field course.
port an informed evaluation. A more sensitive means is needed to determine the ways in which students grow toward meeting the outcomes of the field course experience. The manner in which faculty in general promoted this growth through their interactions with students or instructional decisions is not well documented in the current framework. Another aspect that is not well documented is the way in which the curriculum was designed to have students meet explicit and implicit course outcomes. The remainder of this manuscript thus defines not only a way that sensitivity of student assessments can be enhanced, but also ways in which faculty engagement can be documented within a curricular framework that research on science learning has demonstrated to be effective in promoting deep student learning. Plans
for future offerings of the JMU field course experience are used as examples in each of these contexts. STUDENT ASSESSMENT The available literature on student assessment in field course experiences is focused to a large extent on the cognitive outcomes, identifying the content of what should be learned in field course experiences by different audiences (Anderson and Miskimins, 2006) or comparing field and laboratory components of a student’s program experience (Noll, 2003). Measures of student learning are largely quantitative but limited to objective test or pre- to postexperience comparisons. There is an implicit
346
Pyle
attention to issues of skill and professional mind-sets, but these are not measured in detail in these studies. Hughes and Boyle (2005) argued for forms of assessment unique to the earth sciences and made a clear distinction between class work, laboratory work, and fieldwork, as each requires distinct approaches to assessment. Furthermore, the arguments for establishing the validity and reliability of assessments are strong (Butler, 2008), whether considering fieldwork in both class and residential program contests. While not specifically stipulated by Butler (2008), these assessments can provide useful program evaluation data. While field course experience learning in the cognitive domain is well represented, there is less representation of student growth in the affective or psychomotor domains, making these forms of data normally unavailable for program evaluation. Boyle and his colleagues (2007), however, provided comprehensive measures of student affect as a part of fieldwork, as do Stokes and her colleagues (this volume), concluding that while there are increases in positive student feeling toward fieldwork after the experience, there are also suggestions that affect plays a greater role in professional dispositions than had previously been documented in the geoscience education literature. Interestingly, most of the information on student learning of skills and dispositions comes from the geoscience education literature that focuses on earth science teachers. Since professional development programs for earth science teachers are often externally funded through grants, there is a need for comprehensive evaluation in order to ensure that the projects have a positive impact on teachers, and not just the teacher participating, but also on their students. In order to enhance the experience of the teachers, they are often engaged in authentic research experiences involving considerable amounts of fieldwork. Measures of teacher skills and dispositions related to the practice of geology are well documented by Huntoon and her colleagues (2001), O’Neal (2003), and Hemler and Repine (2006). In each of these projects, multiple and varied forms of assessment data were used, including recognized forms in geology such as maps, field notes, and cross sections. They also expanded the assessment repertoire to include teacher artifacts such as concept maps, lesson plans, journals, and constructed responses. These additional forms of data were used to triangulate gains in knowledge, skills, and dispositions in these studies. Techniques of Assessment That Reflect the Structure of the Geosciences Every assessment, regardless of its purpose, rests on three pillars: (1) a model of the way students represent knowledge and develop competence in the subject domain, (2) tasks or situations that allow one to observe students’ performance, and (3) an interpretation method for drawing inferences from the performance evidence thus obtained. In the context of large-scale assessment, the interpretation method is usually a statistical model that characterizes expected data patterns given varying levels of student competence. In less formal assessment, the interpretation is often
made by an instructor using an intuitive or qualitative insight, rather than statistics, focused less on a determinative and more on a developmental purpose (Atkin and Coffey, 2003). If then, assessment is to be effective, it needs to be demonstrably tied to learning goals, whether they are reflective of knowledge, skills, or dispositions (Fox and Hackerman, 2003). The difficulty for earth science instruction lies in the intrinsically interdisciplinary nature the geosciences (Hughes and Boyle, 2005), and crafting not only instruction but also assessment to represent this format and, thus, attain validity of the assessment. An understanding of the purpose and format of an assessment is a prerequisite to ensuring the consistency and reliability of both administration and interpretation of assessment data. Furthermore, the complexities of the contexts of earth science instruction, whether in class, the laboratory, or in the field, demand that assessment be explicit in reflecting these different settings and intended uses. Assessments can be seen as formative, in which the level of student achievement in particular objectives is communicated back to students in order to promote continued growth toward mastery, but also to faculty in order to indicate course corrections. Assessments can also be seen as summative, in that they are used to provide a final determination of student achievement relative to the goals of instruction. These data are also used for comparison, group analysis, and external reporting. Given these formats for assessment, it is necessary to parse the task into elements reflective of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The following is a brief summary of the ways in which assessment elements in each of these areas can be designed, based first on the literature and then defined with field course experience–specific task suggestions. Knowledge Decades of research on student learning and instructional design have produced a variety of taxonomies that are useful for a systematic means of parsing knowledge for both instruction and assessment. Perhaps the best known is Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy, which is discussed in a variety of sources (Bloom, 1956; Trowbridge, Bybee, and Powell, 2004). In developing objectives in the cognitive, or for that matter each, domain, the challenge is to frame it around an active, measureable verb, stating both the task that is expected of students as well as the criteria that indicate student mastery of that objective (Chiappetta and Koballa, 2006). Using this taxonomy, many familiar field course experience tasks are provided with clear, measureable definitions that communicate internally as well as externally. Application of this taxonomy to field course experiences is suggested in Table 1. These elements have become increasingly important in assessment of students, but one should view this use with some caution. It is relatively easy to devise assessment items of high validity and reliability at the first two levels, the lower-order thinking skills, than it is for the latter four, or higher-order thinking skills. Nevertheless, this taxonomy is best used in the creation of instructional objectives that many can agree upon as important
Field course evaluation
347
TABLE 1. COGNITIVE TAXONOMIC ELEMENTS REFERENCED WITH RESPECT TO POTENTIAL FIELD COURSE EXPERIENCE TASKS OR EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS, WITH ACTIVE VERBS TO FRAME THE OBJECTIVE Cognitive level Sample verb s Earth science concept Knowledge Define, describe, identify Rock texture, RFM identification Comprehension Interpolate, estimate, predict Draw contour lines from elevation data Application Compute, modify, relate, use Graph a topographic cross section Analysis Diagram, divide, infer Plot fold axis on a map Synthesis Arrange, generate, design Construct a geologic map from field data Evaluation Contrast, interpret, appraise Assess landslide hazards from map data RFM—rock-forming mineral.
for students to have mastered in order to be successful in their employment or in graduate school. Psychomotor The sciences, when practiced for the generation and verification of new knowledge, rely on not just the application of discrete knowledge, but also on the application of set of specialized skills. These skills are typically referred to as psychomotor, indicating that there is a brain-body connection of some definable nature. There are several models of psychomotor taxonomies (e.g., Simpson, 1972), but the work of Dave (1975) matches well to field course experience tasks and supports the development of measureable objectives. Like the cognitive taxonomy described previously, they can be ordered in increasing level of difficulty, as in Table 2. One aspect that should be evident from this limited introduction to the psychomotor domain is that the geosciences are of special concern. For example, the observational skills required in the geosciences necessitate attention to the details of a phenomenon as well as the larger context. To understand a flood in a cognitive manner requires observing with precision the details of a stretch of streambed (shape, sediment load, etc.) as well as the larger context (recognizing and measuring the floodplain from contour maps, measuring changes in flow rate, etc.). In addition, many of these observations rely heavily on the visual domain, both in pattern recognition as well as communication of ideas, such that written descriptions and verbal presentations become an adjunct to diagrams, charts, and illustrations, rather than the text as the leader. This is a complex skill that must be cultivated among students if they are to function with a high level of content-related skill.
Dispositions The third domain to consider in the preparation of geoscientists deals with the starting point in thinking and acting, namely, one’s dispositions and habits of mind. Arguably, these starting points are first governed by the affective domain, which is concerned largely with feelings and emotions, but they are not limited this area. Instead, they drive the basic template of a student’s approach to a problem or unique situation, and they strongly influence attitudes and potential actions (Azjen and Fishbein, 1980). Like knowledge and skills, affective dimensions can be taxonomically arranged (Krathwohl et al., 1973), as in Table 3. Among the three domains discussed here, dispositions and affect are perhaps the most difficult to measure or assess. More importantly, they are likely the objectives most difficult to explain to those outside of the geosciences, or for that matter, any science. However, they are also clearly a part of the covert curriculum, and few instructors would not attach some value or professional satisfaction to students clearly attaining these objectives. The knowledge, skills, and dispositions outlined here are a first step in representing the structure of the discipline in instruction and assessment. Returning to the structure of the discipline, assessment items or tasks can be built around: (1) knowledgebased representations, as distinct from “knowledge” as beliefs described previously; (2) lexical representations of terminology specific to context; and (3) prototypes or exemplars, which are in part model or graphical representations of phenomena (Smith, 1995; Lawrence and Margolis, 1999; Murphy 2002; Sibley, 2005). More specific task/item examples are provided in Table 4.
TABLE 2. PSYCHOMOTOR TAXONOMIC ELEMENTS USEFUL TO FIELD COURSE INSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT Psychomotor Sample indicators Earth science action level Imitation Crude reproduction of action based on Determination of mineral sample physical properties, such as hardness, streak, observation and minimal practice or observing cleavage Manipulation Performance from instruction with attention Measurement and data encoding using a Brunton compass or Jacob’s staff to form Precision Accuracy, proportion, and exactness in Collection of physical and chemical data at several points along a stream performance, with minimal error Articulation Coordinating a series of acts with harmony Map generation from a series of station measurements, plotted on a base map and consistency Naturalization Smooth, natural performance with minimum Generation of finished maps that reflect multiple layers of data collection and of psychic energy procedures and coordinate well with field notes and diagrams
348
Pyle
TABLE 3. AFFECTIVE TAXONOMIC ELEMENTS THAT SHOULD INFLUENCE FIELD COURSE INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND STUDENT ASSESSMENT Dispositional Sample indicators Earth science action level Receiving Follow directions, locate, identify Following along with a field trip guidebook as a part of a field trip Responding Complete assigned tasks at or above level Once a local geologic map has been studied, seeking out a regional required, or for self-satisfaction geologic map to see larger context Valuing Accept, prefer, and commit to scientific values More than one measurement of a particular parameter is sought in each location Organizing Personal values are brought into line with scientific Each field investigation is approached with a set of questions framed on values methodologies and possible outcomes Characterizing Lifestyle adoption indicative of a preference for Active seeking of communications with other students and faculty on scientific values geological issues
TABLE 4. FIELD COURSE EXPERIENCE ASSESSMENT ELEMENTS, PROVIDING A BASIS FOR RUBRIC DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT PLANNING Structure Sample task within field course Rationale from knowledge, skills, and dispositions KnowledgeBased on observations of current stream conditions and local erosion Knowledge—distinguishing beliefs from prior based and sedimentation patterns, making a prediction of how the stream knowledge, applied to novel situation changes when flow reaches flood conditions. Skills—measurements and observational descriptions of setting Dispositions—use of more than one parameter in making the prediction Lexical Correctly applying terminology in a lithologic description using texture, Knowledge—recall and appropriate application of and mineralogy, and internal features or structures. terminology Skills—effectively communicating descriptions in written or oral form Dispositions—using a variety of descriptive terms in a manner that reflects possible contexts Prototype Constructing an accurate cross section from a map, or distinguishing Knowledge—synthesizing an analogy representing the the correct cross section from distracters, stating reasons for rejection. distribution and orientation of materials Skills—drafting a cross section with consistency of measurement, to scale, from the map Dispositions—cross section contains all necessary detail, drafted in a manner that communicates clearly the interpretations drawn
In application, these elements provide not just summative assessment data, but they can also serve to generate formative assessment data, teasing out student preconceptions when designing or modifying instruction, selecting particular prior learning that can be built upon or that needs particular attention in subsequent instruction. When used as a form of embedded assessment, they can provide direct support to student-led inquiry, such that their application of professional skill sets is evident. Finally, they serve as a jumping-off point for deeper self-reflection and professional self-awareness, providing currency and a real-world focus that can be directly applied to the world outside of class. If these tasks are to support student learning, they should be constructed in such a manner, so that students feel they have the latitude to pursue novel solutions that may deviate from conventional solutions (Hughes and Boyle, 2005). Based on the data from the 2008 offering of the JMU field course experience, considered in light of the assessment elements discussed here, a new set of rubric elements has been developed for field course experience tasks. It is intended to be drawn on as a bank of statements, to the extent that a given task may be knowledge, lexical, or prototype in nature and thus require a spe-
cialized framework for determining student mastery of learning goals. These statements and mastery descriptors are offered in Appendix 1, but sample elements to be employed in the 2009 offering of the JMU field course experience are offered in Table 5. Astin and his colleagues (1996) argued that student assessment needs to adhere to several characteristics in order to contribute to meaningful evaluation. In the context of field course experience evaluation, assessments should have the following characteristics: 1. Assessments should embody a vision for the most valuable kinds of learning—Knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are important for an entry-level professional geologist should not only be part of the assessment techniques, but these assessments should be evident to students, faculty, and external audiences. 2. Assessments should be multidimensional, integrated with instruction, and reflect performance over time—Assessments should be as much of the overall developmental sequence as instruction, beginning with more general ideas and moving toward specific performances. 3. Assessments are best when tied to clear expectations and purpose—To the extent that students know clearly what they are
Field course evaluation
349
TABLE 5. APPLICATION OF ASSESSMENT STRUCTURE ELEMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF RUBRIC STRANDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT WORK IN FIELD COURSE EXERCISES, WITH EXEMPLAR STATEMENTS Task element Knowledge, skills, Exemplar/mastery Assessment and dispositions structure Lithologic description Knowledge, skill Description includes accurate information on rock type, mineralogy, grain Knowledge, lexical size and range, texture, and special characteristics, in clear language with proper syntax and grammar. Structural Knowledge, skill Structural interpretations are directly supported by measurements; inferred Prototype representation structures are distinguished from those directly observed; both small- and large-scale structures are represented. Symbology/ Skill Correct symbols and markings are used for structural features, contacts, Prototype marking internal features; these symbols show proper orientation and position; appropriate density to support inferences; clear and unambiguous representation of measurements and observations; measurements include all important features of base-map area. Presentation Skill, disposition Clean, neat; meets or approaches professional standards; layout of legend, Prototype key, etc., is clear and supportive of map presentation. Attention to detail is evident. Field book Skill, knowledge, Majority of both major and minor features are captured through complete Knowledge, lexical affect written and graphical descriptions; measurements and observations are organized for easy review, retrieval, and interpretation; handwriting is clear and legible. Supporting materials, Skill, disposition Supporting materials are directly tied to specific inferences; measurements Knowledge, e.g., stereonet plots, (scale, angles, etc.) are accurate; materials are clear/focused and legible. prototype data tables, etc.
to learn from an activity, or at least what is expected of them through rubrics, the formative information can be better supplied, and the summative information will be more satisfactory for students and faculty alike. 4. Assessments require attention to outcomes, and to the experiences that lead to those outcomes—Assessments should encompass a full component of instructional planning and delivery, and never be far from the forefront for the group and the individual student, particularly when linked in a developmental sequence that serves long-range goals. 5. Assessments are valuable as both ongoing as well as episodic tools—Constant low-stakes formative assessments provide clarification to both students and instructors, and summative, episodic assessments signify completion of tasks. 6. Assessments should make a difference with issues of use and illuminate personal questions—With particular attention to inquiry skills and metacognitive abilities, assessment information can address such questions as “How do I do this?” “When am I going to use this?” and “How do I know when I am done?” Given that field time is often limited or costly, answers to these questions should be part of the set of dispositions for students. 7. Assessments should document and communicate successes, growth, and experiences to instructional and public audiences—To the extent that faculty use assessment data to improve future offerings of field course experiences, and document the success of program completers, a high value for the effort and resources committed can be demonstrated. In applying our rubric to the field course experience tasks, it is our intention that these points are evident, which will contribute to students’ increased understanding of their tasks and the ways in which their learning was assessed. Attention to these
points will also enhance the utility of the assessment data in the overall evaluation framework. ASSESSMENT, INSTRUCTORS, AND INSTRUCTION As previously stated, program evaluations that provide meaningful information collect data from a variety of sources and data that represent a variety of participants, faculty being one of these groups. It is generally expected for the design of field course experience activities to adhere to the goals of the course, but it seems a disservice to both the faculty and the program as a whole to limit faculty evaluation data to summative, end-ofcourse student evaluations of instruction. There are biases inherent in the administration and use of these instruments in higher education classrooms, as has been documented (Fox and Hackerman, 2003). However, if these instruments are biased, there is no guarantee that anecdotal information from student written comments is any less biased. Typically, these instruments are designed for in-class use and do not necessarily reflect the complexity of instruction in field course experiences, nor do they necessarily capture student responses relative to skills or dispositional learning. With the nearly full-time contact between faculty and students in field course experiences, there is the real prospect of an atmosphere in which personality is a contributor to recollection of past activities, by both students and faculty. If student assessments are to be explicit and largely objective, then faculty assessment as a function of evaluation should employ a more rigorous methodology that can demonstrate both validity and reliability. As described already, the 2008 JMU field course experience was a transitional year, bringing in a variety of faculty new to both the geological as well as instructional context. Drawing on the faculty expertise, elements that were previously piloted, such
350
Pyle
as electronic data collection and mapping techniques, reached full implementation alongside traditional field mapping experiences. In addition, an environmental science–oriented module was piloted, based on reconnaissance during the previous summer. Coupled with the addition of four new faculty members on 2 wk rotations, a rather complex, and perhaps incomplete, set of interactions was imposed on both faculty and students. Add to this mix demands of driving field vehicles on the opposite side of the road, and opportunities for personalities to color both student and faculty expectations became evident. Anecdotes in student written comments suggested that issues of personal convenience colored the value of the learning experience by students. As a result, it became clear that a less biased data collection procedure needed to be adopted for future offerings. How to Collect Data—Clinical Supervision A useful framework to consider as a model for data collection and analysis was defined by Acheson and Gall (1997), termed the clinical supervision model. This approach is based primarily in precollege classroom instruction, but the techniques are readily adaptable to higher education settings, and the data collection and analysis methods are adaptable to different situations. In addition, the information that is produced is valuable for both formative purposes in the internal evaluation of learning experiences, but it is also useful for external summative purposes, relating first-hand observations of instruction that can be tied directly to explicit goals. There are three phases to the clinical supervision cycle: (1) pre-observation, where the observer and observee meet before the instruction and discuss what is to be learned, the approaches that will be used, and any concerns or prior observations that may originate from either party; (2) observation, in which the data are collected through one or more techniques (discussed in more detail in the following); and (3) postobservation, in which
there is joint reflection on the instruction, guided by the data that was collected. A summary of the information from each of these three phases has an immediate effect on subsequent instruction (the formative function), but it also documents for external audiences the intended result of the instruction, what happened during instruction, and how data were used to improve instruction and presumably student learning. Data collection in the clinical supervision model can take on several forms: (1) selective verbatim techniques, in which portions of the dialogue between students and instructors are recorded faithfully, such as the questions that are asked or the types of instructions provided to the students; (2) map-based techniques, where a field mapping area (or portion) is used as the base, but the movements of instructors and students, their duration, and type of interaction are recorded, and (3) wide-lens techniques, which include videotaping and audiotaping, and standardized checklists of instructional behaviors. These sources of data are primarily focused on the instructor, but the clinical supervision model does not preclude the use of student work. Indeed, field course experience’s generate unique sets of artifacts produced by students, including maps, field notes, and sample collections. While these are used primarily for student assessment, when used in conjunction with the explicit and implicit goals of instruction, they become a valuable reflection tool in the postobservation domain. Examples of each of these data sources can be seen in Table 6. Collecting data from each of these sources in a single session or set of sessions would not be easy, or even possible in a field setting. Neither would such data collection be appropriate, as the pre-observation discussion is designed to determine exactly which techniques or combination of techniques would best be employed, given the nature of the instructional activities, issues of concern, and overall program goals. The postobservation discussion is intended to determine the information to be gained from the collected data, and if the selection of techniques was in
TABLE 6. CLINICAL SUPERVISION DATA COLLECTION APPLIED TO FIELD COURSE SETTINGS Selective verbatim “ Your task is to map the lithologic units, contacts, and major structural features of the beach from Point A to Instructor structuring statements Point B.” “ How can I tell a joint from a fault?” Student questions “ That grain might be plagioclase, but how could you tell it from orthoclase?” Instructor feedback Map based Student movement On a base map, time indexed notations indicate the locations, dwell-times, and movement tracks of students. Instructor movement On a base map, time indexed notations indicate the locations, dwell-times, and movement tracks of the instructors relative to the students. Wide lens Videotaping Ideally, this would be a video camera set up in a remote location, but this is more suited to a classroom or laboratory setting. Students or instructors carry a tape recorder in field to either “ talk out” actions while at outcrop, or capture Audiotaping dialogue between students and instructor. Standardized student evaluation of Standardized forms with quantitative (usually Likert-scaled) items asking students to rate instructional quality, instruction expectations, curricula, etc. Artifacts Instructor generated Instructions for mapping assignment; syllabi; reflections on exercises. Student generated Student maps, and lithologic descriptions in written form; photographs; field notes, relative to other data sources above.
Field course evaluation fact appropriate. As student learning progresses and assignments become more demanding, so then should the data collected techniques be varied. Student artifacts become more complex, structuring statements become more specific yet limited in extent, and wider and more varied terrain is to be mapped. Analysis of the data collected can be, in the narrowest manner, focused on specific questions that instructors might have on the progress or student response to an exercise. In the broader quest for reliability, however, the framework offered by Fox and Hackerman (2003) describes characteristics that can be used in pre- and postconferences, observation, and analysis. These characteristics include: 1. Knowledge of subject matter—Does the instructor demonstrate: • Mastery of the general content principles? • Sufficient breadth of knowledge within specific contexts? • Genuine interest in the content? 2. Skill, experience, and creativity with a range of pedagogies—Does the instructor: • Communicate clear expectations to students on assignments? • Recognize when students have difficulties? • Encourage discussion between students, and between students and instructors? • Persistently monitor student performance through formal and informal assessments, probes, interrogatives, etc.? 3. Understanding and use of appropriate assessment tasks— Does the instructor employ: • Assessments that are consistent with objectives and long range goals? • Persistent data collection on student performance during an activity? • Techniques to determine the extent of learning throughout the course? 4. Engagement in professional interactions beyond class— Does the instructor: • Contribute to ongoing intellectual development of the students, in and out of class? • Promote metacognitive and self-evaluative strategies in students? • Advise students that are having difficulty with learning the content and skills? 5. Communicating the results of reflections as a part of scholarly activity—Does the instructor: • Systematically share the results of the analysis, interpretation, and improvements with others in manuscripts, papers, and presentations? There is a temptation to use all of these characteristics as a part of a checklist, in order to produce a unitary framework across instructors, field settings, or field course experiences. This decision should be approached with caution, as the application of these questions in the analysis of instructor data should also have the specific goals and objectives of both the particular activity and the field course experience as a whole in mind. When attempt-
351
ing to integrate instructor data with student data in the overall program evaluation, there should be a distinction (although not necessarily an exclusion) between the assessment of instruction versus assessment of instructors. A checklist is all too often used for the latter purpose only, and that may not provide the type of information that a field course experience needs to demonstrate efficacy to external audiences. With respect to faculty observations in 2008, a limited amount of data was collected in a wide-lens observational manner, shared in an informal manner, and with only general goals in mind. Subsequent reflection among faculty, particularly when considering student written comments, urged the adoption of a more explicit means of defining and collecting data, to be used to improve instruction. For 2009, a small portion of each day was to be reserved for faculty to confer, focusing on a clinical supervision cycle for each faculty member, meeting beforehand and afterward, and using the location base map as a starting point, as each exercise involves multiple days on site. These efforts are to be linked to course goals and student performance in order for the overall evaluation framework to be justified. With the same format of faculty rotation, there is a greater depth of contextual experience that can be relied upon. Thus, faculty preparation will include preparation in the use of selective verbatim techniques, such as systematically recording student questions for short intervals, faculty structuring statements, and faculty feedback on specific map tasks. To the extent feasible, the use of small audio recording devices will be employed as a widelens technique, capturing dialogue between faculty and students. Map-based techniques will be also be employed by faculty members, tracking students across the field area. Finally, the range of student artifacts themselves (e.g., maps, cross sections, lithologic descriptions, etc.) will be compared to the assessment data described here for correspondence of goals, instruction, and assessment. Given the range of faculty expertise and rotations to and from the field sites, each faculty member will become at least familiar with each of these techniques, and it will be preferred for them to become well-versed in at least one of them, both in terms of data collection as well as analysis of those data. CURRICULAR DESIGN ELEMENTS In the larger context of the ways in which students learn science, Bransford and his colleagues (2000) suggested that learning in science is dependent on three factors: (1) identification of student preconceptions, (2) practicing science through inquiry, and (3) metacognition. A professional geologist needs a high level of skill in each of these domains in order to work effectively, either independently or as part of a team in the field. Student preconceptions, alternative conceptions, and misconceptions are deepseated and related directly to past experiences and actions. Unfortunately, the literature on earth science misconceptions lags well behind the other sciences (see Duit, 2006) and is largely limited to material from precollege students. Libarkin and Anderson (2005) have examined the declarative and procedural knowledge
352
Pyle
of undergraduate students through the geosciences concept inventory (GCI), but this instrument was intended to be used in large introductory geology courses. An instructor should ask, “What are the preconceptions of students in field course experiences?” A reasonable assumption would be that, since they had presumably mastered the basic knowledge, skills, and dispositions in previous courses, preconceptions held by students would be supplanted by scientifically sound and representative ideas. However, there seems to be little data to support that assertion. Field course experience evaluation frameworks thus should use an analysis of student preconceptions to inform instructional design. As was stated already, the goals and objectives of field course experiences are intended to be oriented toward the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to geologists. Thus, the nature of geoscience inquiry is of high importance. When learning and practicing the use of equipment in the field, making and recording systematic observations, and making reasonable interpretations, students are engaged in the forms of inquiry that are conventional to the geosciences (Kitts, 1977; Frodeman, 2003; Pyle, 2008). Since the bulk of student objectives and assessment in field course experiences are skill-focused, it is appropriate that these data be used as a part of program evaluation, especially since assessment data may be cross-referenced to course goals and faculty actions. Finally, the decision of the skills to employ, the knowledge to access, and persistence to a task are all driven by the executive, or metacognitive, function. Complete mastery is not a necessary prerequisite to field course experience tasks, but a student who has been prepared in a manner that integrates geoscience knowledge, skills, and dispositions, scaffolded from their preconceptions to strong geoscience metacognition, can begin to recognize the skills and knowledge to access in a given field situation. This function is often assumed to have occurred within successful students, and it may well be used as a part of program assessment when consulting alumni, but an analysis of the sense that students have of their increased knowledge, skills, and dispositions has largely been undocumented in the evaluation of field course experiences. Thus, if “learning” is to be documented as a part of an evaluation, it would be well served to include information on metacognition, particularly with respect to student skills and dispositions. If such an evaluation were to include clear documentation of changed student metacognition related to field course experience goals, any case for curricular decisions would be that
much more compelling. A summary of these elements, cross-referenced with learning objective categories suggesting how work by Bransford and his colleagues (2000) can be applied to field course experiences, is presented in Table 7. In prior offerings of the JMU field course experience, the precourse questionnaire asked students to indicate whether they had taken certain core courses or not. For the 2008 offering, this same information was collected, along with a request for their personal feelings of competence with the content represented in these courses, as a proxy for potential preconceptions. These data do not provide strong information on student preconceptions, but they do suggest that it would be fruitful to probe deeper into students’ knowledge base, particularly in course areas (1) that they feel particularly comfortable with, (2) that they may be uncomfortable with, and (3) the intersection of these areas with field course experience objectives. These data will be collected from the 2009 field course experience participants. By sampling KSDs from among the KSDs inherent in the core courses, informal interviews with students will focus on preconceptions before a given exercise and on metacognitive strategies after an exercise. The 2008 offering can be seen as a high-water mark between a traditional orientation toward analog geologic mapping skills, and one that is inclusive of both traditional as well as digital techniques. These were implemented as complementary techniques throughout the curriculum. During 2008, however, an environmental science strand was piloted in which each student participated, and whereby geologic mapping techniques were complemented by field techniques in stream and landslide geomorphology. This was based in part on perceived student interests and needs, and this was underscored by the data collected from the crude measurements employed at the onset of the field course experience and drove an evolution toward curricular change. As a result, the 2009 curriculum will develop in students a common set of traditional as well as digital mapping skills, and then allow them to select either a geologic or environmental science track that is geared more toward independent work. This design is built around a model that is intended to develop habits of mind as much as it is to solidify skills and enhance knowledge, embedding students first in a structured inquiry setting (Bell et al., 2005), and then into a more guided setting. As students progress toward the final weeks of the course, they will be engaged in independent mapping or environmental projects, where not only
TABLE 7. APPLICATION OF THE “HOW STUDENTS LEARN SCIENCE” FRAMEWORK TO STUDENT OBJECTIVE AND ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES Domain Preconceptions Inquiry Metacognition Knowledge Factual knowledge, use of Applies terminology to new situations in order to Uses and adopts new terminology terminology analyze situation or synthesize interpretations and concepts in novel situations Skills Use of compass, hand-lens, other Designs and conducts investigation through a Communicates with confidence tools variety of data sources the results of work in written and visual form Dispositions Ability to measure and record data Consistently applies skills and knowledge with Expresses clear self-evaluation of and observations accurately and integrity, generates and tests multiple abilities, strengths, and consistently hypotheses and interpretations weaknesses
Field course evaluation will they be expected to produce detailed work on their own, but also defend and critique the work, promoting metacognition with respect to their own efforts. DISCUSSION In the context of evaluation, the combined impact of the analysis of student assessment, faculty clinical supervision, and attention to curricular design elements provides a triangulation of effort that establishes the “worth” or value of a given field course experience. A curricular design that is based on how people learn science can aid in the establishment of explicit, measureable knowledge and skill objectives, while at the same time providing at least indirect information on less explicit dispositions-based objectives. The objectives are then the “what” of the field course experience. When examining faculty actions relative to these objectives, the data become a clear basis for establishing the “how” of the field course experience. An analysis of student assessment data relative to the objectives, when combined with the analysis of faculty actions, contributes to understanding whether or not the “why” of the field course experience is met. Evaluation can document student success at meeting goals, identifying areas in need of improvement or development within the field course experience, and providing an analysis of cost-benefit ratios from the perspective of student performance, faculty resources, and instructional design. Evaluation can be a time-consuming enterprise and perhaps seen as distracting from the main mission of instruction, but sound evaluation can also provide the basis for responses to key issues. Zimpher (1998) offered several key challenges that evaluation frameworks should be prepared to address. Applied to field course experiences, they become the basis for evaluation questions: 1. Teaching has and will receive more public scrutiny, and is more open to inspection than in the past. Student learning of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions provided by field course experiences should be the primary focus. In the context of a degree program, one should determine the extent to which field course experience goals contribute to programmatic goals. In addition, as students often seek field course experiences away from their home institution, attention should be paid to the extent to which these goals are recognized as valid by other degree programs. Field course experiences are costly, both to the students as well as to the institution. They are resource-intensive on personnel, vehicles, and equipment. Through evaluation, one should ask if the field course experience is offered at an appropriate cost-benefit ratio. 2. Anecdotal reports are no longer sufficient by themselves because they are biased either by recollections or by selection of likely favorable anecdotes. As a function of even loose comparisons between field course experiences and other courses offered within a program, a single form of data or evidence is insufficient for comparison. Rather than compare apples with oranges, one should compare fruit baskets for sufficient sample comparison, particularly if students have the latitude to select from among a range of field course experience offerings.
353
Congruence between perceived employer expectations of professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions of graduates and the learning offered by the field course experience should also be documented, particularly when defining instructional goals. 3. Traditional assessments in addition to student and instructor artifacts are needed, depending on the range and specificity of field course experience goals. Quantitative measures provide information on gains relative to specific content, but when complex interactions of knowledge, skills, and dispositions are the goal, and professional self-awareness is an outcome, more types of data are needed to triangulate toward assertions of quality or efficacy. 4. Content transmission will be less of the focus. If a field course experience is to be a capstone or synthesis experience, the focus shifts from basic content transmission to helping learners access information and collect basic data and observations necessary to the context of investigation. Preconceptions held by students should be determined, so that they do not impede development of skills and dispositions. Student-constructed solutions should be directed toward selfevaluation strategies that will develop metacognitive strategies. 5. Curriculum design should be linked to teaching and learning. Linking teaching and learning requires coordination of goals, content, and teaching, such that faculty work together in the articulation of goals and objectives within an overall program. To facilitate such learning, the instructional team must share a clear understanding of the curricular elements that best promote student learning in order to provide the instruction that supports this learning. 6. Students have experienced a range of pedagogies. Prior to the field course experience, students have experienced a range of pedagogical approaches, from teacher-centered lecture and guided laboratory experiences to field settings. The experiential nature of field learning should provide a broad range of experiences matched to the expected knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Students have changed expectations about the nature of quality teaching, and because of their varied experiences, they need to see how experiences are tied to the goals of the field course experience. 7. There is a new scholarship of teaching and learning. Where high value is placed on the scholarship of teaching, faculty must systematically pose questions of their teaching, selecting the means and methods of collecting the data, and analyze the data in an appropriate manner (Boyer, 1990). To the extent that models of teaching and learning in a field course experience are well documented, faculty should communicate the results of their research to other practitioners, to apply and or to replicate the results. In meeting these increased and broadened expectations for a field course experience, it would be useful then to use the elements discussed herein as a sort of “tool kit” for evaluating and influencing the development of a field course experience that can meet the challenges stated previously. First, objectives in each domain (knowledge, skills, and dispositions) should be constructed in a measureable manner and closely linked to the assessment criteria associated with each task in the field course
354
Pyle
experience. These objectives and assessment criteria are not only made explicit to students, but they are also compared by faculty with student preconceptions, so that appropriate instructional decisions may be made. Second, faculty should be provided with a data-oriented framework to reflect upon when considering each field exercise, examining how their actions help students to meet the stated objectives in a mindful and efficient manner. Data collected as a part of a clinical supervision cycle should not be viewed as evaluative in and of themselves. Rather, they should be viewed as an additional, unbiased data set, aimed at the learning goals of the field course experience, and assisting in the continual development of the field course experience curriculum. To the extent that faculty work together in collecting these data, their individual expectations can be made explicit, and a clear team approach to instruction can be realized. Finally, a mindful approach to the design of a field course experience curriculum provides the means by which the support for student learning progress through a field course experience can be clearly documented. To the extent that the design is guided by contemporary research on how students learn science, it is more likely that students will meet the intended learning goals. When student preconceptions are considered as an element of instructional design, the nature of the scientific inquiries that are made available to students by faculty may be tailored in such a way that student metacognition is the result and the professional mindset sought as a result of a field course experience is realized. Documentation of this process in the development and evaluation of curricular materials is of demonstrable value in achieving learning goals (Kesidou and Roseman, 2002). One consideration in comprehensive evaluation frameworks has become increasingly important in the last few years, especially where data on human participants is to be included. Each institution in the United States where research activities are conducted is expected to have an Institutional Review Board, which oversees and approves research conducted with human participants. If the evaluation plan is implemented for purely internal reasons, at either the program or institutional level, then it is normally not considered “research.” However, the drive for faculty to document a scholarship of teaching makes evaluation information valuable to a broader professional audience, and this transforms an evaluation project into generalizable research. This then requires faculty to be trained to recognize the rights of those participants, by obtaining from students their informed consent for the information to be used for research. Sanctions for noncompliance can be severe, including an institutional requirement for publications using data obtained without consent to be retracted. Each institution that receives federal funding is subject to these regulations. CONCLUSIONS The need to develop and employ an evaluation framework in educational programs is a necessity for both internal curricu-
lar decisions as well as external documentation to administrators. Student assessments of learning are a feature of any course, and the nature of field course experiences demands a unique format for assessment that includes not just student knowledge, but also a clear documentation of their growth in scientific skills and professional dispositions. Each of these factors is fundamental to a field course experience, and assessments that lack skills and dispositional aspects are incomplete. Assessments should attend to the literature on the methods with which individuals learn science, starting with their preconceptions and ending with their metacognitive skills, and do so as a normal part of instruction. Assessments should also take into account the complex verbal and visual nature of field course experiences, being based on clear and explicit expectations transmitted to students. The role of faculty relative to the curriculum, the students, and the exercises on-site is seldom examined in the context of field course experiences, but it is included in a growing field in higher education science instruction in general. At the same time, the limitations of traditional student evaluations of instruction have been realized, making the need for rigorous, alternative forms of collecting data for formative and summative purposes much more evident. In addition to this situation, the nontraditional context of field course experiences and the difficulties of producing these data only increase. Together, both student and faculty data are necessary for an effective evaluation; once a curriculum is established and delivered, the match of student performance and learning relative to the intentions of the faculty must be determined. The relationship of field course experience learning experiences to overall undergraduate program goals and the expectations of the profession should be continually demonstrated in order to justify assertions of professional value for a field course experience to those that hold the purse strings. A comprehensive evaluation plan, designed and implemented by those who are responsible for the field course experience, is a means to accomplish this, providing a richer data set for continuing improvement and adjustment than a generic evaluation template, generated for more traditional instructional models. APPENDIX 1. SELECTED FIELD COURSE EXPERIENCE OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES, ACCESSED THROUGH KING (2009). Illinois State University, Northern Illinois University, and Western Kentucky University 1. To learn basic field techniques, particularly: using the Brunton compass, measuring geologic sections, describing rocks, taking field notes, and making field sketches. 2. To learn the latest technologies that are used in the construction of geologic maps. Participants will be introduced to using PDAs [personal data assistants] equipped with blue-tooth GPS units to gather and analyze field data. 3. To learn the skill of geologic mapping, a process that involves total immersion in the science and in the project at hand, and the associated skills of location on topographic maps and air photos and interpretation of features.
Field course evaluation 4. To learn to interpret the structure and geologic history of an area based on field observations and geologic map. Such ability is demonstrated mainly through the construction of geologic cross sections from geologic maps. 5. To learn the importance of accuracy in data acquisition and placement on a geologic map. 6. To integrate aspects of prior coursework into a comprehensive package in which the student becomes aware of the interdependence of all parts of the science of geology. 7. To develop an appreciation of the scale of geologic features and of the “reality” of geologic features, as compared to their depiction in print media. 8. To develop the skills and expertise needed to make the transition from student to professional geologist. 9. To develop senses of self-confidence and professional competence. Lehigh University The goal is to provide a synoptic, capstone field experience for geology and environmental science majors, and instruction on how to make, read, and interpret geologic maps and how to envision field problems and collect environmentally diagnostic data. The field, field geologic relationships, and the concepts of geological mapping and environmental data are used as the vehicle toward development of a professional earth and environmental scientist. Georgia State University 1. To see illustrated the classic theoretical concepts of geology. 2. To learn the basic field skills necessary for any field study in earth/environmental sciences. 3. By actually making a map, to learn techniques of how to read and gain the maximum amount of information from published maps.
355
to use Brunton compasses, laptop, and ruggedized tablet PC computers (Xplore Technologies), GPS receivers, aerial photographs, topographic maps, satellite images, and GIS databases in their projects. Field areas are in the Basin and Range, Colorado Plateau, and Rocky Mountain provinces. Geologic features to be examined are folded and faulted sedimentary strata of Paleozoic and Mesozoic age, regional metamorphic facies in Precambrian rocks, volcanic domes and pyroclastic rocks of Tertiary age, pegmatites and plutonic rocks of Precambrian age, and Quaternary glacial deposits. Environmentally related projects include slope stability analysis and environmental site assessments. Michigan Technological University This study abroad program to East Africa is intended to serve several purposes: (1) give student a hands-on knowledge of the geology and geological processes in the East African Rift Valley, (2) provide an alternative for geology students needing a geology field camp, and (3) help the curious understand and appreciate one of the geologic marvels of our time, the East Africa Rift Valley. West Virginia University 1. To learn how to describe and log stratigraphic sequences of sedimentary rocks. 2. To learn how to construct a geologic map of an area comprising several square kilometers. Students use topographic base maps, aerial photos, GPS units, and compasses to map two separate areas encompassing a variety of folded and faulted sedimentary rocks as well as igneous intrusions. 3. Additional goals include: gaining confidence in making geologic observations and interpretations; broadening geologic experience beyond the classroom; and learning to deal with incomplete or missing data. 4. Geology 404 is a capstone experience that requires students to demonstrate mastery of the concepts and skills acquired during the undergraduate years.
James Madison University University of Hawaii After completing the field course, students will be qualified to work for an industrial, governmental, or academic employer who needs individuals to make their own way to an isolated village in a foreign country, assess the local geology, natural resources, natural hazards, environmental conditions, etc., write a project report, draft a publishable map, generate a data base, and return home safely. The main objective is for the participant to become confident at scientific observation, interpretation, and solution of geological problems in the field. Participants will learn to recognize and interpret a wide variety of rock types, structures, and geomorphic features. Emphasis is placed on methods of map-making, data recording, and report preparation. Projects from one to five days duration will be conducted in well-exposed igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks, ranging in age from Precambrian through Quaternary, and correlative rocks and sediments of the northern Appalachians.
1. Students can explain the relevance of geology and geophysics to human needs, including those appropriate to Hawaii, and are able to discuss issues related to geology and its impact on society and planet Earth. 2. Students can apply technical knowledge of relevant computer applications, laboratory methods, and field methods to solve realworld problems in geology and geophysics. 3. Students use the scientific method to define, critically analyze, and solve a problem in earth science. 4. Students can reconstruct, clearly and ethically, geological knowledge in both oral presentations and written reports. 5. Students can evaluate, interpret, and summarize the basic principles of geology and geophysics, including the fundamental tenets of the subdisciplines, and their context in relationship to other core sciences, to explain complex phenomena in geology and geophysics.
Bowling Green State University
REFERENCES CITED The course will teach students how GPS navigation and digital mapping and data analysis using geographic information systems (GIS) can facilitate fieldwork and improve the understanding of the geology. Working with sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rocks, students learn how to make methodical observations, accurate recordings, and sound interpretations of the geology seen in outcrop. Exercises include measurement and analysis of sedimentary sections, construction of geologic maps, structural analysis of folds and faults, slope stability analysis, and environmental assessments. Students will learn
Acheson, K.A., and Gall, M.D., 1997, Techniques in the Clinical Supervision of Teachers (4th ed.): New York, Longman, 288 p. Anderson, C.W., 1987, Strategic teaching in science, in Jones, B.F., et al., eds., Strategic Teaching and Learning: Cognitive Instruction in the Content Areas: Alexandria, Virginia, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, p. 73–91. Anderson, D.S., and Miskimins, J.L., 2006, Using field-camp experiences to develop a multidisciplinary foundation for petroleum engineering students: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, no. 2, p. 172–178.
356
Pyle
Astin, A.W., Banta, T.W., Cross, K.P., El-Khawas, E., Ewell, P.T., Hutchings, P., Marchese, T.J., McClenney, M., Mentkowski, M., Miller, M.A., Moran, E.T., and Wright, B.D., 1996, Assessment forum: 9 principles of good practice for assessing student learning: Washington, D.C., American Association for Higher Education, http://www.facet.iupui.edu/resources/ AAHE%20Principles.pdf (accessed 11 March 2009). Atkin, J.M., and Coffey, J.E., 2003, Everyday Assessment in the Science Classroom: Arlington, Virginia, National Science Teachers Association, 184 p. Ault, C.R., Jr., 1998, Criteria of excellence for geological inquiry: The necessity of ambiguity: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 35, no. 2, p. 189–212, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199802)35:2<189::AID-TEA8>3.0.CO;2-O. Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M., 1980, Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 278 p. Baker, M.A., 2006, Status Report on Geoscience Summer Field Camps: Washington, D.C., American Geological Institute, Report GW-06-003, 8 p. Bell, R.L., Smetana, L., and Binns, I., 2005, Simplifying inquiry instruction: Assessing the inquiry level of classroom activities: Science Teacher (Normal, Illinois), v. 72, no. 7, p. 30–33. Bloom, B.S., 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain: New York, David McKay Co., 196 p. Boyer, E.L., 1990, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate: Princeton, New Jersey, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 160 p. Boyle, A., Maguire, S., Martin, A., Milsom, C., Nash, R., Rawlinson, S., Turner, A., Wurthmann, S., and Conchie, S., 2007, Fieldwork is good: The student perspective and the affective domain: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 31, no. 2, p. 299–317, doi: 10.1080/03098260601063628. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking, R.R., eds., 2000, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 374 p. Butler, R., 2008, Teaching geoscience through fieldwork: Bradford, UK, Geography, Earth, and Environmental Sciences (GEES), http://www.gees .ac.uk/pubs/ guides/fw/fwgeosci.pdf (accessed 11 March 2009). Bybee, R.W., ed., 2002, Learning Science and the Science of Learning: Arlington, Virginia, National Science Teachers Association, 151 p. Chamberlin, T.C., 1897, The method of multiple working hypotheses: The Journal of Geology, v. 5, p. 837–848. Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J., and Glaser, R., 1981, Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices: Cognitive Science, v. 5, p. 121–152. Chiappetta, E.L., and Koballa, T.R., 2006, Science Instruction in the Middle and Secondary Schools: Developing Fundamental Knowledge and Skills for Teaching (6th ed.): New York, Allyn and Bacon, 320 p. Dave, R.H., 1975, Developing and writing behavioral objectives (Armstrong, R.J., ed.): Tucson, Arizona, Educational Innovators Press. Duit, R., 2006, Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions and Science Education: Kiel, Germany, Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften, http:// www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html (accessed 11 March 2009). Ebert-May, D., 1998, Annotated Version of Potential Activities and Assessment for Faculty Professional Development Workshops: http://darkwing .uoregon.edu/~first/examples.htm (accessed 5 September 2009). Fox, M.A., and Hackerman, N., eds., 2003, Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 232 p. Frechtling, J., 2002, The 2002 User-Friendly Handbook to Project Evaluation: Arlington, Virginia, National Science Foundation, Report NSF 02-057, 92 p. Frodeman, R., 1995, Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 107, no. 8, p. 960– 968, doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1995)107<0960:GRGAAI>2.3.CO;2. Frodeman, R., 2003, Geo-logic: Breaking the Ground between Philosophy and the Earth Sciences: Albany, New York, State University of New York Press, 192 p.
Gardner, H., 1993, The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach: Cambridge, Massachusetts, Basic Books, 320 p. Goetz, J.P., and LeCompte, M.D., 1984, Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research: San Diego, California, Academic Press, 292 p. Hemler, D., and Repine, T., 2006, Teachers doing science: An authentic geology research experience for teachers: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, no. 2, p. 93–102. Hughes, P., and Boyle, A., 2005, Assessment in the Earth Sciences, Environmental Sciences, and Environmental Studies: Bradford, UK, Geography, Earth, and Environmental Sciences (GEES), 47 p. Huntoon, J.E., Bluth, G.J.S., and Kennedy, W.A., 2001, Measuring the effects of a research-based field experience on undergraduates and K–12 teachers: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, no. 3, p. 235–248. Kesidou, S., and Roseman, J.E., 2002, How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 39, no. 6, p. 522–549, doi: 10.1002/ tea.10035. King, H.M., 2009, Geology field camps—Comprehensive listing: http:// geology.com/field-camp.shtml (accessed 10 March 2009). Kitts, D.B., 1977, The Structure of Geology: Dallas, Texas, SMU Press, 199 p. Kizlik, B., 2009, Measurement, Assessment, and Evaluation in Education: http://www.adprima.com/measurement.htm (accessed 10 March 2009). Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., and Masia, B.B., 1973, Taxonomy of Education Objectives, the Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain: New York, David McKay Co., 196 p. Lawrence, S., and Margolis, E., 1999, Concepts and cognitive science, in Margolis, E., and Lawrence, S., eds., Concepts: Cambridge, Massachusetts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, p. 3–83. Libarkin, J.C., and Anderson, S.W., 2005, Assessment of learning in entry-level geoscience courses: Results from the geoscience concept inventory: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, no. 3, p. 394–401. Mestre, J.P., and Cocking, R.R., 2000, The science of learning: Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, v. 21, no. 1, Special Issue, p. 1–135. Murphy, G.L., 2002, The Big Book of Concepts: Cambridge, Massachusetts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 563 p. Noll, M.R., 2003, Building bridges between field and laboratory studies in an undergraduate groundwater course: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 51, no. 2, p. 231–236. O’Neal, M.L., 2003, Field-based research experience in earth science teacher education: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 51, no. 1, p. 64–70. Pyle, E.J., 2008, A model of inquiry for teaching earth science: Electronic Journal of Science Education, v. 12, no. 2, http://ejse.southwestern.edu/ volumes/v12n2/articles/art1-pyle.pdf (accessed 11 March 2009). Resnick, L.B., 1983, Mathematics and science learning: A new conception: Science, v. 220, p. 477–478, doi: 10.1126/science.220.4596.477. Sibley, D.F., 2005, Visual abilities and misconceptions about plate tectonics: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, no. 4, p. 471–477. Simpson, E.J., 1972, The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain: Washington, D.C., Gryphon House. Smith, E., 1995, Concepts and categorization, in Smith, E., and Osherson, D., eds., Thinking: An Invitation to Cognitive Science, Volume 3: Cambridge, Massachusetts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press p. 3–33. Trowbridge, L.W., Bybee, R.W., and Powell, J.C., 2004, Teaching Secondary School Science: Strategies for Developing Scientific Literacy (8th ed.): Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 384 p. Zimpher, N., 1998, Ten changing demands on college teachers in the future, in Changing Demands on College Teachers: A Conference on Teaching Support Providers, 27 April, Columbus, Ohio: http://web.archive.org/ web/20040606130612/http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/education/ftad/ Publications/ten-nancy.html. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA
Contents J
9. International field trips in undergraduate geology curriculum: Philosophy and perspectives Nelson R. Ham and Timothy P. Flood
An introduction to historical perspectives on and modern approaches to field geology education Steven J. Whitmeyer, David W Mogk, and Eric J. Pyle
Historical to Modern Perspectives of Geoscience Field Education 1. Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana: G429 and other field courses, a balance of traditions and innovations B.J. Douglas, L.J. Suttner, and E. Ripley 2. The Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association (YBRA): Maintaining a leadership role in field-course education for 79 years Virginia B. Sisson, Marv Kauffman, Yvette Bordeaux, Robert C. Thomas, and Robert Giegengack
Modern Field Equipment and Use of New Technologies in the Field 10. Visualization techniques in field geology education: A case study from western Ireland Steven Whitmeyer, Martin Feely, Dec/an De Paor, Ronan Hennessy, Shelley Whitmeyer, Jeremy Nicoletti, Bethany Santangelo, Jillian Daniels, and Michael Rivera
11. Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research: An adventure-based approach to teaching new geospatial technologies in an REU Site Program Mark T. Swanson and Matthew Bampton 12. Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options Robert L. Bauer, Donald I. Siegel, Eric A. Sandvol, and Laura K. Lautz
3. Field camp: Using traditional methods to train the next generation of petroleum geologists James 0. Puckette and Neil H. Suneson
13. Integrating ground-penetrating radar and traditional stratigraphic study in an undergraduate field methods course R.K. Vance, C.H. Trupe, and FJ. Rich
4. Introductory field geology at the University of New Mexico, 1984 to today: What a "long, strange trip" it continues to be
Original Research in Field Education
John W Geissman and Grant Meyer
5. Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future Dec/an G. De Paor and Steven J. Whitmeyer
6. Integration of field experiences in a project-based geoscience curriculum Paul R. Kelso and Lewis M. Brown 7. Experience One: Teaching the geoscience curriculum in the field using experiential immersion learning Robert C. Thomas and Sheila Roberts
8. International geosciences field research with undergraduate students: Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica JeffreyS. Marshall, Thomas W Gardner, Marino Protti, and Jonathan A. Nourse
14. Twenty-two years of undergraduate research in the geosciences-The Keck experience Andrew de Wet, Cathy Manduca, Reinhard A. Wobus, and Lori Bettison-Varga
15. Field glaciology and earth systems science: The Juneau lcefield Research Program (JIRP), 1946-2008 Cathy Connor
16. Long-term field-based studies in geoscience teaching Noel Potter Jr., Jeffrey W Niemitz, and Peter B. Sak
17. Integrating student-led research in fluvial geomorphology into traditional field courses: A case study from James Madison University's field course in Ireland C.L. May, L.S. Eaton, and S.J. Whitmeyer
Field Experiences for Teachers 19. Evolution of geology field education for K-12 teachers from field education for geology majors at Georgia Southern University: Historical perspectives and modern approaches Gale A. Bishop, R. Kelly Vance, Fredrick J. Rich, Brian K. Meyer, E.J. Davis, R.H. Hayes, and N.B. Marsh
20. Water education (WET) for Alabama's black belt: A hands-on field experience for middle school students and teachers Ming-Kuo Lee, Lorraine Wolf, Kelli Hardesty, Lee Beasley, Jena Smith, Lara Adams, Kay Stone, and Dennis Block
21. The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program "School of Rock": Lessons learned from an ocean-going research expedition for earth and ocean science educators Kristen St. John, R. Mark Leckie, Scott Slough, Leslie Peart, Matthew Niemitz, and Ann Klaus
22. Geological field experiences in Mexico: An effective and efficient model for enabling middle and high school science teachers to connect with their burgeoning Hispanic populations K. Kitts, Eugene Perry Jr., Rosa Maria LealBautista, and Guadalupe Ve/azquez-0/iman
Field Education Pedagogy and Assessment 23. The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience: Influencing factors and implications for learning Alison Stokes and Alan P. Boyle
24. External drivers for changing fieldwork practices and provision in the UK and Ireland Alan P. Boyle, Paul Ryan, and Alison Stokes
25. Effectiveness in problem solving during geologic field examinations: Insights from analysis of GPS tracks at variable time scales Eric M. Riggs, Russell Balliet, and Christopher C. Lieder
26. The evaluation of field course experiences: A framework for development, improvement, and reporting Eric J. Pyle
18. A comparative study of field inquiry in an undergraduate petrology course David Gonzales and Steven Semken
ISB N 978-0-8 137-2461-4
3300 Penrose Place • PO Box 9140 Boulder, CO 80301-9140, USA
