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 Boulder, Colorado 80301-9140, USA

2009
Copyright © 2009, The Geological Society of America (GSA), Inc. All rights reserved. GSA grants
permission to individual scientists to make unlimited photocopies of one or more items from this volume
for noncommercial purposes advancing science or education, including classroom use. For permission to
make photocopies of any item in this volume for other noncommercial, nonprofit purposes, contact
The Geological Society of America. Written permission is required from GSA for all other forms of
capture or reproduction of any item in the volume including, but not limited to, all types of electronic
or digital scanning or other digital or manual transformation of articles or any portion thereof, such
as abstracts, into computer-readable and/or transmittable form for personal or corporate use, either
noncommercial or commercial, for-profit or otherwise. Send permission requests to GSA Copyright
Permissions, 3300 Penrose Place, P.O. Box 9140, Boulder, Colorado 80301-9140, USA. GSA provides
this and other forums for the presentation of diverse opinions and positions by scientists worldwide,
regardless of their race, citizenship, gender, religion, or political viewpoint. Opinions presented in this
publication do not reflect official positions of the Society.

Copyright is not claimed on any material prepared wholly by government employees within the scope of
their employment.

Published by The Geological Society of America, Inc.

3300 Penrose Place, P.O. Box 9140, Boulder, Colorado 80301-9140, USA
www.geosociety.org

Printed in U.S.A.

GSA Books Science Editor: Marion E. Bickford and Donald I. Siegel

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Field geology education : historical perspectives and modern approaches / edited by Steven J. Whitmeyer,
David W. Mogk, Eric J. Pyle.
p. cm. — (Special paper ; 461)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-0-8137-2461-4 (pbk.)
1. Geology—Fieldwork—Study and teaching (Higher) I. Whitmeyer, Steven J. II. Mogk, David W.
III. Pyle, Eric J.

QE45.F525 2009
550.71’1—dc22
2009034960

Cover: A student gazes east, looking for the next place to collect data from the north slope of Ben Levy,
a mountain in the Connemara region, County Galway, Ireland. The village of Clonbur is visible in the
background. Photo taken by Eric J. Pyle, James Madison University, in June 2009.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
 Contents

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 v

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
 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

Field education has historically occupied a central role in
undergraduate geoscience curricula, often starting with class-
specific weekend field trips and progressing to a capstone sum-
mer field course or “camp” at the conclusion of undergradu-
ate 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 six-
to 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, laboratory-
based geochemical analyses, and environmental assessment, to
highlight a few examples). As a result, many geoscience pro-
grams 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
Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., 2009, An introduction to historical perspectives on and modern approaches to field geology education, 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, p. vii–ix,
doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(00). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.
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 ele-
ment 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 incorpo-
rate substantial time mapping geology in the field;
(3) the continuing transition in academics from obser-
vation-driven research to equipment-intensive experimental,
modeling, and theoretical research; and

vii
viii Whitmeyer et al.
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 Min-
nesota–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 aver-
age 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 stu-
dents per camp does show a general upward trend over the past few
years. Raw data compiled were in a survey by Penny Morton, Univer-
sity of Minnesota–Duluth in fall 2008.
(4) a decline in the number of geoscience majors nation-
wide (AGI, 2009).
There can be no doubt that geology as a discipline has
widened its focus dramatically to include a range of subdisci-
plines. These include geophysics, surficial geology, oceanogra-
phy, climatology, and geohydrology, as well as emerging disci-
plines 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 geol-
ogy 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 geomor-
phology (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 profes-
sional 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 question-
ing 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 com-
petence is an essential skill that should be a prominent com-
ponent of an undergraduate curriculum. A common thread in
conversations with industry professionals, whether in mining
and petroleum exploration, hydrologic and environmental con-
sulting, or hazard assessment, is the need for students enter-
ing 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 out-
crop, 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 field-
based 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 well-
established 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 Whit-
meyer, 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 long-
term original research project. These papers illustrate approaches
to immersing students in active field research (deWet et al., Con-
nor, 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 teach-
ers 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 experi-
ences 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 vol-
ume 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 inter-
nally 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 geosci-
entists 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, quan-
titative evaluation and assessment of field-based learning and edu-
cation. 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 follow-
ing 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, Dar-
rell 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 Rodg-
ers, 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 Sum-
mer 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 Edu-
cation, v. 49, p. 336.
Keane, C.M., and Martinez, C.M., eds., 2008, Directory of Geoscience Depart-
ments (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 sci-
ence; additional courses include those designed for both high school students and teach-
ers and others that provide professional development enhancement.

INTRODUCTION
The success of the Indiana University geologic field pro-
grams, offered at the Judson Mead Geologic Field Station, stems
from the physical setting and a number of critical early deci-
sions about the teaching philosophy used in the courses. Over
the years, the collective efforts by the directors and faculty mem-
bers 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 program-
matic 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 sta-
tion 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-
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).
BACKGROUND
The Judson Mead Geologic Field Station of Indiana Univer-
sity 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 govern-
ment agencies at all levels.

Douglas, B.J., Suttner, L.J., and Ripley, E., 2009, Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana: G429 and other field courses, a balance of tradi-
tions and innovations, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geologi-
cal Society of America Special Paper 461, p. 1–14, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(01). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological
Society of America. All rights reserved.

1
2 Douglas et al.

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 sup-
port 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 geo-
logic 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 supervi-
sion 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 Indi-
ana University is the location (Fig. 1). The field station is located
within the Tobacco Root Mountains in a relatively remote valley.

113°W 112°W

lder
46°N

North Bou
Basin
Butte

Whitehall
Boulder Batholith Three Forks
M Willow Creek fault zone Thr
ee F
n

cC
Basi

ar JMGFS ork
tn
ey sB
Fa asin
rson

ult
Zo
Jeffe

ne

Melrose Tobacco Ha
Bi
sm Root
rris
ar on
k Batholith Ba
fa
ul sin
t Norris
Pioneer Twin Bridges
Batholith
n
asi
dB

Sp
ea

an
Ennis ish
erh

Pe
ak
av

Virginia City sf
au
Be

lt
Madison
Badger Pass fault zone Basin
Dillon
N

Bl
ac
kt
ail
fa
u 0 10 20 30 40 50 km 45°N
lt
zo
ne
0 10 20 30 miles

Tertiary deposits Thrust fault, teeth are on upthrown side

Normal fault, ball on the downthrown side
Cretaceous intrusives Thrust fault, teeth are on upthrown side;
faulting involves crystalline basement rock
Archean, Paleozoic and Left-lateral strike-slip fault
Mesozoic rocks
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 incep-
tion 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 aes-
thetically pleasing and ensures that the students are isolated from
modern distractions; the setting effectively ensures that the stu-
dents become immersed in their courses. Even more important,
well-exposed, complex geology is present in areas that are read-
ily 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 west-
ern 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 expres-
sion 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 environmen-
tally degraded.
In subsequent discussions of the material being taught in our
programs, we will provide examples of how the particular physi-
cal setting of a selected geologic site is critical for the instruc-
tional 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 to-
ward 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 approxi-
mately 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 sub-
ject 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 pres-
ent. 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 stu-
dents selected to return to serve in these positions, provides addi-
tional 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 mem-
ber and an associate instructor. As the course progresses, the stu-
dents 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 stu-
dents. This gives the students opportunities to interact with faculty
members with diverse backgrounds, training, and research inter-
ests. 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 pre-
sentations, while all of the individual faculty members are respon-
sible 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 addi-
tional expertise. By having these external faculty members par-
ticipate in the courses, the program has been able to effectively
implement a continuous review of the materials and teaching pro-
cedures 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 cri-
teria. 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 complex-
ity as the courses progress. Initial work is kept simple and gen-
eral 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 experi-
ence. In the case of G429, this portion of the teaching is con-
ducted 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
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 inter-
actions during this week. In successive weeks, the level of geo-
logic problem solving escalates in both stratigraphic and struc-
tural 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 infor-
mation (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 out-
crop 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
Introductory courses 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.
 Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana 5

anomaly will be encountered during the later part of these days

Emphasis on independent data gathering and traverse route

Emphasis on independent data gathering and traverse route

Emphasis on independent data gathering and traverse route

Designed to provide mental and physical acclimation and

Time spent on student-driven tasks with limited instructor

that challenges the students to individually construct hypotheses

Emphasis on data gathering; traverse routes dictated by

selection with minimal instructor input while in a well-

and work through solutions, which are then tested by further field
data collection. Evenings are used to tabulate and summarize

selection with minimal instructor input within an

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 geo-

selection with judicial instructor input

metric components. This additional location is selected to rein-

Comments
force data, approaches, and skills developed earlier in the week.
This approach works equally well for such subject areas as sur-
face and groundwater hydrology or seismic-hazard assessment.

instructors and terrain

The daily schedule is similar to that employed in the first two

remedial instruction

unbounded region
days, i.e., guided traverses and group discussions at various times

defined region
during the day focusing on material to consider when making
structural and stratigraphic interpretations and deciding what tra-
verse to follow. Discussions often focus on the structural or strati-

control
graphic 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 previ-

traverse route optimization; integration of field data

geology including stratigraphy and structural styles

siliciclastic depositional environments with tectonic

traverse route optimization; integrated synthesis of

with analytical chemistry and petrographic images

instrumentation with computational and analytical

ously visited by the student. The areas used for these independent

Problem definition and plan for data gathering and

Problem definition and plan for data gathering and

traverse routes; Paleozoic stratigraphic section;
TABLE 2. WEEKLY SCHEDULE FOR G429

traverse routes; Mesozoic stratigraphic section;

General field techniques and navigation; regional

Data gathering at the outcrop scale; selection of

Data gathering at the outcrop scale; selection of

exercises are selected from within the same general setting the

Problem definition and data gathering using

students have been working in, so that the challenges faced dur-
ing the exercise are commensurate with their recent experiences

carbonate depositional environments

and abilities.

the geologic history of the region

Each week is designed to address a selected focus from the
Theme

range of subdisciplines within the geological sciences. A list-

ing 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
influences

solutions
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 interbed-
ded limestone- and shale-dominated packages creates linear
Carmichael Watershed; Willow Creek Watershed

ridges and valleys, and the traverse route readily conveys the
Black Hills, South Dakota, to Judson Mead Field

Final Study Areas (London Hills; North Boulder;

concepts of stratigraphic succession. During the middle of the
S. and N. Boulder Sections; Sandy Hollow;
S. Boulder Section; Mt. Doherty Map Area

week, as the students are working on a mapping exercise, the

Carmichael and N. Doherty Map Areas

selected map area is characterized by extreme topographic relief,

which reflects the variable susceptibility to erosion existing in
Pole Canyon; Sacry’s Ranch)

this portion of the stratigraphic column. The students are aided

Location

in their first geologic mapping by the terrain itself, which closely

correlates not only with the stratigraphy, but with the structural
Highway 2 Map Area
Station via Wyoming

geometries as well (Fig. 3); decision making by the students is

therefore relatively straightforward and provides positive rein-
forcement 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 distrib-
uted 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
Week

following day). Field logistics are given at the start of any field
4a

4b
1

day, along with specific information about the daily schedule and
6 Douglas et al.

A
 Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana 7

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 carbonate-
shale 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).
8 Douglas et al.
logistical concerns such as dangerous terrain to be avoided. Addi-
tional personal considerations such as traverse pacing (when the
big hills will be encountered), rest-break options, and the expec-
tations 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 dis-
coveries 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 self-
directed 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 experi-
ence 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 wonder-
ful 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 stud-
ies of introductory-level students involved in field-based learn-
ing 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 cor-
rections 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 experi-
ence the students encounter. The curriculum itself is constantly
being revised and updated to include new information, tech-
niques, 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 top-
ographic 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 for-
mats 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 al-
lows 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 cov-
er 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 mea-
surements 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 informa-
tion in a single compact format (Fig. 5). These pages allow for
rapid stratigraphic section description and results that are orga-
nized 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, reflect-
ing 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 teach-
ers. Ongoing efforts are aimed at developing cooperative, mul-
tidisciplinary courses combining surface geologic mapping and
techniques developed for subsurface, geophysical, and remote-
sensing applications (e.g., satellite images, seismic, gravity, mag-
netic, 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 chemi-
cal analyses, which augment and complement field mapping and
more traditional data sources.
A decision to incorporate a new technique or technol-
ogy within one of our courses is based on an evaluation of the
extent to which the new adaptation will increase students’ self-
confidence 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 infor-
mation 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 informa-
tion 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 scien-
tific sophistication, whereas in G429, it is not critical.
A concerted effort to expand the curriculum was under-
taken 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 sys-
tems, from pristine wilderness to physically altered and chemi-
cally 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 develop-
ment 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 coop-
eration among governmental agencies, universities, and indi-
vidual 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. For-
est 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)
 Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana 11

site form the primary data collection points for the watershed

station calibration and seasonal discharge records; stream load and bed form
residence time; two-component mixing model calculations for stream-stream
(Table 3; Fig. 6). Data sets derived from the portable equipment,

Water budget for the reservoir; relationship between surface waters in wetland
records; slug test evaluation for K; pump test evaluation for K; vertical and
Surface-water chemistry signatures; spring chemistry signatures; watershed

Surface-water chemistry signatures; spring chemistry signatures; watershed

Groundwater chemical signatures; evaluation of seasonal groundwater level

and lake and groundwater; vertical and horizontal groundwater gradients

profiles; stream channel profile evaluation; evaluation of stream-gauging
collected by the students during the course (Fig. 7), are building

horizontal gradients; groundwater surface contouring and flow-direction

Stream slopes; stream discharges; vertical velocity profiles; lateral velocity

boundaries; groundwater recharge and discharge zones; groundwater

boundaries; groundwater recharge and discharge zones; groundwater

a database for future students to use in their interpretations. An

residence time; stratigraphic and structural controls on surface and

ever-expanding library of data (e.g., local meteorological mea-
surements, vegetation surveys, aquatic indices, stream indexing,
soil and water chemistry) along with surficial and bedrock geo-
logical mapping has been compiled. Both G429e and G329 make
extensive use of the WCDW instrumented sites and data sets; a
determination; aquifer and aquiclude determination
number of undergraduate research projects and graduate M.S.
theses have been completed that provide additional information
A n a ly s e s

that has been incorporated into the teaching exercises (Elliott,

1998a, 1998b; Elliott et al., 1998, 2003; Krothe, 1999; Letsinger,
and stream-groundwater exchanges

2001; Letsinger and Olyphant, 2001; Osterloo, 2002). A com-

evaluation; Manning’s n analysis

plete list of the permanent instrumentation and a general over-

view of the materials and data generated within the WCDW may
groundwater pathways
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
TABLE 4. G429E TEACHING EXERCISES

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 educa-
tion. We have been fortunate to be able to establish a good work-
pH, SpC, T probes; Brunton campass; autolevel (with tripod and stadia

pH, SpC, T probes; Brunton compass; autolevel (with tripod and stadia

pH, SpC, T probes; Brunton compass; autolevel (with tripod and stadia
rod); driller’s log; electric tape for water-depth determination; Bailer

piezometer tubes; seepage meters; evaporation trays; soil augers;

rod); March McBirney flow meter; fixed instrumentation associated

pH, SpC, T probes; Brunton compass; topographic map; stereophoto

ing relationship with Montana Resources, Inc., the private com-

pump; fixed instrumentation associated with installed monitoring
pH, Specific Conductance (SpC), temperature (T) probes; Brunton

pany presently operating the Continental Pit in Butte. Montana

rod); electric tape for water-depth determination; miniature

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
with installed monitoring wells; topographic map
compass; topographic map; stereophoto pairs

the early 1900s to the 1950s, serves as the teaching site for the
counterpart to the modern ongoing mining operation. At the Bul-
Equipment

lion 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., atmo-
wells; topographic map

spheric science, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics, as well

as instrumentation and technology). The field sites and teaching
topographic map

exercises are designed to provide physical and intellectual over-

lap, so that the students can begin to appreciate the multidisci-
plinary nature of many scientific investigations (Douglas et al.,
pairs

2002). The same stepwise development of skill sets and com-

plexity of intellectual activity used in the traditional field station
courses is employed in these new courses. G329 makes exten-
sive use of equipment (Fig. 8) and requires the use of comput-
Willow Creek Reservoir
Carmichael Watershed

Groundwater—WCDW
Surface water, Willow
Creek Demonstration
Watershed (WCDW)

ers for handling the large and complex data sets obtained during
the course. The WCDW instrumentation and data sets are used
Final Study Area

extensively by this course. Special opportunities, such as sam-

pling the hydrothermal systems in Yellowstone National Park,
provide unique experiences for these G329 students. Data col-
Project
·

lected by G329 students documented a shift in one hydrothermal

 12

S. Boulder
River Willow
Creek

USGS
JMGFS Harrison Lake SG
Weather Station MM

Alluvial
Harrison
GW
GW
Harrison
7000 GW Pediment Lake
N. Willow Dry Hollow SG
Creek Creek
SG North Fork
Ridgetop Willow Creek
Weather 5000
Station
Pony Norwegian
MM Cataract S. Willow Creek
Creek Creek
8000

Hollowtop SG
South Fork
Willow Creek
T3S
SG Stream-gauging station N
GW
* 7000
6000
Groundwater-monitoring site
SG
SNOTEL site
Potosi Pk
(USFS)
MM
* Meteorological station
10000 8000
0 5 km
Watershed
0 5 miles
9000 boundary

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.
 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 Changes and Additions
Igneous mapping Whole-rock geochemical analyses; stable isotope values; petrographic images of thin sections
Metamorphic mapping 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 pres-
sure 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 exten-
sion 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 expe-
rience 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 mat-
ter 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 DUE-
9651204, 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 Gradu-
ate 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 Interdisci-
plinary 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 Edu-
cation, v. 49, no. 4, p. 336.
Elkins, J.T., and Elkins, N.M.L., 2007, Teaching geology in the field: Signifi-
cant geosciences concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geol-
ogy courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, no. 2, p. 126–132.
Elliott, W.S., Jr., 1998a, Tectono-Stratigraphic Control of Quaternary and Ter-
tiary 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, Madi-
son 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. the-
sis]: 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: Applica-
tion 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, Ameri-
can 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 Math-
ematics, v. 93, p. 325–331.
Orion, N., and Hofstein, A., 1994, Factors that influence learning during a sci-
entific 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. Enroll-
ments 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 enroll-
ment; 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 profes-

The Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association, universally
abbreviated to YBRA, represents two distinct entities: (1) a self-
supporting, 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
sional careers in resource exploration, research, and teaching.
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, V.B., Kauffman, M., Bordeaux, Y., Thomas, R.C., and Giegengack, R., 2009, The Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association (YBRA): Maintaining a
leadership role in field-course education for 79 years, 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, p. 15–23, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(02). For permission to copy, contact editing@
geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

15
16
• 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 par-
ticipants, 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 Associa-
tion (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.)
Sisson et al.
• 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 Com-
pany 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 fin-
ished 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 resi-
dents 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 sup-
porters of the program during prior years.
The original mission of the YBRA field course was to intro-
duce 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 pho-
tos, 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 the-
ses produced by students who operated out of the YBRA camp.
These students were granted degrees from Cincinnati, Colum-
bia, 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 Moun-
tains. 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 educa-
tion during the last few decades, numerous faculty and graduate-
student 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 Geo-
logical Congresses, the Billings and Montana Geological Soci-
eties, 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 continu-
ous 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 trans-
ferred to the University of Pennsylvania in 1992. Robert Giegen-
gack 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 accumu-
lated, and they have been modified with changes in access to pri-
vate 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 administra-
tion 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 east-
ern 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 sedimen-
tary 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 over-
thrust, 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 mar-
gins 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 spec-
tacular; 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 Big-
horn 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 mar-
gin 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 Mad-
ison Palisades as a dominant feature in the local landscape. We
introduce the students to the different styles of Laramide defor-
mation 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 fea-
tures 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 stu-
dents 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 crys-
talline 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 Pla-
teau 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 ter-
rains at lower altitudes.
3. For many years, our students have traveled through Yel-
lowstone National Park to the University of Montana Western in
Dillon, where they stayed in college dormitories while they pur-
sued 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 col-
umn during this mapping project. The rock units that make up
that column include banded iron formation, amphibolites, calc-
silicates, 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 geo-
morphology, high-mountain ecology, etc.
FIELD INSTRUCTION IN GEOLOGY AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON
The Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences (for-
merly 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 Nor-
man, Hank Chafetz, Bill Dupre, Peter Copeland, Mike Murphy,
Tom Lapen, and Janok Bhattacharya. Graduate students have
also been engaged as teaching assistants. Typically, two fac-
ulty 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 cam-
pus. 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 Moun-
tains in south-central Utah.
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON–YBRA FIELD COURSE
In December 2007, the University of Houston Depart-
ment 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 field-
instruction 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 co-
taught 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 six-
credit 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 Hous-
ton 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 out-
comes 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 cur-
ricula 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 edu-
cation. 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 gen-
eration, who will learn thereby the complexity of the discipline
19
they address and the elegance of the solutions that prior genera-
tions 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 effi-
cient 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, dis-
tills 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 sta-
tistically 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 out-
doors, 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 cur-
ricular 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 his-
tory 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 story-
tellers. Given that particular combination of background and pro-
clivity, it matters little how each teacher goes about communicat-
ing 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 Grad-
uate School of Education (GSE) of the University of Pennsyl-
vania 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 periodi-
cally suffers paroxysms of introspection and turns its attention
(briefly) inward to examine the effectiveness of its teaching mis-
sion; 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 teach-
ers 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 sci-
ence 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 geol-
ogy students in meaningful applications of what they learn, both
in the field and in the classroom.
The established instructional goals of the YBRA field-
geology 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 exam-
ple 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 dis-
tinctive 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 land-
management 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 map-
ping 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 cov-
ered 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 Univer-
sity of Montana Western students have done (Thomas and Rob-
erts, 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 metacogni-
tive 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 expe-
rience away from the Houston metropolitan area. In addition,
many of the geoscience students are older, nontraditional stu-
dents, 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 Hous-
ton. 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 Hous-
ton geology curriculum. The field course is not a stand-alone
course. Over the next few seasons, University of Houston fac-
ulty will assess the extent to which University of Houston stu-
dents acquire essential technical skills through the field exer-
cises 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 consis-
tent 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 geophys-
ics. These include positional line surveying using GPS technolo-
gies, multicomponent seismic refraction, high-resolution seismic
reflection, ground-penetrating radar (GPR), and gravity surveys,
as well as well-log measurements (using gamma-ray, sonic, resis-
tivity, and temperature tools) in a shallow nearby well. All partic-
ipants 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 stu-
dents 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 Yel-
lowstone 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 recep-
tive 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 care-
takers 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 regu-
lations 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 even-
handed 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., hunt-
ing and fishing outfitters, ecotourism companies), a policy con-
sistent 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 effi-
ciently, 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 Univer-
sity 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 orbit-
ing satellites (e.g., see Fig. 1), and by the use of cell-phone pho-
tography to share field decisions among widely separated map-
ping groups.
We have not yet introduced laptop-based mapping technol-
ogy 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 fea-
tures, and
(2) we recognize that the present cost of acquiring, maintain-
ing, 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 sur-
vey 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 rec-
reation 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 bet-
ter 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 inciden-
tally, 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 contribu-
tions 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 dormito-
ries 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 wash-
houses 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 geol-
ogy 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 semi-
nars 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 accom-
modate courses in geologic field methods, it now serves such a
 Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association: Maintaining a leadership role in field-course education
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 field-
geology courses.
CONCLUSION
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), accom-
modates 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 con-
ducting 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-
23
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.
REFERENCES CITED
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 Soci-
ety, 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 Mon-
tana: 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

ABSTRACT

The summer field camp experience provides many students with their best oppor-
tunity to learn the scientific process by making observations and collecting, recording,
evaluating, and interpreting geologic data. Field school projects enhance student pro-
fessional development by requiring cooperation and interpersonal interaction, report
writing to communicate interpretations, and the development of project manage-
ment skills to achieve a common goal. The field school setting provides students with
the opportunity to observe geologic features and their spatial distribution, size, and
shape that will impact the student’s future careers as geoscientists. The Les Huston
Geology Field Camp (a.k.a. Oklahoma Geology Camp) near Cañon City, Colorado,
focuses on time-tested traditional methods of geological mapping and fieldwork to
accomplish these goals. The curriculum consists of an introduction to field techniques
(pacing, orienteering, measuring strike and dip, and using a Jacob’s staff), sketching
outcrops, section measuring (one illustrating facies changes), three mapping exercises
(of increasing complexity), and a field geophysics project. Accurate rock and con-
tact descriptions are emphasized, and attitudes and contacts are mapped in the field.
Mapping is done on topographic maps at 1:12,000 and 1:6000 scales; air photos are
provided. Global positioning system (GPS)–assisted mapping is allowed, but we insist
that locations be recorded in the field and confirmed using visual observations. The
course includes field trips to the Cripple Creek and Leadville mining districts, Floris-
sant/Guffey volcano area, Pikes Peak batholith, and the Denver Basin. Each field trip
is designed to emphasize aspects of geology that are not stressed in the field exercises.
Students are strongly encouraged to accurately describe geologic features
and gather evidence to support their interpretations of the geologic history. Con-
cise reports are a part of each major exercise. Students are grouped into teams to
(1) introduce the team concept and develop interpersonal skills that are fundamental
components of many professions, (2) ensure safety, and (3) mix students with varying
academic backgrounds and physical strengths. This approach has advantages and
disadvantages. Students with academic strengths in specific areas assist those with
less experience, thereby becoming engaged in the teaching process. However, some

Puckette, J.O., and Suneson, N.H., 2009, Field camp: Using traditional methods to train the next generation of petroleum geologists, 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, p. 25–34,
doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(03). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

25
26 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 personali-
ties. We continue to believe that traditional field methods, aided by (but not rely-
ing upon) new technologies, are the key to constructing and/or interpreting geologic
maps. The requirement that students document field evidence using careful observa-
tions 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 Proterozoic-
cored 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 reen-
trant 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 deposi-
tional 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 Embay-
ment 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 numer-
ous 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 stratig-
raphy. 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 Phanero-
zoic 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, fol-
lowing 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 mod-
ern facility is outlined in Table 1.
FIELD CAMP FACILITIES
The OGC is located along Beaver Creek Road where Eight-
mile 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 cinder-
block office is next to the study hall, and a larger two-room study
hall is a short distance away. A few desktop computers and print-
ers 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 sys-
tems 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

Figure 1. Generalized geologic map

of the Cañon City Embayment area,
showing the location of Oklahoma
State University’s Les Huston Ge-
ology Field Camp (or Oklahoma
Geology Camp, OGC). Symbols:
–Ci—Cambrian intrusive; p–C—Idaho
Springs Group and Boulder Creek
Granodiorite; OmPl—Manitou Do-
38°30′N 38°30′N lomite, Harding Sandstone, Fremont
Dolomite, Williams Canyon Lime-
stone, Lykins Formation; JrKd—
Ralston Creek Formation, Morrison
Formation, Dakota Group; KgKp—
Graneros Shale, Greenhorn Lime-
stone, Carlile Shale, Niobrara Forma-
tion, Pierre Shale; TKr—Vermejo
Formation and younger strata. Ab-
breviations: GP—Gem Park intrusive
center; MM—McClure Mountain
intrusive center; CC—Cañon City
(modified from Scott et al., 1978).

0 1 2 3 4 5 10 Miles

0 5 10 Kilometers

105°00′W

of scientific inquiry to interpreting the origin and relational

Figure 2. View looking north-northeast across part of the Cañon City Em-
bayment. 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.
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 evi-
dence 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 geol-
ogy; (2) to show the students how to make and record observa-
tions, 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.
28 Puckette and Suneson

TABLE 1. HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA GEOLOGY CAMP (OGC)

QUATERNARY
CENOZOIC

Year Event Source

Terrace Gravels
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
Pierre Shale First director: Keith Hussey (OU)
Facilities: 18′ × 20′ (5.5 m × 6.1 m)
Smoky Hill Marl Member kitchen tent, 16′ × 20′ (4.9 m × 6.1 m)
Niobrara Formation
Fort Hays Limestone Member classroom tent, and 16′ × 16′ (4.9 m ×
4.9 m) squad tents for living quarters
Codell Sandstone Member
Carlile Shale Blue Hill Shale Member Three 4 wk courses are taught: Cost: $85 Ahern (1983)
CRETACEOUS

1951 Five faculty members from OU, two from Huffman (1990)
MESOZOIC

Greenhorn Limestone Oklahoma A&M

1952 First permanent buildings completed
PHANEROZOIC

Graneros Shale
1953 First women students: Kansas University
Dakota Group

Muddy Sandstone
(2), Southern Methodist University (1),
and OU (8)
Glen Cairn Shale
1957 Combined kitchen–mess hall and study hall
Plainview Sandstone completed
Camp contains 23 individual cabins for
living quarters
JURASSIC

Morrison Formation
1967 Concrete-block drafting room and faculty
office completed
Ralston Creek Formation
1985 OU gives up lease on camp; OSU enters
into a lease agreement with Ms. Tiny
PERMIAN

Striegel (daughter of Les Huston)

Lykins Formation
1986 OU stops using camp
1990 Tiny Striegel donates camp property to
PENNSYL-

OSU; camp is officially named “Les

VANIAN

Fountain Formation Huston Geology Field Camp”

PALEOZOIC

1991 Low enrollment forces cancellation of field

camp
DEVONIAN

1999 Following several years of low enrollment,

Williams Canyon Limestone
increasing OSU and out-of-state
enrollment helps restore fiscal
soundness
2006 OU rejoins OSU at OGC Suneson (2006)
ORDOVICIAN

Fremont Dolomite Summer flood destroys portion of camp Anonymous (2007)

Harding Sandstone 2007 Study hall converted to temporary female-
Manitou Dolomite student dormitory until new construction
is complete
2008 Seven new four-room cabins (housing
PROTEROZOIC
PRECAMBRIAN

eight individuals) and modern shower

Boulder Creek Granodiorite and toilet facilities are completed;
reconstruction is funded completely by
Idaho Springs Group individual and corporate donors
Six original cabins remain for faculty housing
One 5 wk course is taught: Cost $2475
Enrollment capped at 60 students
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 Okla-
homa (OU) in Norman. Universities that have regularly sent stu-
dents to the OGC in the recent past include Texas Tech, Texas
Christian, Midwestern State, Arkansas–Little Rock, and Arkan-
sas Tech. Because most students come from southern mid-conti-
nent 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
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 contra-
dictory observations. We recognize that (1) most of our students
will never map surface geology throughout their entire profes-
sional 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
50
Number of students
40
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
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 interpret-
ing “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 petro-
leum 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) sug-
gested 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 geo-
graphic 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,
Total
and learn leadership skills.”
For these reasons, the OGC curriculum emphasizes tra-
ditional 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 differ-
ence between observations and interpretations. We believe that
Out of state
asking students to support their interpretations using carefully
OSU
OU 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
2002 2003
Year
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
safety, mixes students with varying academic backgrounds and
physical strengths, and introduces the students to the team con-
cept, 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 mak-
ing 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 mea-
suring 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 in-
terpretations (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
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 stu-
dents 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 docu-
ment 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 draw-
ing 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 land-
forms, 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-
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
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 play-
ing 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 metamor-
phic rocks. The exercise in the Late Proterozoic folded metamor-
phic 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 fol-
lowing 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 review-
ing 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 fea-
tures 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 geo-
logic 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 tech-
nique—sketching an outcrop. After the students learn the stra-
tigraphy 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 pri-
mary purpose of this exercise is to sharpen the students’ obser-
vation 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 for-
mation (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 sedimen-
tary structures in the quartzites that indicate facing direction and
therefore establish the axes and types of folds. This exercise con-
tinues 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 describ-
ing 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 proj-
ect 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 col-
ored 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 interpre-
tative 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 indus-
try 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 pro-
fessional 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 gravi-
meters and one LaCoste-Romberg gravimeter each year, and
together with three proton precession magnetometers and geo-
detic-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 Mis-

souri 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 equip-
ment to form six teams within each group. Each team spends one
day in the field making gravity measurements, another day mak-
ing 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 subjec-
tive interpretation of the anomalies that they observed. In order
to make their interpretations, they must think through the den-
sity 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 par-
ings between gravity and magnetic observations to arrive at an Figure 7. Students looking for Eocene leaf and insect fossils at privately
owned Florissant Fossil Quarry outside of Florissant Fossil Beds Nation-
interpretation. Only a handful of our students have taken a geo- al Monument. The field trips not only are a welcome break from the nor-
physics course, so this exercise is an eye-opening experience in mal routine of field camp, but they expose the students to geology they do
which they learn that these measurements are straightforward to not see at their home universities or during the course of project mapping.
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 geo-
detic-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 con-
sistent 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 Figure 8. Introductory field trip including Marsh-Felch dinosaur-bone
that the field procedures involve many of the same principles as quarry, Morrison Formation (Jurassic). The thick channel sandstone
geological observations. 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
Field trips are an important part of the OGC and (some- the large talus cone in the lower left consists of dump material from
times) provide a welcome respite from the “grind” of mapping the quarry. In addition to some rest and relaxation, field trips are used
and measuring (Fig. 7). Some trips are to parts of Colorado that to take students to famous historical sites and to outcrops that exhibit
many of our students have never visited, and all (except the first) classic geological structures, such as the gently dipping bedsets at the
focus on aspects of geology that are not covered in the rest of the top of the cliff (point-bar deposits).
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 bers. A key trip is held on the first day of camp, and it provides
exploration, environmental geology, or other fields, and the field the students with an overview of the stratigraphy and structure
trips broaden all the students’ exposure to a wide variety of sub- of the Cañon City area (Figs. 1, 3, and 8). (Many of the stops on
disciplines. Depending on student interest, optional trips on the this first field trip, as well as some later trips, are described in an
weekend to collect minerals are run by individual faculty mem- 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 Com-
pany 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 educa-
tional 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 Mon-
ument. 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 indi-
vidual 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 crite-
ria for evaluating student mastery. Individual assessment culmi-
nates 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. Stu-
dent 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 stu-
dents. 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, aca-
demic 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 put-
ting 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 rela-
tively 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 follow-
ing 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 proj-
ects 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 prop-
erty. 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 Vic-
tor 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 Fos-
sil 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 knowl-
edge 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 (Uni-
versity 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 Geolo-
gist: Tulsa, Oklahoma, Division of Professional Affairs, American Asso-
ciation 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 Coun-
cil 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: Ameri-
can 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

ABSTRACT

The Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences (EPS) at the University of

New Mexico offers two field geology courses (EPS 319L, Introductory Field Geol-
ogy, and EPS420L, Advanced Field Geology). Prior to summer 1986, these courses
were taught during the academic year, on the weekends. Over a two year time span,
despite some faculty consternation, the department converted both classes into full-
blown summer field geology courses. These continue to be offered as two separate,
independent classes for several reasons. Introductory Field Geology is required of all
EPS geoscience majors and has attracted numerous students from institutions outside
New Mexico. All mapping is done using a paper topographic map and/or an air pho-
tograph base, with, eventually, the aid of a handheld global positioning system (GPS)
device. Given that topographic map skills remain essential for effective computer- and
GPS-based mapping, we emphasize these traditional techniques within the limited
time span (three weeks) of the course. Despite the fact that all students are expected
(required) to have passed the standard array of core undergraduate courses in the
geosciences, the backgrounds of the students, including level of previous field expe-
rience, vary considerably. Consequently, the approach taken in EPS 319L is one in
which strong emphasis is placed on providing rapid feedback and focusing maximum
instructor attention on the students who need it the most. As one means of providing
rapid feedback to all of our students, we utilize a “postage stamp” map exercise as an
essential component of each mapping project. After at least one day of introduction
to the project, the entire class focuses on a morning of mapping in a small, yet very
revealing project area. The maps are turned in after a group discussion of the postage
stamp area, and detailed feedback, using several rubrics, is provided to all students
by the end of the day (but these maps are not graded). In field geology courses, where
the goal is to maximize student field learning within a limited time frame, the postage
stamp exercises have proven to be an effective way to provide timely instructor input
and reinforcement of burgeoning student skills. Student evaluations of the course
support the use of the postage stamp exercises for each map project; these exercises
improve the instructor’s ability to assess final map products in an even more rigorous
and consistent fashion.

Geissman, J.W., and Meyer, G., 2009, Introductory field geology at the University of New Mexico, 1984 to today: What a “long, strange trip” it continues to be,
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, p. 35–44, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(04). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All
rights reserved.

35
36 Geissman and Meyer
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 camp-
ing and mapping adventure after another, often with several stu-
dents who have never put up a tent before, provides great stimu-
lation and satisfaction. This version of a field geology course,
which ours certainly resembles, may simply reflect a very bare-
bones 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 abil-
ity 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 Mex-
ico underwent a major transition in the mid-1980s. For several
decades and largely for convenience, the Department of Geol-
ogy (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 out-
ings. 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 deci-
sions related to the transition were dealt with. Notably, dur-
ing 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 pol-
icy 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 compen-
sation 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 back-
ground, 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 giv-
ing 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 stu-
dents. 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 exer-
cises. 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 suf-
ficiently 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 differ-
ent and important geologic processes. Although we have visited
these areas many times, every year students discover a new expo-
sure or make a new observation (e.g., the discovery of Codel-
laster 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
Baca Can
Ca nyon
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 transi-
tion from a shallow, nonmarine depositional environment charac-
terized 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 Forma-
tion 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 superim-
posed on earlier features related to crustal shortening. The intro-
duction 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 relation-
ship in the mapping area, and each spot is not left until all ques-
tions 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 camp-
ing-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 disconform-
ably overlain by the Eocene Baca Formation, a classic hema-
titic 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 intermedi-
ate-composition, volcaniclastic sequence representing the dis-
tal products of the initial phase of post-Laramide intermediate-
composition magmatism in the Mogollon-Datil volcanic field.
Spears Formation strata are overlain by outflow facies of sev-
eral regionally extensive, large-volume ash-flow tuffs, includ-
ing 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 topo-
graphic 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 Quater-
nary 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 opportu-
nity 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 Lime-
stone, 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 ver-
gence during latest Cretaceous to early Tertiary crustal shorten-
ing associated with the Laramide orogeny) and are exception-
ally well exposed along the eastern flank of the Sangre de Cristo
Range, just north of Redwing, Colorado (Burbank and God-
dard, 1937; Lindsey et al., 1983; Lindsey, 1998; Wawrzyniec
et al., 2002). Prior to this mapping project, students are intro-
duced to a very similar stratigraphic section to that exposed in
the mapping area but in a nearly undeformed and nearly con-
tinuously 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 Huer-
fano 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 Creta-
ceous 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 geo-
logic 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 geomor-
phic processes have been active. For each of the three main proj-
ects, the standard requirements include the original (field) map,
a final map, cross section, legend for both the map and cross sec-
tion, succinct map unit descriptions, and a project write up/sum-
mary of the geologic history. For the first project, students are
based in Albuquerque and complete most of the project require-
ments 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 eve-
ning. In addition, we use a high-efficiency generator with low-
wattage 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

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 pro-
gressive development of understanding and skills such as EPS
319L, feedback must be provided in both a timely and suffi-
ciently 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 real-
ized 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 intro-
ducing students to the specific map areas, and talking about spe-
cific 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 exer-
cises 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 interac-
tion. 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 white-
board 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 stu-
dent’s final grade, detailed feedback is provided to all students
by the end of the day (Fig. 5). The senior instructor is respon-
sible for providing this feedback. Although no rigidly defined
scoring rubric (e.g., C.A. Kearns and L.E. Kearns, 2009, per-
sonal commun.) is actually used in the inspection of the post-
age 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 pos-
sible, 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 pre-
mium, 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 for-
merly required a course evaluation system that was very inflex-
ible and did not allow for specific questions to be posed for spe-
cific courses. We simply asked students to provide comments
on the postage stamp exercises in the space for written com-
ments. 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 exer-
cises as excellent. Furthermore, in the context of our assessment
of student outcomes for the course, which is the capstone expe-
rience 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 grad-
ing final project maps includes defining several localities where
key field relations are particularly well exposed and the map-
ping 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
Financial Support
Here, we provide a brief discussion of the current means
by which support is provided to our Introductory Field Geol-
ogy 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 geol-
ogy courses are “supported “ by the Summer Instructional Pro-
gram 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
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).
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
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 instruc-
tion 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 learn-
ing goals, we expect that all students completing EPS 319L have
obtained and have repetitively utilized basic field skills, includ-
ing locating themselves on a topographic map, without and with
the aid of a handheld GPS; identifying geologic materials in the
field; understanding how surface field relations can be extrapo-
lated to at least modest depth, in the context of drawing an inter-
pretive cross section; and formulating logical predictions based
on observations made. All of these are consistent with depart-
mental 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 well-
exposed, 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 per-
sonal 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 inspect-
ing 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
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 Tra-
vis 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 per-
mission 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
Colorado School of Mines, a summer as a postdoctoral research sci-
entist at the University of Toronto, and several summers as a graduate
student teaching assistant at Michigan’s field geology station, the con-
cept of teaching capstone field geology courses on the weekends dur-
ing 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 encoun-
ter 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
43
Figure 5. Example of instructor com-
ments on one postage stamp map pre-
pared by a summer 2008 student, Point
of Rocks mapping project, Huerfano
Park, Colorado.
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 Gard-
ner, 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 (Echi-
nodermata); 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, Colo-
rado, 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 vol-
canic field, in Chapin, C.E., and Zidek, J., eds., Field Excursions to Vol-
canic 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 Juras-
sic 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 develop-
ment 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 tran-
sect, Colorado Front Range, in Easterbrook, D.J., ed., Quaternary Geol-
ogy 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 Edu-
cation, 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 inter-
views: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, p. 263–270.
Field, J., 2003, A two-week guided inquiry project for an undergraduate geo-
morphology 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 student-
and 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 per-
ception 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 Geolo-
gist (Laramie), v. 14, p. 75–99.
Laferriere, A.P., Hattin, D.E., and Archer, A.W., 1987, Effects of climate, tec-
tonics, 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., New-
combe, 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, Springer-
Verlag, p. 171–187.
Lindsey, D.A., 1998, Laramide structure of the central Sangre de Cristo Moun-
tains and adjacent Raton Basin, southern Colorado: The Mountain Geolo-
gist, 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 Confer-
ence Guidebook, p. 213–242.
Mackin, J.H., 1937, Erosional history of the Big Horn Basin, Wyoming: Geo-
logical 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 Sand-
stone (Upper Jurassic) and intertongued Dakota Sandstone–Lower Man-
cos 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 Creta-
ceous 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, Dex-
tral 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 con-
sider 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 con-
tinued relevance of some existing procedures. Our criteria include level of pedagogi-
cal 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,
Geological mapping dates back to the Turin Papyrus of 1150 George Cuvier and Alexandre Brogniart in France, Bernhard
B.C.E. (Harrell and Brown, 1992), but field surveying and pub- Studer and Arnold Escher von der Linth in Switzerland, and Flor-
lication of printed geological maps did not begin in earnest until ence Bascom in the United States (see, for example, Winchester,
the nineteenth century with the contributions of pioneering work- 2001). Following the hit-or-miss approaches of the California
Gold Rush (1848–1855), and of wildcat oil drilling after its initial
*ddepaor@odu.edu invention in Titusville, Pennsylvania, by Edwin Drake in 1855,
†
whitmesj@jmu.edu the need for professional field geologists grew steadily and state
De Paor, D.G., and Whitmeyer, S.J., 2009, 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,
p. 45–56, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(05). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

45
46 De Paor and Whitmeyer
geological surveys sprouted (Socolow, 1988). However, residen-
tial 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 Andre-
sen, 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 effec-
tively at the outcrop than they had done in the laboratory, and
camaraderie around the campfire created a level of personal con-
tact among faculty and students that was the envy of nonfield sci-
ences. 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 com-
pass; identifying minerals by hand lens, scratch plate, and acid
bottle; classifying subtly different fine-grained gray rocks into
laboriously named stratigraphic formations and members; mea-
suring dip and strike or plunge and trend using the compass-cli-
nometer; 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 verg-
ing 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 educa-
tion, 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 (Win-
chester, 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, labo-
ratory-based independent study projects, and externally funded
research experiences for undergraduates (REUs) was high. These
examples reflected a growing nationwide sentiment that ques-
tioned 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 residen-
tial 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 fac-
ulty 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 con-
tinuity, the new philosophy and curriculum of the Ireland field
course continues to develop at JMU.
Despite the extra expenses involved with an overseas loca-
tion, 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 geosci-
ence field methods. The location was remote and decidedly for-
eign, but nevertheless very friendly toward the United States—a
significant factor in the era of parental security concerns follow-
ing the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It was located on the edge of the
Connemara Gaeltacht, one of the Irish-speaking regions of Ire-
land 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 peda-
gogical 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 stu-
dent population from universities from across the United States.
Students recognized the research opportunities available in con-
junction 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, Ire-
land, 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 rec-
ognized 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 pro-
duces sustained scholarship and publication-worthy research
for the faculty. A modern field course cannot flourish if admin-
istrators 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 automati-
cally 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 inter-
est, without face-to-face interview. Hiking skills were often mini-
mal, 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 disin-
clined 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 major-
ity of their gender; they expected students to cope with their ablu-
tions 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 expe-
riences such as (1) an embarrassing rebellion by irate students on
a 13 hour day-trip in a windswept, barren, restroom-free land-
scape 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 sore-
ness 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 com-
pleting assignments due to mobility and agility limitations (espe-
cially obesity), even though none of the exercises required tech-
nical 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. Alter-
nate 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 over-
weight) 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.
R and R
A common issue with residential field courses is the provi-
sion 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 damp-
ens (literally) the enthusiasm of potential revelers, but perhaps
the more important factor is the availability of alternative leisure-
time activities. Approved student drivers are permitted to take
classmates to events such as horse-racing meets and nearby con-
certs in Galway City by visiting celebrities such as Bob Dylan
and U2. Many students seem happier when they have opportuni-
ties to rejoin (nongeology) civilization on occasional evenings
and at weekends. Those that prefer outdoor activities, such as lei-
sure 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 fian-
cées, 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 experi-
mented 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. How-
ever, 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
Freeman (1999) can compete only if the subject matter of the
field exercise is restricted to classical hard-rock mapping.
A CURRICULUM FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
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 rede-
signed from scratch, and we took the opportunity to rethink our
teaching philosophy and pedagogical approach. We deempha-
sized 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 con-
fidence 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 prac-
tical, 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.
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 elimi-
nated the “stand and deliver” approach to teaching regional geol-
ogy 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 challeng-
ing questions to students, encouraging hypothesizing and con-
structive 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
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.
49
regional tectonic context and arrive at a more complete expla-
nation of the uplift and exposure of Caledonian rocks in west-
ern 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 prob-
lems, 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 geo-
morphology of western Ireland (e.g., Coxon, 2001, 2005b).
Again, students are taught to map locally while thinking glob-
ally. Students usually notice without prompting that the west-
ern seaboard’s vegetation, including palm trees and Versailles-
style 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 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 cov-
erage 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 experi-
mental 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 evi-
dence 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 sub-
dued topographic expression and are generally covered in vegeta-
tion, yet students recognized equivalent features with ease. Stu-
dents’ 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 vol-
canic rocks and later Quaternary glacial carving of western Ire-
land. 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 neo-
tectonics and neoglaciation.
Environmental Geology and Hydrogeology
Western Ireland has a history of mineral exploration and
mining dating back to prehistoric times (Cole, 1998). The prac-
tice 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 span-
ning 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 capac-
ity 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; Ail-
wee and Doolin caves), and they make observations and mea-
surements on surface and subsurface water flow. The Burren
area, in particular, is a fascinating karstic region that was previ-
ously glaciated. Students compare and contrast sediment-trans-
port 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-hop-
ping, 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 hypo-
thermia 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 geo-
graphical information system (GIS) computer laboratory. GIS
had already been in widespread use by the USGS and in indus-
tries 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 new-
est 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 technol-
ogy 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 sys-
tem 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 solu-
tions (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 stu-
dents 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 instruc-
tors and colleagues (McCaffrey et al., 2008).
Traditionally, after several days of field trips led by pro-
fessors, 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 eve-
ning. 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 interpre-
tations are driven by group consensus, not individual interpre-
tation. 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 map-
ping 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 cour-
tesy 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 prepara-
tion. 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 geo-
logic 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 inter-
active Google Earth maps; etc. Where traditionally they col-
lected 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 tech-
nology is the certainty that much of it will be redundant in a mat-
ter 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 appreciat-
ing what current technology can do and being willing to experi-
ment with it, rather than teaching rote-learning steps involved in
a particular method (Fuller et al., 2002; Niemi et al., 2002; Bro-
daric, 2004).
For financial and logistical reasons, it is not possible to
lengthen the duration of most field courses, and new efficien-
cies 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 tra-
ditional syllabus. At the same time, we want to retain classical
methods that have professional or pedagogical value. Inevita-
bly, 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 Allmending-
er’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 exam-
ple 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 west-
ern Ireland camp. However, student evaluations and students’
subsequent, postcamp communication with the instructors sug-
gest that our innovations were highly successful on the whole
(see Pyle, this volume). Students felt empowered by their geo-
morphological 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 research-
based 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 evalua-
tions 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 53

Figure 5. (A) Classical mapping of the Connemara region (Leake et al., 1981) viewed as a three-dimension-
al (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 semi-
transparency 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.
54 De Paor and Whitmeyer
personality clashes and petty jealousies, both with their profes-
sors and among their peers, and many let the stresses of inde-
pendent 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 nega-
tive 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 under-
standing 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 expecta-
tion 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 con-
sultation, they then erred in the other direction by devising proj-
ects that lacked sufficient challenge. It took a few iterations to
reach a working curriculum, and indeed the process of reassess-
ment 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” geol-
ogy 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 cor-
ollary, professors should stop acting as incomplete, error-prone
walking encyclopedias to their students. In contrast, professors
Figure 6. Students proudly display maps
generated from their own field data and
printed with geographic information
system (GIS) workstations at Galway
University.
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 For-
mation or the Humpty Dumpty fault (names from C. Simpson,
1985, personal commun.).
We all want future generations to benefit from the field expe-
rience, 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 lec-
tures that students listen to passively and by laboratory courses
that have little relationship to how science is practiced by profes-
sionals in academia or industry. Working scientists are not pre-
sented 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 ques-
tions before trying to answer them. Perhaps because they devel-
oped 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 sev-
eral different fields, e.g., geology, geomorphology, and environ-
mental 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 innova-
tion, 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 multidi-
mensional curriculum will not fulfill their departmental require-
ments. 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 sci-
ences 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 Uni-
versity 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 appreci-
ate 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 Sci-
ence, 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 mil-
lennial 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 Ire-
land: 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, Geogra-
phy, 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, Dune-
din Academic Press, p. 387–428.
Coxon, P., 2005a, The late Tertiary landscapes of western Ireland: Irish Geog-
raphy, v. 38, p. 111–127.
Coxon, P., 2005b, The Quaternary of Central Western Ireland: London, Quater-
nary Research Association, 220 p.
Day-Lewis, F.D., 2003, The role of field camp in an evolving geoscience cur-
riculum 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 (Transac-
tions, American Geophysical Union), v. 89, no. 53, ED31A-0599.
Drummond, C.N., 2001, Can field camps survive?: Journal of Geoscience Edu-
cation, 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: Jour-
nal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 147–152.
Freeman, T., 1999, Procedures in Field Geology: Malden, UK, Blackwell Sci-
ence, 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 Com-
missioners: 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 Geophysi-
cal 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 theo-
retical 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 Jer-
sey, 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: Geologi-
cal 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 stu-
dent-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 Educa-
tion: 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, Visu-
alisation 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 stu-
dents 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: Histori-
cal 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 Four-
Dimensional 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 San-
tangelo, 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, Visual-
ization techniques in field geology education: A case study from western
Ireland, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geol-
ogy Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geolog-
ical 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 environ-
ment 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. Stu-
dents 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.

INTRODUCTION present fundamental geoscience concepts in the context of

sequentially ordered problems, many of them field based, that
The geology faculty at Lake Superior State University reflect increasing structural complexity and geophysical sophis-
(LSSU), a state-funded university in Michigan’s eastern Upper tication (Kelso and Brown, 2008; Brown et al., 2007), different
Peninsula, have designed and implemented a new undergraduate depositional regimes (Brown et al., 2007, 2008), important igne-
geology curriculum (Kelso et al., 2001; Kelso and Brown, 2004). ous and metamorphic petrogenetic models (Gonzales and Sem-
Our curricular goals model those of other educators in promoting ken, 2006), and instructive hydrological and geoenvironmental
development of students’ intellectual and creative thinking skills situations (Smith, 1995; Trop et al., 2000).
by engaging them in team-oriented, field-based problems. Field Our revisions were motivated by a number of concerns
activities are integrated with classroom activities to enhance we have with geology programs based on traditional curricular
development of students’ abilities to solve multidisciplinary, real- designs and pedagogy. A central desire was to create a curriculum
world geoscience problems (e.g., Smith, 1995; Ireton et al., 1996; that would improve student mastery of the core geologic con-
National Research Council, 1996a; National Science Foundation cepts that we identified in a national survey of geoscience faculty
Advisory Board, 1996; Trop et al., 2000; Noll, 2003; Gonzales administered by the American Geological Institute (Kelso et al.,
and Semken, 2006; Knapp et al., 2006). 2001). Along with core concept acquisition, we recognized the
The LSSU curriculum is based on constructivist teaching/ need to substantially increase our programmatic emphasis on stu-
learning theories that emphasize active learning. Our courses dent written and oral communication skills (Brown et al., 1993),
computer and quantitative skills, and problem solving and critical
*pkelso@lssu.edu thinking skills. A major goal in our curriculum development was
†
lbrown@lssu.edu to enhance students’ ability to solve real-world geologic problems
Kelso, P.R., and Brown, L.M., 2009, 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, p. 57–64, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(06).
For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

57
58 Kelso and Brown
by integrating concepts from multiple subdisciplines. We accom-
plished 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 stratig-
raphy, 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, clas-
tic 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 struc-
tural 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 learn-
ing 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 rela-
tionships 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). Spa-
tial 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 undergradu-
ate 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 Sci-
ence 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 field-
based 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 pro-
vides a focus for subdiscipline content application (e.g., Kern and
Carpenter, 1986; Gonzales and Semken, 2006) and provides stu-
dent 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 experi-
ences 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 field-
based observations.
CURRICULUM AND COURSE DESIGN
Lake Superior State University’s field-oriented curricular
revision (Table 1) requires that students now complete approxi-
mately double the amount of fieldwork compared to our old cur-
riculum. 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 week-
long 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 obser-
vational 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 experi-
ence 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 set-
ting that differs from the local area. It addresses field techniques,
including cross-section and map preparation, measuring strati-
graphic sections, and gathering basic geologic data such as min-
eral 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
Original geology curriculum New geology curriculum
Course title Pedagogy Fieldwork (field days) Course title Pedagogy Fieldwork (field days) Field objectives
Structural Lecture Some years (1) Structural Geology Project based Day Trips Structural measurements
Geology and Laboratory 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
Igneous and Lecture Mine field trip (1) Geochemical Systems Project based 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 Laboratory Sequence 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 stu-
dents 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, real-
world geologic problems that are drawn from a variety of geo-
logic settings. Our upper-division fall offerings—geophysical
systems, clastic systems, geochemical systems, and geoenvi-
ronmental 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 geo-
physics, 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, incorpo-
rates a 1 wk field trip to study the tectonics of the southeast-
ern 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 cur-
riculum by describing in some detail the format of two of our
upper-division, academic-year courses, clastic systems and geo-
physical systems.
Clastic Systems
Our new curriculum is structured so that key geologic con-
cepts 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, interpreta-
tion 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 for-
mations 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 Forma-
tion. 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 struc-
tured class times. Emphasis is placed on reinforcing good field
technique, introducing more sophisticated classification systems,
observing, describing, and interpreting the origin of primary sed-
imentary 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 Sys-
tems 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 class-
room 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 sedimen-
tary 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 sedi-
mentary 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 compari-
son of sedimentary features that students initially observed in the
Pennsylvanian Minnelusa Formation in the Black Hills to expo-
sures 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 week-
long 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 deposi-
tional environments. Thus, students study first hand the relation-
ships between sedimentation processes and products over both
geologic time and geographic distance.
In the Clastic Systems class, students revise the cross sec-
tions and geologic maps that they constructed during the sopho-
more 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 sophisti-
cated geological interpretations such as application of sequence-
stratigraphic principles and facies-model interpretations, includ-
ing 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 under-
standing of repetitive sedimentation patterns by examining evi-
dence for multiple glaciation events from the local Proterozoic
Canadian Shield and Pleistocene glacial deposits and by compar-
ing/contrasting depositional paradigms associated with Pennsyl-
vanian deposits in the Illinois Basin.
Students in our upper-division Sequence Stratigraphy
Seminar again use rock descriptions of the Minnelusa Forma-
tion and field maps and cross sections they generated in the
sophomore field course in the Black Hills. Their field observa-
tions, in conjunction with subsurface maps that students gener-
ated based on borehole data that they retrieved from the Wyo-
ming 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 deposi-
tional 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 inter-
pret 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 obser-
vations, student comments on class evaluations, student’s com-
ments upon engaging in graduate-level work, and comments
from employers. For example, we find that student in-class ques-
tions are more sophisticated, their understanding of advanced
61
concepts is greater, and their ability to complete complex proj-
ects 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, requir-
ing students to spend 1–3 d collecting field geologic and geo-
physical 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 con-
cept acquisition and problem-solving skills. We teach key geo-
physical 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 con-
cepts 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 gener-
ate 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 aban-
don Camp Lucas military facility, which is now part of the Lake
Superior State University campus. The project site is the pro-
posed 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 geo-
physical information (May and Gibbons, 2004).
Following introduction of a project by the instructor, stu-
dent teams each develop a written proposal for work to be
completed. All project proposals must include justification for
each geophysical instrument chosen; anticipated anomaly char-
acteristics 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

Project Objective Outcomes

Locate buried objects at an Final model and interpretation

Magnetic and
abandoned military site on of magnetic and
Field geophysics electromagnetic theory
the Lake Superior State electromagnetic field data
survey designs Conduct
University campus based on theory and observation
proposed electromagnetic
field survey

Process magnetic and Written report

Conduct electromagnetic data of processes and
Forward model of Project proposal: magnetic interpretation
anticipated anomalies written and oral field survey

Initial plotting and interpretation

of magnetic and Oral presentation
electromagnetic field data of processes and
Set up field interpretation
survey lines
Magnetic and
Class debates best
electromagnetic
survey design
background information
Initial modeling of magnetic
and electromagnetic field data

Figure 3. Flowchart for the design of one project undertaken in the Geophysical Systems course. Student-driven independent, follow-up research:
Students conduct field resistivity and ground-penetrating
The flowchart outlines the Camp Lucas geophysical project to locate buried objects remaining at radar (GPR) surveys over modeled anomalies, interpret
the abandoned military facility, which is now part of the Lake Superior State University Campus. 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 pro-
posals 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 fre-
quency receiver), seismic system (12 or 24 channel), ground-
penetrating 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 dis-
cussions 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 evalu-
ate alternative hypotheses. The final project evaluation includes
both a written and an oral component and encourages construc-
tive peer evaluation within a team and between teams.
CONCLUSIONS
Through a field-based, project-centered approach to teach-
ing geoscience at Lake Superior State University, students’ abil-
ity to apply geoscience concepts to solving multidisciplinary
problems has significantly improved, along with their self-con-
fidence and their retention of material. We base this conclusion
on a qualitative assessment of students’ class responses and proj-
ect work, student evaluations, their success at graduate school,
and the comments of employers. The results of program assess-
ment 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 evalu-
ate 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 course-
by-course basis or, as in our case, can prompt an entire program-
matic revision. Our frustration with traditional course structures
and lecture-based learning prompted us to experiment with alter-
natives. At first, we developed new laboratory exercises, but we
quickly realized that there is no substitute for field-based expe-
riential 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 much-
improved 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 peda-
gogical 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 pre-
requisites to the success of any substantial curriculum revision.
Faculty commitment to field-based learning is time consum-
ing. 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. Addition-
ally, 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 activi-
ties 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 weather-
constrained 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 associ-
ated 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-passen-
ger 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 cur-
riculum 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 coopera-
tive 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 com-
prehensive model for teaching writing skills: Journal of Geoscience Edu-
cation, v. 41, p. 151–154.
Brown, L.M., Kelso, P.R., White, R.J., and Rexroad, C.B., 2007, A project-
based geoscience curriculum: Select examples: Eos (Transactions, Ameri-
can Geophysical Union), v. 88, no. 52, abstract ED42A-02.
Brown, L.M., Kelso, P.R., Nelkie, E., and Rexroad, C.B., 2008, Carbonate sys-
tems: 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, Engineer-
ing 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: Signifi-
cant geoscience concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geol-
ogy courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, p. 126–132.
Englebrecht, A.C., Mintzes, J.J., Brown, L.M., and Kelso, P.R., 2005, Assess-
ment 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., Ameri-
can 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: Coop-
eration 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 geosci-
ence 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 cen-
tury: 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 geol-
ogy program revised: Geotimes, v. 46, p. 19.
Kern, E.L., and Carpenter, J.R., 1986, Effect of field activities on student learn-
ing: 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, engi-
neering, and technology: Arlington, Virginia, National Science Founda-
tion 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 pro-
cesses 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 schedul-
ing. 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 disci-
pline. 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 cam-
puses 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, short-

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 sum-
mer immersion “field camp” in most undergraduate geology pro-
grams. During the regular school year, field geology is typically
duration 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 instruc-
tional days, followed by a four day break. It provides schedul-
ing flexibility and an opportunity to concentrate on the subject

Thomas, R.C., and Roberts, S., 2009, Experience One: Teaching the geoscience curriculum in the field using experiential immersion 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,
p. 65–76, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(07). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

65
66 Thomas and Roberts
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 modi-
fied 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 inter-
disciplinary, liberal arts degrees that maximized limited faculty
resources. In the sciences, we organized an interdisciplinary
Department of Environmental Sciences and focused on field-
based projects (Thomas et al., 1996). Anecdotal evidence sug-
gested that students showed improved cognition and metacog-
nition, 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 indi-
cated 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 environmen-
tal sciences appeared at several other campuses in the Montana
University system. Our realization that programs could be dupli-
cated 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 fundamen-
tally unique in higher education.
The pedagogical impetus for choosing Experience One
began with a faculty conclusion that student cognition and meta-
cognition 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 assess-
ment 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 engag-
ing 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 “Chal-
lenges” section).
The campus discussion turned to adapting the schedul-
ing system pioneered by Colorado College. Colorado College
adopted this system primarily to eliminate the problem of stu-
dents prioritizing classes (Loevy, 1999; Taylor, 1999). For UMW,
it was a comprehensive solution that benefited experiential learn-
ing 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 cir-
culated 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 edu-
cation 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 pub-
lic, four-year campus in the United States to adopt one-class-at-a-
time immersion scheduling for the majority of classes.
HOW DOES EXPERIENCE ONE WORK?
Experience One works across the curriculum. At UMW, stu-
dents 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
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 dur-
ing 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 prepara-
tory 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 con-
sume 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, profes-
sional 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.
EXAMPLES FROM THE GEOSCIENCES
The geosciences are well suited for Experience One. The
entry-level classes at UMW are typically capped at 20–25 stu-
dents, 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) sys-
tems. 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 stu-
dents to work independently in the field (Thomas, 2001). The
67
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 baccalaure-
ate degrees in Environmental Science and Environmental Inter-
pretation. 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 deci-
sions, sometimes in collaboration with land-management agen-
cies or private consulting firms. The professor/supervisor job is
different with groups of undergraduate students on a tight time-
table 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 Rob-
erts, 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.
Structural Geology
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
68 Thomas and Roberts

traditional laboratory, yet the students have office days to con-

struct structural cross sections, process field data, conduct anal-
yses, 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 lit-
erature and web resources. In addition, students have the option
to purchase a copy of the Geological Society of London hand-
book series on mapping geological structures (McClay, 1995),
which many students choose to do even though the book is rela-
tively 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 desig-
nated 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
Figure 1. Students in structural geology learning field skills at Block
folding and thrust faulting. Mountain.
Students also apply their structural data to making land-
management 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, age systems that came off of the track of the Yellowstone hot-
including a thorough explanation of why particular resources spot (Sears and Thomas, 2007) and is an ideal environment for
might occur within the map area and the probability that they students to learn about extensional structures and paleogeomor-
occur at economic levels. In addition, they research the federal phology. A 6.0 Ma basalt flow, which can be traced for many
and state regulations required to develop these resources and kilometers toward its source on the Snake River Plain, holds up
make decisions about which resources to develop based on all the topography in the area and provides a textbook example of
of these factors. Their findings are compiled into reports that are inverted topography.
modeled after the Environmental Assessment (EA) reports con- The project requires the students to map a 1 mi2 (2.59 km2)
structed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The project area, and heavy emphasis is placed on mapping surficial depos-
takes a minimum of six field days and three on-campus office its and landforms like landslides, rock falls, valley-fill alluvium,
days to complete. The students get a day off after the exercise and and alluvial fans. Students also identify areas of potential liq-
before they start the Timber Hill project. uefaction and surface rupture related to the Sweetwater fault.
The students not only map the area, but they also draw several
Timber Hill cross sections and work out the geohistory of the area. They
The Timber Hill area exposes mostly Paleogene and Neo- also take structural data, particularly from the joints and folia-
gene terrestrial sedimentary rocks that are cut by an active (but tion in the underlying Archean metamorphic rocks in order to
historically dormant) normal fault called the Sweetwater fault determine potential groundwater resources and flow paths. The
(Sears et al., 1995). The fault has ~700 ft (210 m) of offset and land-management component requires the students to use these
is part of the northwest-trending normal fault system in south- data to identify seismic and other geohazards associated with a
west Montana that lies within the Intermountain Seismic Belt proposed (fictitious) subdivision on the property. The students
(Stickney, 2007). The area contains a remarkable record of drain- 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 sta-
bilize 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.
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 geomor-
phology. 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 discipline-
related 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:
69
Week 1
Students learn general introductory geomorphological prin-
ciples 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 review-
ing 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 out-
side 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 labo-
ratory at the usual time to discuss progress and problems, but
otherwise students work wherever and whenever they want. Stu-
dents 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.
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 comple-
tion 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 person-
nel present) occurs on Monday or Tuesday, and the final written
report is due on Wednesday. If the work warrants it, it is later pre-
sented 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 Manage-
ment (BLM) archaeologist and a surveying engineer on a geo-
morphic 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 locat-
ing sites where an excavation might discover materials of dif-
ferent 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 geo-
morphic 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 geo-
morphology and landslides and students began to research recent
primary literature on archaeological geomorphology in fluvial
environments. A guest lecture by the BLM archaeologist pro-
vided background about the study site and what we might add to
his investigation. He described examples of the use of geomor-
phology 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 profes-
sionals, students confronted line-of-site problems related to veg-
etation 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 proj-
ects, 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 fea-
tures, 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 docu-
mented landslide aspects of the east side of the drainage and ero-
sional 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 sepa-
rate 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 experi-
encing significant net erosion or deposition. The artifact investi-
gation strengthened the interpretation that ancient people were
using parts of the western hillslope as a quarry, based on varia-
tions 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 allu-
vial 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 bur-
ied 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 fol-
lowing 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 archaeo-
logical 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 inter-
disciplinary field experience. Students gained a deeper under-
standing of interdisciplinary interaction in geoscience research,
and more significant research was completed, which is more sat-
isfying 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 geo-
logical activities, then their learning is, by definition, authentic
and may require no further justification as an educational pro-
cess. 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 pro-
gram 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, stu-
dents’ 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 catego-
ries 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 cam-
pus 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 engage-
ment 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 edu-
cational 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 com-
parisons of the arithmetic average of student scores (weighted
by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size) in three
important benchmarks of student engagement. For more infor-
mation about the survey and statistical analyses of the data, read-
ers 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 participat-
ing 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, syn-
thesis, 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 fac-
ulty, 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 stu-
dents 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 per-
ceive that they are learning first-hand from faculty mentors, both
in and out of class, and it is possibly the most important bench-
mark 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 learn-
ing” (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 Experi-
ence One and new-student enrollment growth because the admis-
sions 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 com-
munity prior to adoption of the system. More importantly, first-
year student persistence rates rose from 58% in 2004 (pre–Expe-
rience One) to 73% in 2008 (UMW Registrar, 2009, personal
commun.). These data illustrate the power of the immersion-
learning scheduling method to improve student persistence.
Assessments of the impacts of Experience One at the dis-
ciplinary 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 labo-
ratory 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 per-
centage 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 immers-
ing themselves in just one class at a time. As a result, these data
provide evidence that Experience One improves academic per-
formance.
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 approx-
imately 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 big-
gest improvement. Continuity at least partially offsets the “sacri-
fice” 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 quantita-
tively compare students’ understanding of content in our classes
versus the lecture-based approach. Reduced lecture time means
students must take increased responsibility for learning termi-
nology 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 (Hun-
toon et al., 2001; Elkins and Elkins, 2007). In addition, students
learn field and laboratory skills that can be very difficult to incor-
porate 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 procrastina-
tion—there simply is not any time for it. We have received posi-
tive 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 Envi-
ronmental 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 schedul-
ing conflicts with other classes. We also tried blocking all four
hours of single classes into one day per week, where each fac-
ulty member chose a different day and paid careful attention to
within-department conflicts. This sometimes worked for avoid-
ing 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 cam-
pus 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 envi-
ronmental 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 dis-
tracted 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 univer-
sity might be able to create an immersion college within the uni-
versity, 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.
Finally Getting Started
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 admin-
istrator 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. Experi-
ential 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 cam-
pus 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 concep-
tual framework of the education program is social constructivism
with a heavy emphasis on experiential learning (UMW Educa-
tion 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 ammu-
nition they needed to facilitate the change.
Faculty Burnout
Experience One is not only an intense experience for the stu-
dents, 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 vigi-
lant 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
their fourth block to obtain overtime pay express being physi-
cally and mentally exhausted.
Transportation
Availability and affordability of transportation is a continu-
ing problem, although moderate student laboratory fees can usu-
ally 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.
Safety and Physical Disabilities
Safety is always a concern in the field. We do not allow stu-
dents to work alone in the field, and we go over emergency proce-
dures 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., struc-
tural 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 analy-
sis 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 litera-
ture 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 illus-
trative 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 pri-
vate parties who have supported the work and who expect a pro-
fessional job because a professor supervised it. Effective Pow-
erPoint presentations constructed and delivered in very limited
time by student groups require a major effort. Like everything
else, motivated students learn scientific and technical presenta-
tion 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 pre-
sentation 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 inter-
actions can be messy, and it does not help that most profes-
sors 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. How-
ever, 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. Stu-
dents 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 Psy-
chology, 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 Hand-
book 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 Uni-
versity 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 teach-
ers: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, no. 3, p. 235–248.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A., 1998, Active Learning: Coopera-
tion in the College Classroom: Edina, Montana, Interaction Book Co., 140 p.
Kolb, A.Y., and Kolb, D.A., 2005, Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhanc-
ing 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): Colo-
rado 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 Uni-
versity 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 inter-
disciplinary 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 Improve-
ment 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 Pro-
grams, 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 Geol-
ogy 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 south-
west 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 Mon-
tana, 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: Geo-
logical 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 Infor-
mation, 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 cat-
alog: 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

ABSTRACT

International field experiences offer exceptional opportunities for effective student

learning in the geosciences. Over the 10 yr period between 1998 and 2008, more than 40
undergraduate students from 14 institutions participated in field research investigating
active tectonics on the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica. Three different project models
were used: (1) a month-long summer research project, (2) a series of 1 to 2 wk inde-
pendent field study projects, and (3) a week-long field research module. These projects
shared a common research theme (active tectonics), field area (Nicoya Peninsula), and
pedagogy (experiential learning), thus allowing for easy comparison of teaching meth-
ods, logistics, and learning outcomes. Each model has unique pedagogical benefits and
challenges, and is therefore better suited for a different group size, student to faculty
ratio, project duration, and budget. Collectively, these student research projects gener-
ated significant publishable data relevant to ongoing investigations of forearc tectonics
and earthquake hazards along the Costa Rican Pacific margin. Individual student proj-
ects were carefully designed to provide a quality field learning experience, while adding
a new piece to the larger research puzzle. Indicators of project success include levels of
student engagement; gains in technical and cognitive field skills; and productivity of stu-
dent-authored publications, reports, and presentations. Students commonly described
these projects as instrumental in shaping their professional identity as geoscientists.
Blending international field research with experiential learning pedagogy creates a
powerful synergy that captures student imagination and motivates learning. By placing
students beyond the comfort of their home learning environment, international field

Marshall, J.S., Gardner, T.W., Protti, M., and Nourse, J.A., 2009, International geosciences field research with undergraduate students: Three models for experien-
tial 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 Educa-
tion: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, p. 77–98, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(08). For permission to
copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

77
78 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 reflec-
tion. 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 profes-
sional careers in the geosciences.

INTRODUCTION Rica as a premiere destination for international geosciences field

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 experi-
ential 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 meth-
ods 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 expe-
riential 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 per-
spectives 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 methodol-
ogy 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 under-
graduate 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 out-
comes, and logistical advantages. We begin by exploring Costa
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 reputa-
tion 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, pro-
tecting 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 transpor-
tation infrastructure and offers a full range of lodging facili-
ties 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 consor-
tia have organized successful Costa Rica field trips, courses,
and research projects for undergraduate students (e.g., Gard-
ner, 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 79

100oW NOAM 90 W o 80oW

CAR
MA Costa
T Rica
10oN

PAN
COC
8.7
EPR

1 NAZ
CR

PFZ
PAC CNS
0o
CNS
GHS SOAM
EPR

CR2
NAZ
Figure 1. Digital elevation model (DEM) showing the tectonic setting of Costa Rica, Central Amer-
ica. 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 volca-
nism 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 85°W
° 84°
84°W
84°W
4°W
°W
11°
11°N
11
1°N
1 Figure 2. Digital elevation model (DEM) of Costa Rica show-
CARIB ing the tectonic setting of the Nicoya Peninsula (see Fig. 1 for
Ba location). This image reveals the relationship between the mor-
Vo ck
lca phology of the subducting Cocos plate (COCOS) and the mor-
nic photectonic structure of the overriding Caribbean plate (CARIB)
Ar and Panama microplate (PAN). Seafloor domains of the Cocos
Fro c
plate (yellow letters): EPR—smooth crust derived at East Pacific
nt
10°°N
1
10°N
°N N P Rise, CNS-1—smooth crust derived at Cocos-Nazca spreading
Fo center, CNS-2—rough hotspot-thickened crust generated at the
M

re Galapagos hotspot. Plate boundaries (red letters): MAT—Mid-

A

dle America Trench, CCRDB—Central Costa Rica deformed

T

EPR belt. Offshore bathymetric features (orange letters): CR—Cocos

Ar PAN Ridge, QP—Quepos Plateau, FSC—Fisher Seamount Chain. On-
c F shore topographic features (blue letters): NP—Nicoya Peninsula,
C OP—Osa Peninsula, GVC—Guanacaste Volcanic Cordillera,
9°°N
9°N
CNS-1 CVC—Central Volcanic Cordillera, TrC—Tilarán Cordillera (ex-
C

M tinct), AgC—Aguacate Cordillera (extinct), TmC—Talamanca

S

A
Cordillera (extinct), FC—Fila Costeña thrust belt. (DEM cour-
F

CNS-2 T
P OP tesy of C. Ranero, Institut de Ciències del Mar–Consejo Superior
Q de Investigaciones Científicas [ICM-CSIC], Barcelona, Spain.
Image derived from digital topographic data from the Shuttle
COCOS Radar Topography Mission [NASA-SRTM] linked to R.V. Sonne
R

multi-beam bathymetric data from the Institut für Meereswissen-

C

8°N
schaften [IFM-GEOMAR], Universität Kiel, Germany.)
80 Marshall et al.
Pacific forearc, across the mountainous cordilleras of the volca-
nic front, to the broad lowlands of the Caribbean backarc (Mar-
shall, 2007). Abundant outcrops exhibit a wide range of rock
types and textbook structures. Earthquakes, landslides, and vol-
canic 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, defores-
tation, 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 Electri-
cidad [ICE], Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo [RECOPE],
Fundación Neotrópica [FN], Instituto Nacional de Biodivers-
idad [INBio], Centro Científico Tropical [CCT], and Organi-
zation 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 par-
ticipated in a sequence of related field research projects inves-
tigating 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 proj-
ect conducted by 12 students and five faculty mentors (Keck
Geology Consortium, 1998), (2) a series of 1 to 2 wk indepen-
dent 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 investiga-
tions 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 care-
fully 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 ongo-
ing 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 bound-
ary is an abrupt morphologic break between smooth mid-ocean-
ridge–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 morphotec-
tonics (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 sea-
floor basement (Nicoya Complex) overlain by an upward-shal-
lowing sequence of Late Cretaceous–Quaternary marine sedi-
ments (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 penin-
sula’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 wide-
spread 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 ter-
races 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 under-
graduate 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 off-
shore 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
Puntarenas
N Nicoya
Peninsula

B6

Cabo
Velas A1-5 B1 B3
B9
B2 C2-3 B5 B8
B3-4
B7

Cabo
Punta Guiones Blanco

B Caribbean
plate C1
Panama
block

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 num-
bers 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
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 month-
long undergraduate research project on the southern Nicoya Pen-
insula (Gardner et al., 1999a). This project, referred to hereafter
as the Keck Summer Research Project, involved 12 undergradu-
ate 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 sea-
mounts 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 Geol-
ogy 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 proj-
ect 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
America, and the results from six of the student projects were
published as part of a peer-reviewed research article in the jour-
nal 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 writ-
ing 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 competi-
tive application process. During the spring prior to the field sea-
son, 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 sec-
ond hypothesis was that the local stream networks were respond-
ing to the same deformation mechanism. The third hypothesis was
that oceanic basement rocks in the field area shared a similar tec-
tonic 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 tech-
niques of geomorphology, stratigraphy, structural geology, geo-
chemistry, 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

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.
 Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica 83

Faculty
stipend

$5000
of bedrock incision and knickpoint retreat (Fig. 4C; project A2;

*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.
$0

$0
Table 3). Two students studied structural deformation by collect-

Total project cost includes airfare, ground transportation, lodging, meals, and field supplies for all participants (students, faculty, teaching assistants). These costs do not include
ing kinematic data from faults and folds within Tertiary marine

participant stipends, contract services (e.g., radiometric dating), purchase of major field equipment, or donated equipment, vehicles, and services from host-country institutions.
Student
stipend

sedimentary rocks (Fig. 4A; project A3; Table 3). Two students
$1200

$0

$0
examined uplift patterns through geodetic leveling and disloca-
tion modeling (project A4; Table 3). Finally, two students exam-
ined the origin of oceanic basement rocks through paleomagnetic
% paid by
students

20–40
and petrologic/geochemical studies (project A5; Table 3).

35
0

The logistics of daily fieldwork (Figs. 4A–4F) required care-

ful planning and considerable forward thinking by the project

Total cost per person equals the total project cost for all participants (students, faculty, teaching assistants) divided by the total number of participants.
% paid by

Total cost per student equals the total project cost for all participants (students, faculty, teaching assistants) divided by the total number of students.
director and faculty. The primary field area encompassed two
project

60–80
grant

100

65
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
person
Airfare

$400–
$800
$650

$720

regular use. Each student was required to work with a field part-
per

ner, and each faculty member was in charge of a group of several

students. Field partners were rotated on a daily basis to ensure
Project costs*
TABLE 2. COSTA RICA FIELD PROJECTS: LOGISTICS AND COSTS

lodging and
per student** meals per

that each student had the chance to visit the other students’ study
$60–$80
person
Daily

$30

$45

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 follow-
ing dinner, the group met to discuss that day’s results and to plan
$160–$230
Total daily

**Total daily cost per student equals the total project cost per student divided by the project duration in days.
$100

$190

field logistics for the next day. On some evenings, the faculty gave
cost

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
Total cost
#

$1800–
student

$3200
$2800

$1700

within the field area near Cabo Blanco (Fig. 3). The project
per

director reserved the entire facility, allowing for complete free-

dom of movement and use of public areas. The owner and staff
attended to participant needs and prepared all meals, including
Total cost
§

$1400–
$2000

$2200

$1300
person

sack lunches for the field. This arrangement provided a safe,

per

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 din-
$34,000

$24,000
$4500–
project

$6500

ing area served as an excellent space for office work, group meet-
Total
†
cost

ings, 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
Restaurant
& grocery
Group

Group
B. Independent Field Study Projects (2003–2008)
buffet

buffet

the faculty to anticipate the principal methods and equipment

Meal
plan

necessary to tackle the research problems. The equipment had

to be brought from the United States, purchased in Costa Rica,
A. Keck Summer Research Project (1998)

or borrowed from the host-country institution (Observatorio Vol-

2 per room

1–2 rental 2 per room

4 per room
Ecolodge:

Ecolodge:

Ecolodge:
Lodging

canológico y Sismológico de Costa Rica [OVSICORI-UNA]).

type
Proje ct logistics

C. Field Research Module (2008)

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
2 donated
SUV 4×4:

SUV 4×4:

SUV 4×4:
vehicles

4 rental

4 rental

moving equipment through customs, transporting it to the field

Field

and

site, and purchasing or lending additional required items.

2. Independent Field Study Projects (2003–2008)

Individual

Individual
Air travel

Group
flights

flights

flight

Over the 5 yr between 2003 and 2008, 12 undergraduate stu-

†

§
#

dents from Cal Poly Pomona University, Trinity University, and

 84

TABLE 3. COSTA RICA FIELD PROJECTS: RESEARCH TOPICS, REPORTS, AND PUBLICATIONS
† † §
Costa Rica field projects and student research topics* Student reports Student co-authored publications References
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 a, b, c, e, g, m, n, o, ee
2. Stream incision and knickpoint retreat in response to tectonic uplift 1 N.A. 1 0 1 h, ee
3. Deformation kinematics in folded and faulted marine sedimentary 2 N.A. 2 0 0 d, i
rocks
4. Geodetic leveling and dislocation modeling of tectonic uplift and tilting 1 N.A. 2 0 0 f, k
5. Origin of Nicoya basement terrane: Paleomagnetism and 1 N.A. 2 1 0 j, l, p
geochemistry
#
Total project reports and publications 10 0 12 4 1 See above

B. Independent Field Study Projects (2003–2008)

1. Tectonic uplift and marine terraces of the Cobano surface (2003) 0 1 N.A. 0 [1] ff
2. Tectonic uplift and marine terraces of the Iguanazul surface (2003) [1] 0 N.A. 8 [1] q, r, s, t, u, aa, bb, cc, gg
3. Uplift rate variations between Iguanazul and Cobano surfaces (2005) 1 0 N.A. 7 [1] v, w, y, z, aa, bb, cc, gg
4. Geomorphology and petrology of Holocene beach deposits (2005) [1] 0 N.A. 1 [1] x, gg
5. Uplift and faulting of Cobano surface marine terraces (2005) 0 2 N.A. 0 [1] ff
6. Geomorphology and tectonics of La Mansión alluvial terraces (2007) 0 0 N.A. 5 [1] y, z, aa, bb, cc, gg
7. Uplifted marine terraces of the Carillo-Camaronal surface (2007) 0 0 N.A. 5 [1] y, z, aa, bb, cc, gg
8. Stratigraphy of uplifted marine sandstones and terrace deposits (2007) 0 2 N.A. 0 [1] ff
9. Geomorphology and tectonics of Rio Ora alluvial terraces (2008) [1] 0 N.A. 4 [1] aa, bb, cc, dd, gg
#
Total project reports and publications 4 5 0 14 [2] See above

C. Field Research Module (2008)

1. Volcanic stratigraphy and cross section of the Poás Volcano summit N.A. 14 N.A. 0 0 N.A.
crater
2. Geology and geomorphology of Cobano marine terraces and N.A. 14 N.A. 0 0 N.A.
basement rocks
3. Structural analysis of folded and faulted Cabo Blanco marine N.A. 14 N.A. 0 0 N.A.
sedimentary rocks
#
Total project reports and publications 0 14 0 0 0 See above

*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.
 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 Kehr-
wald (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 (Wash-
ington 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 inde-
pendent 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 combina-
tion 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 contrib-
uted their own funds to cover some costs, such as airfare or food.
Fieldwork for the independent field study projects gener-
ally 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 pre-
sented in senior theses, independent studies reports, and student-
coauthored 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 proj-
ects 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 com-
prehensive 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 else-
where 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 pre-
pared the participants for fieldwork several months in advance,
through individual conversation and group meetings. The stu-
dents 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 reconnais-
sance field trips, designed to familiarize the students and fac-
ulty 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 survey-
ing gear. After returning to the hotel from field reconnaissance,
the group would usually examine aerial photographs under a ste-
reoscope, 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 stu-
dents, 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, baro-
metric altimetry, and hand levels with stadia rods (Fig. 5G).
Other typical field activities included measuring stratigraphic
columns, describing sediments and soils, and collecting sam-
ples 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 through-
out 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) gen-
erating 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 Pen-
insula (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 sum-
mer field camp, majors have the option of taking four two-
unit 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, supple-
mented by student contributions (Table 2).
The focus of the 2008 field research module was the active
tectonics and geomorphology of the Middle America conver-
gent margin in Costa Rica. The group visited two active vol-
canoes 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 Vol-
cano (Fig. 6E), (2) a geologic and geomorphic mapping exer-
cise 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 measure-
ments and recording data and observations in field notebooks
and on topographic maps (Figs. 6A–6E). The faculty and teach-
ing assistants circulated among the students to provide guid-
ance 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, begin-
ning 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 orga-
nized to cover a deliberate set of research topics related to the
course theme and students’ fieldwork. Prior to their presenta-
tions, the students were encouraged to consult with the project
faculty. The students were graded based on their general under-
standing 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 emer-
gent 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 hand-
held 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 com-
pass per team (Fig. 6D). The faculty and teaching assistants
Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica 89

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 North-
ridge) 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 morn-
ing 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.
90 Marshall et al.
spread out along the mapping transect to provide assistance
(Fig. 6B). The students were instructed to record all field loca-
tions 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 rep-
resentative 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 work-
ing 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 tur-
bidite unit exposed at the coast in a level wave-cut tidal plat-
form (Fig. 6C). The students first created a base map on graph
paper by measuring the study site dimensions using GPS. Dur-
ing 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 sum-
marizing 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 Vol-
cano 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 establish-
ments 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 com-
parison 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 proj-
ects used experiential learning as a potent strategy for develop-
ing 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 jour-
nal publications. Like the Keck project, the goal of the indepen-
dent field study projects was to engage students in comprehen-
sive 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 mod-
ule 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 founda-
tion 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 allow-
ing 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 devel-
oped 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 analy-
sis. 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 infor-
mation (e.g., a road cut through a dated marine terrace) and ask-
ing 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 pro-
file 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 inter-
pret the significance of the data they collected. For the field mod-
ule students, this was limited to relatively simple, localized inter-
pretations, 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 faculty-
student mentoring in the field and also facilitated the overall
project structure of students working simultaneously at sepa-
rate 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 dif-
ferent days. This approach, however, involved significant logisti-
cal 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 mentor-
ing 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 com-
mon 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, Inter-
net 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, dis-
cuss 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, discus-
sions 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 sig-
nificantly 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 budget-
ary 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 trans-
porting, 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 inter-
national 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 particu-
lar 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 addi-
tion, travel costs can vary widely depending on the season, travel
days, type of facilities used, and longer-term fluctuations in cur-
rency 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 team-
work 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 under-
graduate research organization like the Keck Geology Consor-
tium (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 proj-
ect 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 arrange-
ments 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 stu-
dents 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 compe-
tition 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 eas-
ier to manage than the other large-group project (Keck Sum-
mer 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 responsibil-
ity 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 fam-
ilies. 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 indi-
cators. These include: (1) student enthusiasm and engagement,
(2) advances in technical and cognitive field skills, (3) produc-
tivity 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 dur-
ing 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 participat-
ing 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 espe-
cially attractive to undergraduate students because of its global
reputation as a premiere destination for ecotourism and adven-
ture travel. The heightened excitement of a study abroad expe-
rience 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 impli-
cations 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, sum-
mer field camps, and other research experiences. This prepara-
tion allowed most of the students to quickly engage in project
activities without need for remedial field training. Less pre-
pared students generally had the opportunity to learn from those
with more experience. The daily intensity of living and work-
ing 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. How-
ever, 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 field-
work (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 man-
agement. The Keck Summer Research Project and independent
field study projects immersed students in a high-intensity inte-
grated 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 plan-
ning and execution of fieldwork, to data analysis and synthesis,
and finally, communication of results through writing, presen-
tations, and publication. The independent field study projects,
93
however, were less influenced by peer competition and required
more self-motivation. These projects provided excellent train-
ing for students headed to graduate school, or seeking project-
level 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 thought-
ful 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 student-
coauthored 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 (Gard-
ner et al., 1999b) was focused on compiling and standardizing
student data for this publication, and for a preliminary poster pre-
sentation at a national conference (Gardner et al., 1999c). Engag-
ing 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 partici-
pated 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 stu-
dent from the Universidad de Costa Rica was conducting field-
work 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 profes-
sional conferences and participated in the preparation and presen-
tation 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 (Mar-
shall 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 ten-
dency of senior thesis students to gain employment before finish-
ing 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 prob-
lem 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 mod-
ule 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 publica-
tions by the project faculty. Over two-thirds (10) of the partici-
pating 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 dem-
onstrated 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 over-
all 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 profes-
sional 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 stud-
ies 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 consult-
ing 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 indepen-
dent 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 opportuni-
ties 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 week-
long 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 proj-
ect 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 plan-
ning, 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 expe-
rience, including post–fieldwork analysis, interpretation, report
writing, and conference presentations. With 12 students, five proj-
ect 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 logisti-
cal planning to integrate all of the research efforts and to manage
rotating teams of field partners and faculty mentors. This proj-
ect 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 fac-
ulty 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 inde-
pendent 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 tai-
lor projects to the specific academic needs and interests of indi-
vidual students. Because these projects involved only a few par-
ticipants (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 strat-
egy for this project differed significantly from the other large-
group (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 stu-
dents 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 engage-
ment and enthusiasm, observed gains in technical and cognitive
field skills, and exceptional productivity of student-authored
95
publications, reports, and presentations. Anecdotal evidence sug-
gests that many students viewed these projects as instrumental
in shaping their professional identity as geoscientists. By plac-
ing students beyond the comfort of their home learning envi-
ronment, 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 fac-
ulty. 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 Consor-
tium “Project Faculty” D. Merritts and E. Beutner, and “Faculty
Sponsors” D. Bice, D. Harbor, T. Harms, E. Leonard, B. Pan-
uska, K. Pogue, and L. Reinen. We thank the field module teach-
ing 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, Uni-
versidad Nacional (OVSICORI-UNA), and the Central Ameri-
can 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, includ-
ing Nature Lodge Finca los Caballos (Cobano), Villas Kalimba
(Playa Sámara), Hotel Giada (Playa Sámara), Hotel Iguanazul
(Playa Junquillal), Hotel Río Tempisque (Nicoya), and Apar-
totel La Sabana (San José). We especially thank Barbara Mac-
Gregor 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 ver-
sion 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 tec-
tonic 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 Geol-
ogy Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consortium,
p. 168–171.
Bolen, M.C., and Martin, P.C., 2005, Undergraduate research abroad: Chal-
lenges 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, Haz-
ards, and Resources: London, Taylor and Francis, 1340 p.
Burgette, R.J., 1999, Rate and style of Holocene uplift in response to sub-
ducting seamounts, Malpaís area, Península de Nicoya, Costa Rica, in
Mendelson, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Sym-
posium 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 sea-
mounts, 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-dimen-
sional 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 vol-
ume, 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 sci-
ence in geology degree as offered in the United States: Journal of Geosci-
ence Education, v. 56, no. 2, p. 113–119.
Elkins, J.T., and Elkins, N.M.L., 2007, Teaching geology in the field: Signifi-
cant geoscience concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geol-
ogy 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 Amer-
ica 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 Pro-
grams, v. 31, no. 7, p. A-386.
Gardner, T.W., Verdonck, D., Pinter, N.M., Slingerland, R., Furlong, K.P., Bul-
lard, 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 Mankie-
wicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium in Geology Proceed-
ings: 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 Mankie-
wicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium in Geology Proceed-
ings: 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., Bur-
ton, E., Cooke, J., Kehrwald, N., Fisher, D., and Sak, P., 2001, Holo-
cene 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 Whit-
meyer, 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 neo-
tectonism along converging plate margins, Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica,
in Morisawa, M., and Hack, J.T., eds., Tectonic Geomorphology: Pro-
ceedings 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 Mankie-
wicz, 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 learn-
ing: Journal of Geological Education, v. 34, no. 3, p. 180–183.
Khaw, F., and Marshall, J.S., 2004, Active tectonics and Quaternary marine ter-
races 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 Learn-
ing 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 Mendel-
son, C.V., and Mankiewicz, C., eds., Twelfth Keck Research Symposium
in Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology Consor-
tium, 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 rough-
ness, 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 cen-
tury: 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 theo-
retical 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., Trench-
Forearc 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 Interdisci-
plinary Journal of Study Abroad, v. 8, p. 41–82.
Manduca, C.A., 1996, The value of undergraduate research experiences: Reflec-
tions 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 Con-
sortium 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 Amer-
ica 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: Geol-
ogy, 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 Col-
lege, 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 Amer-
ica 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, Land-
scape evolution within a retreating volcanic arc, Costa Rica, Central Amer-
ica: 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, Under-
graduate 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 Boundar-
ies—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, north-
ern Costa Rica forearc, in Silver, E., Plank, T., Hoernle, K., Protti, M.,
Alvarado, G., and González, V., eds., National Science Foundation MAR-
GINS Program Workshop to Integrate Subduction Factory and Seismo-
genic 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, Seg-
mented 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., Pies-
trzeniewicz, P., Gardner, T.W., Protti, M., and Spotila, J.A., 2008a, Tec-
tonic 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., Pies-
trzeniewicz, P., Gilbert, R.C., Gardner, T.W., and Protti, J.M., 2008b,
98 Marshall et al.
Tectonic geomorphology and forearc deformation along the Nicoya Pen-
insula seismic gap, Costa Rica, in Gamboa, E., Alvarado, G.E., Denyer,
P., Lücke, D., Mora, R., Bolaños, K., and Arredondo, S., eds., IX Con-
greso 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., Pies-
trzeniewicz, 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 tur-
tle 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 expe-
riences 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 aca-
demic 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 Six-
teenth 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 seismo-
genic 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 Trini-
dad 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 Tec-
tonic 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 Sís-
mico 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 Amer-
ica 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 Geol-
ogy 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 Sym-
posium in Geology Proceedings: Northfield, Minnesota, Keck Geology
Consortium p. 208–211.
Silver, E., and Dixon, T., 2001, Central America seismogenic zone and subduc-
tion 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 associ-
ated 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 Geol-
ogy 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, Ameri-
can 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 cap-
stone 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 geosci-
ence educators are willing to share their specific experiences and logistical informa-
tion from leading trips to other countries, but several general recommendations fol-
low. 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 condi-
tions, 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 in-
country 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
St. Norbert College is a small (~2100 students), liberal at other liberal arts institutions, the geology program at St. Nor-
arts college located in the Green Bay, Wisconsin, metropoli- bert College is limited in terms of basic resources such as space,
tan area. The geology program at St. Norbert College has three budget, and technology. However, student success indicates that
full-time faculty, and graduates two to four geology majors per the core program, which is based strongly on field experiences,
appears to “make up” for many shortcomings in on-campus
*nelson.ham@snc.edu resources. Field-based learning is integrated at all levels in the
Ham, N.R., and Flood, T.P., 2009, International field trips in 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, p. 99–104, doi:
10.1130/2009.2461(09). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

99
100 Ham and Flood

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 experi-
ence 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 curios-
ity 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 partici-
pate in an extended international trip participate in the design
and execution of a mini research project—an important compo-
nent of the international trip experience. The philosophy out-
lined 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 Geol-
ogy, Hydrogeology, Mineralogy, Petrology, Structural Geology,
and Sedimentology and Stratigraphy. A similar across-the-
curriculum 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 curios-
ity 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 instruc-
tion 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 edu-
cation 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 funda-
mental 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 sce-
nic 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 com-
pleted 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 ques-
tions 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 geol-
ogy 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 orga-
nization, and research-project planning take place. The research
component typically lasts well into the following spring semes-
ter 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 interna-
tional trip. Our international trip during January of 2009 was to
the Galapagos Islands, and it was co-run with faculty and stu-
dents from Macalester College of Minnesota.
Benefits of the International Field Trip
The international field-trip experience has been an excit-
ing 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 stu-
dents. The following is a list of the most obvious benefits that
we have realized from these trips.
101
Extended and Focused Time for Refining Field Skills
For some students, the international trip is the first oppor-
tunity 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 regu-
lar 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 pre-
sentation 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 stu-
dent creative works and research is held where presentation of
research projects from the trip is ideal.
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
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 pri-
mary 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 pro-
gram. 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 math-
ematics. Although he was intellectually very capable, he simply
could not appreciate the use of multiple hypotheses for the ori-
gin 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 out-
side of the United States prior to our international trips, and,
remarkably, some have never been on an airplane before attend-
ing 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 environ-
mental and energy problems require international cooperation,
we find it invaluable to instill in students a new-found comfort
when traveling and working abroad.
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 owner-
ship 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 Geologi-
cal Society of America meeting theme session “International
Undergraduate Field Trips: Logistics, Challenges and Suc-
cesses” 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 sig-
nificant diversity of geology and ecology, and very safe travel
conditions. Other schools have also used Costa Rica as a desti-
nation 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 inter-
national field trip is cost, both for the leaders and the partici-
pants. Some geology departments have the luxury of drawing
supplemental funds from endowments or dedicated travel bud-
gets to offset expensive costs. Most schools, however, must
rely on students to pay for most of the cost of a trip, includ-
ing 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 agree-
ment, 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. Addition-
ally, 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 stu-
dents adhere to the institutional behavioral code(s). For exam-
ple, at St. Norbert College, these same codes govern members
of athletic teams at away games. To be clear and to set the cor-
rect tone, we require a signed “behavior contract.” This contract
conveys that the faculty are serious about the behavior of stu-
dents on field trips, defines student responsibilities, and indi-
cates 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 behav-
ior 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 valu-
able. For example, what actions will trip leaders take if a stu-
dent 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 ulti-
mately 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 emergen-
cies in a field situation. By the very nature of our work, geolo-
gists often spend time far removed from health-care profes-
sionals 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 con-
sidered 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 simi-
lar 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 pre-
sented 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 cus-
toms 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-of-
mouth. 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 pro-
gram 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 ques-
tions 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 sig-
nificantly 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 criti-
cal 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 bud-
get, 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 life-
long 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 suc-
cesses: 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: Geo-
logical 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 Amer-
ica 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 Trini-
dad 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

ABSTRACT

Geoscience students often have difficulty interpreting real-world spatial relation-

ships from traditional two-dimensional geologic maps. This can be partly addressed
with direct, tactile field experiences, although three-dimensional (3-D) cognition can
still be hampered by incomplete exposure of all spatial dimensions. Many of these
barriers can be overcome by incorporating computer-based, virtual 3-D visualiza-
tions within undergraduate field-oriented curricula. Digital field equipment is fast
becoming a standard tool in environmental, engineering, and geoscience industries,
in part because of the increased accessibility of ruggedized computers equipped with
global positioning system (GPS) receivers. Handheld computers with geographic
information systems (GIS) software record and display data in real time, which
Whitmeyer, S., Feely, M., De Paor, D., Hennessy, R., Whitmeyer, S., Nicoletti, J., Santangelo, B., Daniels, J., and Rivera, M., 2009, 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, p. 105–115, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(10). For permission to copy, contact editing@
geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

105
106 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 visu-
alizations to enhance 3-D interpretative skills. Students use mobile, handheld com-
puters 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 evalu-
ated 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 revolu-
tionizing 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 (1) understanding and visualizing the 3-D nature of geologic

Fieldwork has been the backbone of geologic investigation
and presentation since William Smith produced the first recog-
nized geologic map of England and Wales (Smith, 1815). Tradi-
tional 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 interpreta-
tions of geology in the vertical dimension by including cross
sections on his map, a style of presentation that became stan-
dard on all geologic maps. More recent illustrative methods that
expand on the basic map and cross-section depiction of geol-
ogy 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 presen-
tation 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 geo-
logic 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 natu-
ral setting. As a result, field-based education is still viewed by
many geoscience educators as a core component in the devel-
opment 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 stu-
dents have three main conceptual difficulties when visualizing
landscape and its geologic influences:
structures and how they intersect topography, which is particu-
larly apparent when students are confronted with geologic fea-
tures 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 geo-
logic 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 geo-
sciences typically make use of appropriate visual displays and
animations to demonstrate geologic structures, processes, and
their interaction with the landscape. New technology has facili-
tated 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 inte-
grated graphics programs, such as ArcGIS® and Adobe Illustra-
tor®, 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 hand-
drawing 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 (com-
puter-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 compo-
nent 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 geo-
science professionals.
In this paper, we advocate a new iterative approach to geo-
logic fieldwork that uses handheld computers to record data and
interpretations in the field. Working field maps and interpreta-
tions are draped over virtual 3-D terrains and continually evalu-
ated throughout the mapping process. Data collection, digital
mapping, and 3-D evaluation occur simultaneously as an itera-
tive process during which working field interpretations are con-
tinuously 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 fea-
tures 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 read-
ily available. Modern GIS software has geology-oriented toolkits
for the preparation of geologic maps and, in many cases, func-
tions 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 hand-
held 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 immedi-
ate 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 advan-
tage 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 research-
ers 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-appropri-
ate GIS software (ArcPAD) that performs many of the impor-
tant 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-penetrat-
ing 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 ter-
rains 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. Rain-
ier. 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 Key-
hole Markup Language (KML), respectively. However, special-
ized display features within Google Earth, such as 3-D strike and
dip symbols and cross sections, still require some external pro-
gramming (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 exer-
cises. The course is based near the Connemara region of western
Ireland, a strategic location that provides easy access to well-
exposed outcrops of highly deformed Dalradian metasedimen-
tary 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 visualiza-
tion component since 2001 (De Paor et al., 2004; Johnston et al.,
2005). We started with an introductory exercise that used hand-
held 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 stu-
dents 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 asso-
ciated 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 Madi-
son 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 mar-
gin 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
Figure 3. Generalized geologic map of the South Mayo and Conne-
mara 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.
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).
of mostly planar, moderately southeast-dipping Silurian sedimen-
tary 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 colli-
sions (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 adjust-
ment (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 Assis-
tants) (NAVMAN®, HP iPAQ®) and Trimble® GeoXMs (2003 and
2005 versions; Fig. 1A). The PDAs were less expensive (approxi-
mately $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 han-
dling 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 coordi-
nates (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 Arc-
GIS. 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 litholo-
gies 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 experi-
ence 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 ear-
lier 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 gener-
ated 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 ele-
ments 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 labora-
tory-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 infor-
mation, 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. Exam-
ples 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 interac-
tive 3-D geologic map of the Knock Kilbride field area with stu-
dent 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 proj-
ect that utilized modern digital methods and equipment.
 Visualization techniques in field geology education: A case study from western Ireland 111

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 high-
resolution aerial photos, students can reevaluate their initial field interpretations to better constrain contacts and
faults across the terrain.
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 litho-
logic 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 research-
ers could evaluate mapped geology against a high-resolution 3-D
topographic base map. This is correlative with the map evalua-
tion 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 nec-
essary 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-reso-
lution 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 map-
ping and visualization exercise indicates a strongly positive
TABLE 1. STUDENT EVALUATION DATA FOR THE DIGITAL MAPPING EXERCISE FROM THE PAST FOUR YEARS OF THE IRELAND FIELD COURSE
2005 (n = 35)
Students with previous full-semester GIS* class 3%
How much did you learn from this exercise? n/a
(1 = nothing, 5 = a lot)
How valuable was the field component? n/a
(1 = not at all, 5 = very)
How valuable was the laboratory component? n/a
(1 = not at all, 5 = very)
% agree
Background knowledge and skills were 85%
appropriate to the level of the course
Content of the course would be of value to my 91%
own research / career path
Would recommend this GIS experience to other 100%
geology students
Note: Note that the evaluation format changed in 2006 (with a year of overlap).
*GIS—geographic information systems.
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 digi-
tal 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 mate-
rial 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 “equal-
opportunity” 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 labo-
ratory 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 geo-
logic 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 geo-
logic 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 dis-
playing geologic maps will enable us to present more complex
and challenging exercises in the future.
2006 (n = 25) 2007 (n = 32) 2008 (n = 29)
21% 44% 41%
4.4 3.4 3.1
4.7 4.0 4.0
4.8 3.7 3.4
% agree
96% n/a n/a
88% n/a n/a
100% n/a n/a
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 construct-
ing 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 tech-
niques. 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 tech-
niques. These advantages often extend beyond improved 3-D
cognition of geologic features to have application to many disci-
plines (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 equip-
ment prices and lack of technological knowledge can still be ini-
tial 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 pro-
cesses 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 visualiza-
tion “firepower” to the student in the natural environment.
Finally, we acknowledge that our “preliminary student feed-
back” 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 transfor-
mative 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 Madi-
son 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. Par-
tial 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 repro-
duced 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 co-
author Daniels, for converting ArcGIS point shapefiles with orienta-
tion 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 attri-
bute 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 “<Placemark>
<name>FID $tess</name>
<visibility>0</visibility>
<Model id=\042model_$tess\042>
<altitudeMode>clampedToGround</altitudeMode>
<Location>
<longitude>${arLONG[$tess]}</longitude>
<latitude>${arLAT[$tess]}</latitude>
<altitude>$ALT</altitude>
</Location>
<Orientation>
<heading>${arSTRIKE[$tess]}</heading>
<tilt>0</tilt>
<roll>–${arDIP[$tess]}</roll>
</Orientation>
<Scale>
<x>$SCALE</x>
<y>$SCALE</y>
<z>$SCALE</z>
</Scale>
<Link><href>./files/$MODEL</href></Link>
</Model>
...”
REFERENCES CITED
Argand, E., 1922, La tectonique de l’Asie, in Congrès Géologique Interna-
tional, 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 geochro-
nology 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 & Geo-
sciences, v. 25, p. 511–522, doi: 10.1016/S0098-3004(98)00156-3.
Dahlstrom, C.D., 1969, Balanced cross sections: Canadian Journal of Earth Sci-
ences, 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 obsoles-
cence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the
future, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geol-
ogy Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geolog-
ical 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 tecton-
ics: 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 Struc-
tural 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, Environ-
mental 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 organiza-
tions 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 digi-
tal 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 lith-
osphere 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 sci-
ence 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 Jer-
sey, 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, Wyoming-
Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations
Map I-730, scale.
McCaffrey, K.J.W., Feely, M., Hennessy, R., and Thompson, J., 2008, Visual-
ization 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 expe-
riences, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geol-
ogy Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geolog-
ical 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 Jer-
sey, Prentice-Hall, 537 p.
Swanson, M.T., and Bampton, M., 2009, this volume, Integrated digital map-
ping 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 sec-
tions 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 Sant-
angelo, 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 Ordo-
vician 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 technolo-
gies 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 Expe-
riences for Undergraduates (REU) Program has developed an integrated system of
digital mapping specifically designed for geologic work that involves satellite and opti-
cal 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 digi-
tal 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 tech-
niques including satellite and optical instruments to address these

Swanson, M.T., and Bampton, M., 2009, Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research: An adventure-based approach to teaching new geospatial technolo-
gies 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, p. 117–133, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(11). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The
Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

117
118 Swanson and Bampton

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 Under-
graduates (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 struc-
ture, 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 collabora-
tive and interdisciplinary nature of contemporary field research.
All reports indicate that this program is a highly valuable edu-
cational experience and contributes significantly to the students’
future careers in science. The need for special training in geospa-
tial 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 out-
crop 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 essen-
tial. However, digital mapping techniques, remote sensing, and
spatial analysis have transformed the earth sciences (e.g., McCaf-
frey 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 collec-
tion, management, processing, storage, and analysis at all levels,
and in both laboratory and field environments, have been revo-
lutionized. This, in turn, has required changes in existing course
design and the introduction of new courses in order to incorpo-
rate the latest technology and techniques into undergraduate edu-
cation (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 map-
ping tools, including the map clipboard, field book, Brun-
ton 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 georefer-
encing 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 proj-
ect. 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, particu-
larly with powerful winter nor’easters, has created these seem-
ingly 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 labo-
ratory courses at USM. Structures in these local outcrops have
been the basis for detailed studies reported in at least a dozen arti-
cles 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 dis-
covery 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 deforma-
tion has been influenced in some way by broadly distributed
right-lateral shearing associated with the late Paleozoic Norum-
Figure 2. Sea kayaks are used to transport gear and personnel
to the island field sites and to provide an adventure-based ex-
perience 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.
119
bega fault and shear zone system (Fig. 3). Late-stage syntectonic
granites have been involved in this regional shearing and devel-
oped 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 map-
ping techniques. These mapped deformed geometries act as kine-
matic indicators and record the strain history of oblique conver-
gence 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 discon-
tinuous 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 delineat-
ing the outcrop strain patterns for syntectonic granite dike intru-
sions 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 conver-
gence 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
The National Science Foundation’s Research Experi-
ences 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 Pro-
gram 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 right-
lateral 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 under-
graduate students each year in the use of traditional and digital
field mapping tools and techniques in a long-term adventure-
based 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 geo-
spatial 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 anal-
yses 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 institu-
tion 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 soft-
ware. 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 sponsor-
ing 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 abil-
ity to offer an effective and challenging multistudent research
experience. Our REU Site Program combines a unique and spec-
tacular field environment with the adventure of using sea kayaks
for island access while students investigate fundamental scien-
tific 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 under-
graduate students from colleges and universities where oppor-
tunities for research experiences are limited. To meet these pro-
gram 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 course-
work 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) rep-
resenting 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 conduct-
ing field research. While we initially used sea kayaks as a logisti-
cal and economic necessity, we quickly discovered unanticipated
benefits to this method of transport to the field sites. Group bond-
ing 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 res-
cues with frequent “all-in” capsize drills stresses the potential life
and death consequences of the everyday logistics of travel associ-
ated 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 dur-
ing 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 chal-
lenge 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 experi-
ence 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 possi-
bly several hundred kilometers of right-lateral, or dextral, strike-
slip displacement. Geological Society of America (GSA) Special
122 Swanson and Bampton
Paper 331, Norumbega Fault System of the Northern Appala-
chians (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 oro-
genic activity. Earlier field studies developed an initial orthogo-
nal-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 duc-
tile 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 (Swan-
son, 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 sym-
metric 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).
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 com-
piling and correlating some combination of lithologic, paleonto-
logic, structural, and stratigraphic observations made at scattered
outcrops, and spatially referencing them to topographic base
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 delin-
eate 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 tra-
ditional 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)
Figure 4. Scale range for typical geologic mapping leaves a gap in
coverage between typical quadrangle-scale mapping and handheld on-
the-outcrop photography. Detailed outcrop surface mapping completes
this scale range and can reveal new, never-before-seen geologic struc-
tures 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 rep-
resentations 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 tripod-
mounted 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 sta-
tion [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 differ-
ent 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 instru-
ments, 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.
Instrument Precision
Instrument precisions used in this report refer to the diam-
eter of multiple same-point position clusters when plotted in GIS
(Fig. 5), which reflect the error in determining coordinate posi-
tions 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
123
BOX 1. TOOLS AND RESOURCES
Digital Instrumentation
Six handheld global positioning system (GPS) receivers—map-
ping-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 Infor-
mation 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.
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 Uni-
versity Web site).
Microsoft Word—word-processing program.
124 Swanson and Bampton
Figure 5. Precision for mapping and survey instrumen-
tation is reported as the diameter of a cluster of mul-
tiple, 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 sta-
tions 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 com-
puters, scanner, printer, and plotter. Supporting software needed
includes ArcGIS 9.2, Excel, Photoshop, Illustrator, Access, Pow-
erPoint, ActiveSync, Trimble GPS Pathfinder Office, Stereoplot,
and Word.
Handheld GPS receivers with 1 m precision are used for col-
lecting 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 fol-
low a signal-emitting prism, making quick work of any survey
task. All of these instruments allow comparatively rapid collec-
tion 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 bro-
ken up into separate columns during file formatting using a text-
to-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 photog-
raphy 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). Struc-
tures within these images can be delineated by on-screen digitiz-
ing, 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 map-
ping-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 avail-
able 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 process-
ing in real time.
The RTK GPS rovers are then used to determine the coor-
dinate positions for the total station tripods and for the reflector
reference objects needed to “establish” the total stations by posi-
tion 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 inte-
grated 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.) pertain-
ing 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, repre-
senting 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 dif-
ferent 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 side-
stepped, 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 map-
ping 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 east-
ing coordinates for this visual datum can be retrieved in Arc-
Map using field laptop computers by pinpointing image fea-
tures 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 pro-
vides 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 “micros-
copy” 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 tech-
niques in ArcMap, zooming in to higher magnifications for accu-
rate interpretation of the observed features.
Digital Analysis Techniques
Digital mapping and survey instruments, digital aerial imag-
ery, and GIS are transforming the mapping process as well as the
analysis of the collected field data.
Orientation analysis. As mapping proceeds, computer stere-
onet plotting programs can be used to display and interpret struc-
tural 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 stere-
onet plots of selected data. GIS symbol palettes allow rapid plot-
ting 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 poly-
gons. These acquired values can be used to make a number
of different strain calculations based on the mapped geomet-
ric 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 geostatis-
tics, 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 con-
sidered 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 spe-
cific spatial relationships such as slope or aspect for topography.
For structural analysis, this allows the user to make spatial varia-
tion 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, analy-
sis, 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 sur-
veyed. Work space folder sizes and total number of files cre-
ated 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 spe-
cific 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 geo-
graphic 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
Figure 10. (A) Increasing number of files generated and (B) increas-
ing 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 spe-
cial 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 dif-
ferent island and coastal field sites from Casco Bay to Muscon-
gus 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
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 student-
assisted premeeting workshop on integrated digital mapping for
the general geologic community.
Student Research
Research topics explored by student participants and pre-
sented 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 compila-
tion and analysis of the collected field data.
Use of digital mapping tools and development of new digi-
tal 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 stud-
ies 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 geo-
logic field problems;
(2) aerial camera-pole techniques for generating outcrop
surface imagery (Verhave et al., 2005; Duwe et al., 2006; May-
hew 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 gener-
ated 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 gran-
ite 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 parti-
tioning into the shear and flattening components of the deforma-
tion; 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 environmen-
tal 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 orien-
tations 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 develop-
ing 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 dex-
tral) layer-parallel shear dominates close to the main fault zone
within inner Casco Bay and in a narrow kilometer-wide zone far-
ther 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 fault-
related 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 mid-
coast 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 tech-
niques 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 map-
ping component, while the highest initial skill level (2.16–2.19)
was estimated for the GIS, software, and abstract/poster com-
ponents 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 low-
est 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 per-
mission for access has been granted. The more significant pub-
licly 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 pro-
duced 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

Prior skill level Post-REU skill level
OUTDOOR 0–5 0–5
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
132 Swanson and Bampton
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 main-
tained by nonprofit organizations charged with the conservation
of these natural areas (Friends of Seguin [Seguin Island]; Booth-
bay Region Land Trust [Damariscove Island], for example).
CONCLUSIONS
Field mapping in the twenty-first century requires an inti-
mate knowledge of the operation, application, and limitations of
a range of new digital resources, computer software, and geospa-
tial 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. Knowl-
edge 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 previ-
ously untapped sources of new precision field data, such as high-
resolution 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-
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 pur-
chase of the field laptop computers. Much appreciation goes to
the many Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) stu-
dent researchers who have contributed their efforts and enthu-
siasm 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
Arnold, T., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M.T., 2007, A 3D approach: Applica-
tion of detailed topography for enhanced visualization: Geological Soci-
ety 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 Bamp-
ton, M., 2005, Digital strain analysis of syntectonic veins and intrusions,
eastern contact of the Waldoboro pluton, Muscongus Bay, Maine: Geo-
logical Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 1, p. 59.
Berry, L., Cooper, J., Weiss, H., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M., 2003, Inte-
grated precision digital mapping techniques for structural geology in
Casco Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Pro-
grams, 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 Soci-
ety 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 batho-
lith, 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, Syn-
tectonic 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: Geo-
logical 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 Educa-
tion, v. 54, p. 143–146.
Hubbard, M., 1999, Norumbega fault zone: Part of an orogen-parallel strike-
slip 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: Vol-
ume 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 Dam-
ariscove 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 Edu-
cation, 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 natu-
ral 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 Incorpo-
ration 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, Digi-
tal 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 Program-
ming: 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: Geologi-
cal 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 Soci-
ety of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 2, p. 25.
Swanson, M.T., 1983, Continuous outcrop mapping within the Mesozoic east-
ern New England dike swarm of southern coastal Maine: Geological Soci-
ety 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 Appala-
chians: 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: Geo-
logical 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-res-
olution 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 mid-
coast 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

ABSTRACT

The incorporation of increasingly multidisciplinary aspects of geoscience curri-

cula into a traditional geology field camp requires compromises. Among these, deci-
sions about projects to reduce or eliminate and course prerequisites are two of the
most challenging. Over the past 10 yr, the University of Missouri’s geology field camp
has completed a two-stage plan to expand our projects in hydrology and geophysics
while maintaining traditional aspects of our course and our standard prerequisites.
The first stage added projects in surface and groundwater hydrology, seismic refrac-
tion, and surficial mapping during the fifth week of our six-week course, replacing
an existing mapping project. The second stage added advanced project options that
students can select to complete during the last week of the course. Advanced projects
in hydrology and geophysics were added as alternatives to the existing hard-rock
structural analysis project that had been the sixth-week project for all students. This
staged addition has allowed us to: (1) integrate these projects into a curriculum that
maintains a strong emphasis on historical bedrock geology, geologic mapping, and
three-dimensional visualization; and (2) accommodate differences in the coursework
that students have completed prior to beginning the field camp. Rather than requiring
students to have prerequisite courses in hydrogeology or geophysics in order to select
these advanced project options, we include sufficient instruction during the fifth and
sixth weeks that builds upon previous projects to provide the required background.
To set up the context for our expanded hydrology and geophysics projects, this
paper briefly describes our traditional field projects and our instructional philoso-
phies. We describe the expanded projects that have been implemented during the fifth
and sixth weeks of our course, project objectives, and the ways that these projects

Bauer, R.L., Siegel, D.I., Sandvol, E.A., and Lautz, L.K., 2009, Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced
project options, 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, p. 135–154, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(12). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological
Society of America. All rights reserved.

135
136 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 under-
graduate geoscience students intensive instruction and field
experience and integrate standard coursework into a field set-
ting. 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 incorpo-
rate 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 pro-
vides 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 chal-
lenge 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 intro-
duced a series of hydrology, aqueous geochemistry, and geophys-
ics 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 proj-
ects 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 con-
siderable 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 hydrol-
ogy. 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 instruc-
tion and projects. The rock section includes exposures ranging
from Precambrian granite-greenstone belts through most of the
Paleozoic (not including Silurian), Mesozoic, and Tertiary strati-
graphic sections (Fig. 2).
The Wind River Mountains were deformed by basement-
involved 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 north-
east, dipping into the adjacent Wind River basin (e.g., Keefer,
1970). Our field station is located near the Precambrian-Paleo-
zoic 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 mar-
gin of the Wind River basin within ~25 km of our camp. These
anticlines fold Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata and trend subparal-
lel 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 137

A 110 W
o o
104 W B
o
45 N

o
41 N

Map Explanation N
Age in millions

CENOZOIC IGNEOUS ROCKS

of years

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 Absaroka Mountains N
Lower Quaternary, Pliocene, and Miocene
Oligocene

Middle Eocene; some Upper Eocene

Lower Eocene
Paleocene
66.4
Wind River basin
W

Mesozoic
ind

Upper Cretaceous
Riverton
Ri

Upper and Lower Cretaceous

ve

Lower Cretaceous; some Jurassic Pinedale

Lander
rM

Jurassic, some Lower Cretaceous Camp Dallas dome

Branson
ou

Triassic Derby dome

245 Wind River
nt

Paleozoic Sheep
ain

Permian and Pennsylvanian; thrust mountain

some Mississippian and Triassic
s

Cambrian, Ordovician, Devonian,

and Mississippian Red
~ 543 IGNEOUS AND METAMORPHIC ROCKS Canyon
Precambrian Major
unconformity
South Pass
1,400 Middle Proterozoic intrusive rocks 100 km greenstone
belt
Early Proterozoic igneous and
metamorphic rocks
2,500
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.
 138

M
M

M
S

M
S
S
P
S
S
M P
S

M P
M P
S M

S S

S
M P

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.
 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 pro-
duced 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 struc-
tural 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 moun-
tain 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, hydrol-
ogy, and geophysics take advantage of these exposed relation-
ships 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 qual-
ity 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 spe-
cialty courses in hydrology, geophysics, or environmental geol-
ogy, and courses that broadly integrate field computers and geo-
graphic 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 gather-
ing and analysis that are associated with the advanced projects.
139
Beyond this general philosophy, we have developed our own phi-
losophies 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 empha-
size 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, exper-
tise, 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’ involve-
ment 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 stu-
dents 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) com-
bined with evening data analysis or report writing in a laboratory
setting using group laptop computers for project completion. Lon-
ger 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 engi-
neers, 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) interpre-
tations of the subsurface from geologic maps (e.g., Groshong,
2006), but it is also common in hydrologic and geophysical inter-
pretations. We discuss techniques for making subsurface inter-
pretations 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 instruc-
tors 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 assis-
tants. 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 well-
exposed 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 back-
ground 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.
Field Mapping
Traditional field geologic mapping continues to be a promi-
nent 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 proj-
ect 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 geolo-
gists, 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 “five-
dimensional” hypothesis testing.
Integrating Technology
We have embraced the use of various technologies to enhance
our data collection, analysis, and report writing for various proj-
ects. 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 net-
worked printers. We also use project-specific equipment and sev-
eral specialty programs in our advanced geophysics, hydrology,
and structural analysis projects.
Nevertheless, we have not attempted to integrate technolo-
gies 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 influ-
enced this decision is the time required to instruct students in
the effective use of these technologies and associated software.
Although most students are already familiar with laptop com-
puters 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 prior-
ity 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).
TRADITIONAL COURSE CURRICULUM—
WEEKS ONE THROUGH FOUR
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 Paleo-
zoic 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 proj-
ects 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 con-
text. 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, tec-
tonic 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 adja-
cent 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 prob-
lems and their relationship to the surface and subsurface geol-
ogy of the area (Table 2). We emphasize the five-dimensional
 Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options 141

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
Week 1

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 Observe Tertiary sedimentary facies Tertiary units and unconformity
and their tectonic implications
Section measurement Learn to measure and describe Sundance & Gypsum Springs
Week 2

sedimentary units, draw section Derby and Dallas domes

Paleocurrent analysis Learn paleocurrent techniques Nugget Sandstone
Mapping folded and faulted Mapping instruction/techniques Dallas Dome–Mesozoic units
sedimentary rocks
Map evaluation Individual group evaluations Camp laboratory

Mapping folded and faulted Learn from the mapping experience, Derby Dome–Mesozoic units
Week 3

sedimentary rocks produce maps and cross sections

Participate in half-day field review of
Review of the map area the area just mapped Derby Dome–Mesozoic units

Field exam Individual test of mapping skills Previously unseen area

Mine reclamation tour Learn how geologists oversee the Atlantic City Mine
Week 4

mine reclamation process

Wyoming geotour (4 d) Show and discuss features of the Teton, Yellowstone Parks, Snake River
geologic history of northwestern Plain, Beartooth Mtns, Absaroka Mtns
Wyoming and adjacent areas

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 orga-
nized 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 hydrol-
ogy, seismic refraction, stream terrace mapping, and structural
analysis in igneous and metamorphic rocks. The first four proj-
ects 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 Phospho-
ria Formation (Permian) and the lower Red Peak Formation of
the Chugwater Group (Triassic). The location includes the con-
fluence of two streams, Red Canyon Creek and Cherry Creek
(Fig. 4), and includes a series of Pleistocene glaciofluvial ter-
races. 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 com-
bined into four “supergroups” made up of three or four of the stu-
dent 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
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 exten-
sive mapping project in the Paleozoic section and a more exten-
sive 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 hydrol-
ogy 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 Wyo-
ming. Most precipitation occurs during the winter, and snow-
melt 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
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
Week 5 (old)

different fault and fold geometries previous map areas—Sheep Mountain

Analysis of deformation fabrics in igneous Learn to map igneous and metamorphic Folded Precambrian gneiss and schist with
and metamorphic rocks rocks, record and analyze deformation fabrics variable deformation fabrics—Sheep
Mountain

Surface-water hydrology Expose students to a broad range of surface- Floodplain of Red Canyon Creek reworking
Groundwater hydrology water and groundwater monitoring techniques the lower part of the Triassic Chugwater
to illustrate surface-groundwater interactions Group

Shallow seismic refraction Introduce shallow seismic techniques and (Same location as above)
Week 5 (new)

their relationship to local stratigraphy and

groundwater

Stream terrace mapping Introduce surficial mapping techniques Red Canyon glaciofluvial terraces

Analysis of deformation fabrics in igneous Learn to record and analyze deformation Folded schist and boudinaged granitic layers
and metamorphic rocks fabrics produced during folding and in the roof area of a granite pluton—South
boudinage Pass greenstone belt

Mapping and structural analysis of folded Learn to map igneous and metamorphic rocks South Pass greenstone belt
Week 6 (old)

and faulted schist intruded by granite and and large-scale folding without stratigraphy. Precambrian amphibolite-facies schist
mafic dikes Record and analyze deformation fabrics as intruded by two igneous units and mafic
an aid to regional deformation geometries dikes
and deformation–metamorphism history

Option 1. Same as the old sixth-week Same as the old sixth-week project Same as the old sixth-week project
project
Week 6 (new)

Option 2. Advanced hydrology Expose students to a variety of “real-world” Varies depending on opportunities in a given
hydrology problems (examples described in year (example locations described in the
the text) text)

Option 3. Advanced geophysics Expose students to a variety of “real-world” Varies depending on opportunities in a
seismic problems (examples described in given year (example locations described in
the text) the text)

creek mixes with groundwater, leading to biogeochemical reac-
tions and mixing relationships down the hydraulic gradient either
in the creek or in the subsurface adjacent to the creek. Different
segments of the creek both receive and lose water to the water
table (Lautz and Siegel, 2006). The Nature Conservancy is inter-
ested in determining whether complex hydraulics associated with
meanders and dams effectively add moisture to the unsaturated
soils of the prairie and thereby increase biodiversity. Our field
projects focus on this local interface between surface water and
groundwater, the hyporheic zone, allowing us to easily expose
our students to both surface and groundwater techniques. In a
broader sense, the hyporheic zone is widely consider to be the
richest and most accessible hydrogeologic setting for multidisci-
plinary 3-D field investigations (Triska et al., 1993; Winter et al.,
1998; Jones et al., 2000).
We began our integrated hydrologic and geophysical stud-
ies in 1999 (Bauer et al., 2003). Subsequently, we have incre-
mentally installed 35 shallow wells using a Geoprobe© and have
added other small amounts of instrumentation, including several
in-stream mini-piezometers and a Parshall flume, to progres-
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 tech-
niques 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 interac-
tion 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 adja-
cent 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 ground-
water–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 143

Red Canyon
project
proj
o ect ar
area
ea Figure 3. Red Canyon viewed to the
northwest from Wyoming Highway 28
Nugget
Nugg
Nu gg Sandstone
gett San
S nds
dsto
tone
one
ne
overlook showing the location of the
Red Canyon project areas in the dis-
tance 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 uplift-
Phosphoria ed Precambrian core of the range. The
Formation C
Chhugwa
ug
gwa
w te
Chugwaterer Gr
G rou
up
Group
flat-lying mesa above the project area is
Red
R
Re Canyon
d Ca
Cany
yon
o CCreek
Cre
rre
eek
ek
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
Parshall flume
Madison Limestone Figure 4. (A) Bedrock geologic map of
Flathead Ss, Gros Ventre Fm, Gallatin Ls, Bighorn Dolomite the Red Canyon area showing the loca-
tion of the Red Canyon project site near
Field Site A the intersection of Red Canyon Creek
and Cherry Creek. The “X” on the
Re

k southeast side of the bedrock map is the

ee
dC

r location from which Figure 3 was pho-

yC
Bar

an

r
er tographed, facing northwest. This point
yo

Ch
rett

is located at 42°36′13″N, 108°35′52″W.

nC
Cre

(B) Map of the Red Canyon field site

re
ek

showing the distribution of wells and

e k

k k instrumentation on The Nature Conser-

ee ee
Cr vancy (TNC) property. Fm—Formation;
Red

Cr
ow ep Ls—Limestone; Ss—Sandstone.
Sn De
Can

X
yon

0 2 4 6 8 kilometers
Cree
k

TNC restoration dam In-stream feature

Wells and piezometers
0 20 40 60 80 Streams
meters
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 profes-
sional settings, get exposure to a variety of field equipment, and
engage in discussion of precision and accuracy of various meth-
ods. 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 measure-
ments of water height are easily converted to stream discharge
in a manner similar to that used by the U.S. Geological Sur-
vey (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
Figure 5. Students measuring stream discharge using the float method (one
type of velocity-area measurement), just downstream of Parshall flume.
electromagnetics for velocity measurements. For dilution gaug-
ing, we purchased an Opti-Sciences GFL-1 Flow-through Field
Fluorometer to continuously measure the concentration of Rho-
damine 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 extract-
ing data from these instruments.
Students measure hydraulic conductivity from slug tests in
the wells, and they use their results, along with hydraulic gra-
dients 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 (Chemet-
rics). 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 sys-
tems we investigate have low concentrations of Na and Cl, for
example, and these can either be neglected as a first approxima-
tion 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 oxidation-
reduction potential of water and how this changes water chemis-
try (Siegel, 2008). We use bivariate plots to distinguish gypsum
dissolution from calcite dissolution.
Geophysics Project
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 seismic-
refraction 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 pro-
gram 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 dur-
ing 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 veloc-
ity model that best fits the data, the students are required to inter-
pret 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 ground-
water 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 his-
tory to glacial episodes in the alpine headwaters to the west of
their Red Canyon Ranch. In order to expand their irrigation sys-
tem, The Nature Conservancy is particularly interested in iden-
tifying 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 mod-
ern 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 his-
tory 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 aban-
doned 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 orienta-
tions of folded bedding, fold hinge lines, axial plane foliations,
and lineations that are all plotted manually on stereographic pro-
jections 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 pro-
jections 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 empha-
size 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 Foun-
dation 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 geophys-
ics 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 transpor-
tation 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 ini-
tial 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 struc-
tural analysis project also use laptop computers and fabric analy-
sis 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 them-
selves. 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 hydrol-
ogy portions of the camp have addressed common problems, but
again, we vary each year’s experience somewhat. Despite proj-
ect 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 proj-
ects involve dynamic geologic systems that allow students to
learn from the changes in the systems from year to year in addi-
tion 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 qual-
ity 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 mid-
afternoon, 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) for-
mat, 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 clar-
ity 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 dur-
ing 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 cou-
pled 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 negli-
gible 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 Environ-
ment,” 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

108°40′W

Dip slopes in Mesozoic

strata dipping off of the
uplifted core of the range
42°44′N

42°44′N
N 25 Irrigation
ditches

0 0.5 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 hydro-
geologic and geochemical data can be used to argue toward dif-
ferent aims. Students must stick to plausible science, and be care-
ful 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), simi-
lar 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 monitor-
ing 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
0 100 m
environmental risk report that they complete.
Figure 7. Air photo of the Lander landfill area showing the axial
Popo Agie River Dye Tracing Test trace of the breached anticline, the location of monitoring wells
The Branson Field Camp is located less than 2 km from (white dots), and the landfill. The center of the landfill is located
Sinks Canyon State Park, next to the raging Middle Fork of the 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 snow-
melt over large boulders and glacial erratics that cover the val-
ley 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 kilo-
meter 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 fluores-
cent 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 com-
plete 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 down-
stream 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 (Opti-
Sciences) (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 dur-
ing 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 sta-
tion, 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 sub-
mitted 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 analy-
sis 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 depend-
ing 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 149

students learn both basic data analysis and seismic survey design
methods as well as the basic theory underlying the data process-
ing and analysis that they complete in the laboratory. In 2008,
the objectives of both of our refraction and reflection seismic
experiments (Dallas dome–Dry Lake and the Riverton landfill,
respectively) overlapped with advanced hydrology projects being
conducted in the same areas. As a result, the interpretation of the
seismic data included both the seismic images processed by the
geophysics students and the results of well data and hydrologic
models used for the hydrology projects.
Data for both the refraction and reflection projects are
acquired using a 32-channel Geometrics Geode data acquisition
system, using 10 Hz geophones and both a hammer and a Betsy
gun (blank shotgun rounds) for the source (Fig. 9). A total station
is used to survey and locate all sources and geophones. During
some phases of the experiments, students are able to use the total
station data to apply elevation corrections in their reflection and
refraction analysis. The general field and data reduction proce-
dures used for our projects are described in Burger (1992) and
Underwood (2007).

Refraction Data Collection and Processing—The Dallas

Dome Site
The seismic-refraction projects over the past several years
have given students the opportunity to learn how to apply seismic
imaging to structural problems of faulting and folding near Dal-
las and Derby domes. The project for 2008 imaged the bedding Figure 9. Setting off the Betsy gun for a seismic-reflection experiment.
in the forelimb of Dallas dome beneath Dry Lake (discussed in
the hydrology section and shown in Fig. 6). The students found
evidence of the small syncline in the subsurface directly below
the lake (Fig. 6). The students also image the water table beneath
Dry Lake, which was observed to dip away from the lake, indi-
cating that the lake was losing water to groundwater.
The Time-Term Method Used to Estimate Refractor Depth.
This method only requires layer assignments for each of the first
break arrivals. It assumes discrete constant velocity layers as
well as a horizontal refractor, which are valid assumptions in our
case. The students divide the refraction arrivals into a three-layer
model by identifying the changes in slopes of the traveltime plots.
We use the software package Plotrefa© to calculate the veloci-
ties for an n-layer model. The students must decide, based upon Figure 10. Time-term inversion for traveltime data collected along the
the observed traveltime, how many layers the data will support. northern shore of Dry Lake. The thickening of sediments is consistent
Next, they use a time-term inversion scheme to improve the data with the existence of a synclinal feature underlying the lake.
fit beyond a simple one-dimensional (flat-layer) velocity model.
The results of the inversion calculations show a top layer that has
a relatively constant layer thickness of ~2 m (Fig. 10). The second
layer has a maximum thickness of ~18 m that pinches out toward affect how we understand folding and faulting in the basin-margin
both ends of the cross section. This pinching out is most likely an folds adjacent to the Wind River Mountains (Fig. 1). Since the
artifact of our acquisition geometry (pinching out at the ends due students have already become very familiar with this geologic
to less coverage) and is not a reliable feature of the model. The setting from their mapping projects on Dallas and Derby domes
boundary between the first and second layers is probably the top (weeks 2 and 3 in Table 1), they can use this background to form
of the water table, while the third layer is probably a distinct litho- a sound interpretation of the resulting velocity model.
logic unit (e.g., Frontier Sandstone). The shape of the model is Tomographic Analysis Used to Model Traveltime Data.
consistent with a synclinal structure. If reliable, these results may Students run several different tomographic models with different
150 Bauer et al.
numbers of iterations and with different smoothing parameters.
This exercise illustrates the trade-off in model smoothness and
the root mean square error for their velocity models. Students
also use the density of raypaths to determine which parts of the
model are reliable and which are not. They find that the thicken-
ing of sediments in the center of the spread, once again, suggests
the existence of a synclinal feature underlying the lake (Fig. 11).
When comparing the different models generated in Plotrefa©
using the different parameters described here, we do not see a
large difference between any of the models. This leads us to think
that the features identified in the upper two layers between 18
and 78 m horizontally (both velocities and boundaries) are reli-
able. However, we have slightly less confidence in the third layer
(due to variations between tomographic models and the lack of
raypath penetration).
Reflection Acquisition and Processing—The Riverton
Landfill Project
The seismic-reflection project in 2008 was conducted in the
Riverton landfill area. There are important questions concerning
the depth of groundwater in the landfill and the possible existence
of a perched aquifer. Students collected a seismic-reflection line
in order to try and image this perched aquifer and possibly the
deeper regional water table.
During the project, the students learn the basics of seismic-
reflection experimental design, data acquisition, and data pro-
cessing. Seismic-reflection data allow geophysicists to image
boundaries where there are changes in the properties of the rocks,
such as rigidity, density, and even water content. Students collect
data using two different types of shooting geometries—a fixed
spread and a rolling spread—so they are able to learn the advan-
tages and disadvantages of different types of experiment design.
Students learn basic seismic processing using Seismic Unix (SU)
and how to filter, mute, and eliminate any bad or dead traces.
They then input the acquisition geometry and sort the data into
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 col-
ored raypaths correspond to different shot points and give the students
a good idea which part of their model is reliable.
common depth point (CDP) gathers. They experiment with dif-
ferent velocity models by applying the normal move-out correc-
tions before stacking the data. Finally, they learn how to convert
their data from two-way traveltime into depth.
After processing the data, the students must interpret the
seismic section using their knowledge of the local geology and
any available well control to try and image the potential perched
water table ~100 ft (~30.5 m) below the surface. An important
aspect of this interpretation is an understanding of the ambiguity
inherent in their data. For instance, deep well control is not avail-
able; the shallowest reflection is just under 100 ft (~30.5 m) deep,
but the deepest well only penetrates to a depth of ~55 ft (~17 m).
The interpretation is also hampered by our limited knowledge
of the local seismic velocity structure. As a result, the students
are expected to discuss both their possible interpretations and the
limits of their interpretations based on the quality and limits of
their data sets.
Despite these limitations, we did obtain a spectacular sub-
surface image of the Wind River Formation (Fig. 12). The image
suggests a remarkably laterally heterogeneous rock unit, which is
consistent with Wind River Formation exposures that the students
examined during the second week of the course (Table 1, Tertiary
unconformity). The reflection profile includes evidence of inter-
layered sandstone and siltstone lenses and possibly river channels
produced during the unroofing of the Wind River Mountains. We
also observe several major discontinuities at 200, 300, and even
700 ft (~61, 91, and 213 m). These boundaries could represent
significant changes in lithology, such as transitions from sand-
stone to claystone, or perhaps even the presence of water. Rec-
ognition of the alternative hypotheses and their relationship to
earlier field observations or to regional tectonic processes that the
students have learned about during previous project is an impor-
tant part of the general learning experience. It helps us reinforce
the importance of the “five dimensional” thinking that we pro-
mote as part of our course.
Evolution of the Advanced Geophysics Projects
Each year our students conduct new seismic experiments
in a region where we only have a vague idea of the subsurface
structure. In areas that are proximal to previous year’s studies,
the students are given the prior years results as background, but
they are expected to independently formulate their own interpre-
tations from the data that they collect. We have used several dif-
ferent software packages to process the seismic data. Currently,
we are using the Plotrefa© suite of programs for the refraction
component and Seismic Unix (SU) for the reflection component.
We expect to eventually process both the reflection and refraction
data using SU.
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 151

Horizontal distance in meters

East West
0 R16
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0
Lenses of sandstone/siltstone?
Possible water-bearing layer
200

400

Depth in meters
600

800

1000

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 map-
ping 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 intro-
ductory course in igneous and metamorphic petrology in addi-
tion 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 peralu-
minous granites, the use of small-scale folds and fabric to map
large-scale fold features, and the use of porphyroblast-fabric rela-
tions 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 intru-
sive 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 distri-
bution of rock units, bedding orientations, and deformation fab-
rics 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 regis-
tered 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 bed-
ding, minor fold hinges, axial plane foliation, and both intersec-
tion 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 sec-
tion, 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 deforma-
tion 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 analy-
sis). 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 for-
mat 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 satis-
faction with our fifth- and sixth-week projects (beyond the proj-
ect 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 sedimen-
tary rock projects. Recall that our sixth-week advance proj-
ects 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 stu-
dents 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 ques-
tion 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 par-
ticipating in each of the three advanced projects. However, the
student response to the question about the importance of envi-
ronmental/hydrology to their field camp choice varied consider-
ably 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 impor-
tant 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 environmen-
tal/hydrology projects as part of their field camp experience.
However, it is clear that the ability to choose advanced proj-
ects 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 avail-
able from a field camp endowment made possible by alumni
contributions. Our computer equipment is subsidized by the Uni-
versity 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 break-
even basis, the university and our endowment provide a signifi-
cant subsidy for our instructional costs. Our expanded curriculum
would not have been possible without these grants and subsidies.
CONCLUSIONS
The two-stage expansion of hydrology and geophysics proj-
ects 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 geol-
ogy. Our careful site selection and emphasis on shallow ground-
water–surface-water interactions has also allowed us to inte-
grate 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 fundamen-
tal instruction and background that allows students to success-
fully 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 con-
tinue to make adjustments to our curriculum, we feel that we are
successfully maintaining our program breadth and providing fun-
damental 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 geophys-
ics projects was provided by National Science Foundation grant
0410493, the College of Arts and Science of the University of
153
Missouri, and alumni contributions to the Department of Geo-
logical Sciences of the University of Missouri. We thank The
Nature Conservancy of Wyoming for allowing us to use their
Red Canyon Ranch properties, and Bob Budd, past manager of
the Red Canyon Ranch, for the excellent background he pro-
vided to our students on the range management and scientific
objectives of The Nature Conservancy’s Red Canyon Ranch
project. We thank Geoprobe Systems and Wesley McCall for
the use of a Geoprobe© unit to construct our well field in Red
Canyon, and James Luepke for many years of service as our
Geoprobe© operator and demonstrator.
Dallas Rhodes, Drew Diefendorf, and Dennis Dahms made
critical contributions to the development of our early fifth-week
projects, which formed the basis for our initial hydrology and
associated geochemistry projects. Dennis continues to provide
expertise in alpine glacial geology and associated stream ter-
race features. We sincerely thank two anonymous referees for
their careful and thorough reviews, which helped to signifi-
cantly improve this paper.
REFERENCES CITED
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: Engle-
wood 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, Colo-
rado: 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 Quantita-
tive 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 Pro-
cesses, 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 map-
ping-based geology field camp: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 47,
p. 124–130.
Mears, B., Jr., 1993, Geomorphic history of Wyoming and high-level ero-
sion 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 Geophys-
ical 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 hydroge-
ologist: August Geotimes, p. 14–15.
Siegel, D.I., 2008, Reductionist hydrogeology: The ten top principles: Hydro-
logical Processes, v. 22, p. 4967–4970, doi: 10.1002/hyp.7139.
Swanson, M.T., and Bampton, M., 2009, this volume, Integrated digital map-
ping 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 Meth-
ods: 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, Visual-
ization techniques in field geology education: A case study from western
Ireland, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geol-
ogy Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geolog-
ical 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 Associa-
tion 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 expe-
riences 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 geo-
physical 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 enthusias-
tic, 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 majors, a required introductory course in field methods, and a

The faculty of the Department of Geology and Geography at
Georgia Southern University (GSU) have maintained an under-
graduate curriculum that includes traditional hard-rock and soft-
rock 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 stu-
dents at a disadvantage. Field-based education is a priority (see
Bishop et al., this volume) in the preparation of Georgia South-
ern 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
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, sedimen-
tary, 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 position-
ing 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

Vance, R.K., Trupe, C.H., and Rich, F.J., 2009, Integrating ground-penetrating radar and traditional stratigraphic study in an undergraduate field methods course, in
Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Spe-
cial Paper 461, p. 155–161, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(13). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All
rights reserved.

155
156 Vance et al.

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 stu-
dents, 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 tech-
niques and equipment, access to this equipment, and the avail-
ability 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 centime-
ter-scale resolution. Some field programs utilize full digital map-
ping approaches in the field; however, we still utilize traditional
approaches with compass and paper maps supported by GPS. Figure 1. Georgia Southern University Field Methods course student
Many Georgia Southern University geology majors are opting with cart-mounted MALÅ ground-penetrating radar system composed
of a 500 MHz shielded antenna, attached control box, Li-ion battery
for a minor in geographic information systems (GIS), and these pack (small black pouch below monitor), and Ramac monitor. The cart
students incorporate GIS in their senior thesis fieldwork. includes an odometer attached to one wheel.
Some geophysical tools can be incorporated into intro-
ductory 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 geotechni-
cal work and stratigraphic investigations. The practical features
and numerous applications of the ground-penetrating radar sys-
tem, 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 expo-
Figure 2. Field Methods course students sledding a MALÅ 100 MHz
sure into a three-dimensional view of the local sedimentary rocks. shielded antenna (control box attached) using a shoulder-carried frame
for monitor and battery. An odometer wheel is attached to the rear of
THE GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR SYSTEM 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 con-
troller-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-trigger-
ing mode is also an option if conditions do not allow direct mea-
surement 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 sys-
tem 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 157

INTEGRATING GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR IN
A FIELD COURSE
Campus Demonstration
We incorporated ground-penetrating radar in our field meth-
ods 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 Meth-
ods 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 meth-
ods was their first upper-level course. The course is generally
composed of two distinct segments: exercises that provide train-
ing 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 sta-
tion surveying, and GPS navigation. These exercises were done
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 posi-
tion of GPR within the electromagnetic spectrum. The relation-
ships among, conductivity, dielectric constant, and wave propa-
gation 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 depart-
ment 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 sub-

surface. This class activity allowed the students to gain direct
practice with the equipment and introduced a practical applica-
tion 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 reflec-
tions 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 cop-
ied 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 interpreta-
tion 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. Figure 4. Location map for the Middleground field
site, Bulloch County, Georgia. The region delin-
Field Site Geology eated by dark shading marks the extent of the Coo-
sawhatchie Formation.
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 geo-
physical 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
Figure 5. Middleground, Georgia, road cut exposure of sand-clay
and their students have measured and described a series of strati- couplets in the Meigs Member of the Miocene Coosawhatchie
graphic profiles at the site, recording characteristics of the units at Formation. Road cut is ~2 m in height.
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 inter-
bedded with clays and contain discontinuous stringers of hema- strata are interpreted to have been deposited at or just below sea
tite-rich sediment. Pebble-bearing horizons are present, as is a level (Rich et al., 2009). The value of this knowledge is consider-
large body of cross-bedded sandstone that lies sublateral to, and able as we prepare students to construct three-dimensional repre-
stratigraphically beneath, the alternating layers of sand and clay. sentations of the strata based upon the electromagnetic response
The road cut is, thus, lithologically heterogeneous, but, just as during their ground-penetrating radar survey.
importantly, the sandstones and their interbedded claystones bear Also worthy of note is the fact that most of the road cut lies
ghost shrimp burrows (form genus Ophiomorpha). Thus, all the 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
upslope of the local shallow groundwater table. Ground-penetrat-
ing 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 con-
ducted 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 Free-
man (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 cor-
rections 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 Fri-
day afternoon and the other half began their project on Saturday
morning. Students were given the UTM coordinates of the out-
crop 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 sec-
tion, correlating outcrop data with the ground-penetrating radar
profiles; and
(4) prepare a report explaining how the outcrop data sup-
ported the ground-penetrating radar profile interpretation.
At the site, the students were introduced to the overall geo-
logic setting of the exposure and began by sketching the entire
159
Figure 6. Field Methods course students working on field descriptions
of the Meigs Member of the Coosawhatchie Formation at the Middle-
ground 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 bed-
ding and joint orientations and description. During the Friday
and Saturday sessions, each team spent time running ground-
penetrating 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 labo-
ratory 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 anno-
tated figures and photos (Figs. 7 and 8). Interpretation of profiles
was generally good; however, this was not translated to well-
marked correlation of specific reflections on most of the ground-
penetrating 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 disconform-
ably 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 differ-
ences 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 vari-
ety 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 tech-
niques they learned.
The incorporation of ground-penetrating radar in an under-
graduate 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 pro-
file 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 sur-
faces 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 sur-
veys 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 com-
pare 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 rea-
sonably priced, and students should get in the habit of photo-
documentation of field features; and
(9) design and administer an evaluation instrument for this
exercise (all major courses are evaluated, but not individual exer-
cises).
The overall experience in this initial effort was posi-
tive 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 spe-
cific 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 deter-
mine changes in interpretation of site geology after integration
of ground-penetrating radar surveys. The use of ground-penetrat-
ing radar in geotechnical work and stratigraphic studies and the
resulting literature continues to expand; consequently, incorpora-
tion 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 intro-
duction of this tool in our field methods course.
SUMMARY
Field methods course students received limited instruc-
tion on theory and basic operation of ground-penetrating radar
systems before hands-on training on campus conducting sur-
veys that demonstrated the effectiveness of the instrument for
locating buried utilities. The campus exercise also demon-
strated 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 stra-
tigraphy 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 train-
ing 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 dia-
grams, and that will enhance the development of 3-D visualiza-
tion 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 pen-
etrating 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 interpreta-
tion 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 Sec-
tion, 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 South-
ern University: Historical perspectives and modern approaches, in Whit-
meyer, 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 Sedi-
ments: 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 Forma-
tion (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 expe-
riences 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 culmi-
nating presentation of research results at the annual spring symposium. The Keck experi-
ence 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 proj-
ect 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 under-
graduates. Twenty-two of these new faculty are women, indicating remarkable success in
attracting women to and retaining women in academic geoscience careers.

de Wet, A., Manduca, C., Wobus, R.A., and Bettison-Varga, L., 2009, 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 Spe-
cial Paper 461, p. 163–172, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(14). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All
rights reserved.

163
164 de Wet et al.
INTRODUCTION
The Keck Geology Consortium was started in 1987 by a
group of ten colleges including Amherst, Beloit, Carleton, Colo-
rado, Franklin and Marshall, Pomona, Smith, Whitman, Wil-
liams, and The College of Wooster. Funding was provided by the
W.M. Keck Foundation, hence the name of the consortium. Trin-
ity 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 fac-
ulty 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 proj-
ects in 1987–1988 covered carbonate sedimentology (Bahamas),
volcanology (Colorado), and paleohydrology and clastic sedi-
mentology (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.
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 wel-
come. 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 repre-
sentatives 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 dur-
ing the Geological Society of American (GSA) Annual Meeting
each fall.
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 Other presentations
proceedings - keckgeology.org: summer and publications
Figure 1. The basic components of the Keck Geology Consortium.
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, geographi-
cal 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 Under-
graduate Research (CUR), and Northeast Environmental Stud-
ies 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. Stu-
dent 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 insti-
tution 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 pres-
ent 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 per-
formance), 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 com-
pleting their research during the academic year as a senior inde-
pendent 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 proj-
ects, 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 proj-
ects 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 pedagogi-
cal 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 stu-
dent field-related expenses, and often for analytical data collec-
tion, is assured.
The field phase is not just data collection; invariably, friend-
ships 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 experi-
ences help integrate the students into a strong research group.
Project faculty employ a number of strategies to engage the stu-
dents; 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 part-
nerships. 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 labora-
tory work may only involve sample preparation, such as cutting
166 de Wet et al.
rock chips for thin sections, while the actual observations or ana-
lytical 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 inde-
pendent 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 Undergradu-
ates (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 pro-
gram levels. Research plans and deadlines developed by the proj-
ect directors are in keeping with the project’s overall objectives.
In many cases, the student’s project is tailored to the exper-
tise and analytical resources available at the student’s home insti-
tution. 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 sci-
entific 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 labora-
tory work at one institution, or a collaborating research labora-
tory, 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 illus-
trations 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 pro-
duction 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 dis-
tribution 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 pro-
cess 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 Con-
sortium 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 pro-
viding an opportunity for social and scientific interactions lead-
ing 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 pre-
sentation 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 Sym-
posium 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 167

all act to stimulate the sense of programmatic belonging that is 90

so valuable to all participants. It is at the symposium that faculty % Non-U.S. projects

80
meet to discuss future collaborations and develop project ideas.
Interaction among all project faculty and sponsors at the sym- 70

posium is responsible for the strong interconnection among the 60

faculty, and it is a vehicle for including faculty from other schools

% per year
in the geoscience community. They learn about us as we learn 50

about them, to the benefit of future projects. 40

Breadth and Depth in Research Projects 30

20
The consortium strives to provide a wide variety of projects
from which students can choose, ranging from traditional sub- 10

disciplines such as igneous and metamorphic petrology, volca- 0

nology, structural geology, sedimentology, and paleontology, to 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
interdisciplinary studies such as climatology, geoarchaeology, Year
and environmental geology. In some cases, when the overall Figure 2. Percentage of projects based outside the United States and
theme of a project is not interdisciplinary, the individual student its territories.
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
Keck Emergency
on metamorphic petrology, 11 on volcanology, 10 on igneous Response Team
Keck Office:
petrology, 10 on structural geology, 9 on glacial/Quaternary geol-
ogy, 8 on environmental geology, 8 on tectonics, 7 on geophysics, Keck director
Keck administrative assistant Keck Executive Committee
6 on carbonate sedimentology, 6 on geomorphology, 5 have been (3 faculty from Keck
interdisciplinary, 5 have focused on hydrology, 4 on sedimentol- member institutions)

ogy, 4 on experimental petrology, 4 on climate, 4 on paleontol-

ogy/sedimentology, 2 on planetary geology, 2 on soils, 2 on geo-
Keck Member Keck nonmember
archaeology, 1 on remote sensing, 1 on GIS, and 1 on mineralogy. Institutions (18) institutions
The remaining projects were broadly interdisciplinary.
Over the years, there has been a slight shift toward interdisci- Keck Keck Projects: Project faculty
representatives 5-8 per year
plinary and environmental projects, reflecting the changing inter- council - 18 members: Project students
Project director
ests of the participating faculty and students. However, it remains (1 faculty from each
member institution) Project faculty Student
an important goal of the consortium to continue to offer research research advisors
opportunities in a wide variety of subdisciplines of the geosciences. Meets twice a year: Project students
Of the 137 Keck projects since 1987, 128 have been com- Spring - Symposium
Student
Fall - Annual GSA
pletely or largely field-based projects, and nine have been lab- research advisors
Other collaborators
oratory-based projects (experimental petrology, remote sensing,
planetary geology, and GIS). Ninety-nine projects have been Figure 3. The Keck Geology Consortium administrative structure.
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 untary, part-time position held initially by Bill Fox at Williams
countries have included Australia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Domini- and then by Hank Woodard at Beloit. Considerable logistical
can Republic, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Mexico, support was provided by their respective departmental adminis-
Spain, and Switzerland. Domestic and overseas projects follow trative assistants. As the complexity of running the consortium
the same general structure and have the same oversight. increased, the demands on the director increased, and full- or
part-time directors were hired who were not teaching faculty. In
KECK ADMINISTRATION 2004, as a cost-cutting measure, the consortium returned to the
original model of having a faculty member at one of the consor-
Program Administration and Funding tium institutions direct the program. The consortium director is
now a one-third time position, with a part-time administrative
Since its inception, the consortium has been led by a coor- assistant, both of which are funded by contributions from the
dinator or director (Fig. 3). Until 1996, this position was a vol- 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 execu-
tive committee (three faculty members with substantial experi-
ence in directing consortium projects) and a group of representa-
tives, 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) meet-
ing 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 bud-
gets 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 subse-
quent 5 yr. Since then, funding has been obtained from a variety
of sources, including the Keck member institutions, NSF, Exxon-
Mobil Foundation, and the National Geographic Society. Pres-
ently, ~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 institu-
tion and of the institution housing the Keck office and direc-
tor. 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 prob-
lems 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 emer-
gency 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, satel-
lite 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 exten-
sive 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 fac-
ulty 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 con-
tinually improve the program. The Keck office maintains basic
statistics about the projects and the faculty and student partici-
pants, 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 partici-
pants 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 consor-
tium 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 prep-
aration 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 pri-
mary 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. Twenty-
two years later, this basic program design is still in place.
Perhaps the greatest strength of the Keck Consortium expe-
rience is that students work in collaborative research groups
directly with faculty who have dedicated their lives to the syn-
ergy of research and teaching that permeates the undergradu-
ate 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 undergradu-
ate research (Manduca, 1996; Knapp et al., 2006). Although the
consortium is primarily a research-oriented entity, collabora-
tions, camaraderie, further education, and mentoring have invari-
ably become integral aspects of the consortium’s philosophy. The
Keck Consortium is not prescriptive in its approach to student-
faculty 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 experi-
ence, 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 stu-
dents at the member institutions and beyond relish the opportu-
nity 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 dis-
tinct 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 tradi-
tional field camp is desirable before a student starts a Keck proj-
ect, 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 proj-
ect 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 ongo-
ing 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 appli-
cations, remote sensing, teaching geomorphology, and teaching
paleontology. Many of these topics are being perpetuated by the
NSF-sponsored “On the Cutting Edge” workshops today. Fund-
ing challenges have meant that workshops can no longer be sup-
ported by the consortium. Given the widespread enthusiasm, par-
ticularly for the research workshops, reinstating these workshops
should be a priority for the consortium.
RESULTS
To date, the consortium has supported 1094 undergradu-
ate 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, uni-
versities, 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
90
Faculty
80 Students
Projects
70
Number per year
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
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 geo-
science 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 par-
ticipation, including the development of 6 wk projects for sopho-
mores. 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 pos-
sible 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 col-
leagues, and new discussion to enter the consortium faculty
community. Similarly, drawing students from a broader com-
munity would enrich the student cohort while expanding the
opportunities for motivated students to participate in research
de Wet et al.
80
% Female faculty
% Female students
70
% Female BA degrees (all U.S.)
60
50
%
40
30
20
10
2010
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 bac-
calaureate 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 reward-
ing 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% non-
Keck student participation as required by the NSF REU 0648782
grant for 2007–2010. In 2007, 28% of students were from 13 non-
Keck 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 Spe-
cial 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, consult-
ing, 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
40
% per year
30
20
10
0 dominant reason for the success of these students in pursuing an
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 (vis-
iting, tenure-track, and tenured) as a career. This information is
instructive in evaluating claims that high-quality research expe-
riences 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 proj-
ects 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, tenure-
track, and tenured) in U.S. colleges and universities. This repre-
sents a yield of ~6%. When only junior projects are considered
(42 out of 44 Keck alums in academia completed a junior proj-
ect, 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 bach-
elor’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. gradu-
ates 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. Accord-
ing to the National Science Board (2008), 26% of all geosci-
ence 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 fac-
ulty 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
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 pro-
ducing 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 ulti-
mately for entering academia, is not unreasonable to suggest that
the Keck experience positively impacted these students. As par-
ticipation in the consortium expands to many non-Keck institu-
tions, it will be informative to see if the success of the program
can be duplicated.
FUTURE CHALLENGES
Despite past successes, the consortium faces numerous chal-
lenges. One of the biggest challenges is maintaining the integrity
of the program while expanding participation to non-Keck stu-
dents 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 consor-
tium and actively mentor their junior faculty. Students and fac-
ulty 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 consor-
tium 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 sev-
eral years, the consortium ran sophomore projects that specifi-
cally targeted students from underrepresented groups. This fund-
ing 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. Par-
ticipation 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 retain-
ing 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: Geo-
science Currents, v. 9, 1 p.
Baker, M.A., 2006, Status Report on Geoscience Summer Field Camps: Ameri-
can 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, Precam-
brian 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: Syner-
gies 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: Assess-
ing 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: Reflec-
tions 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 Geo-
logical 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 under-
graduate 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. Mountain-
top camps across the Juneau Icefield provide essential shelter and facilitate the pro-
gram’s instructional aim to enable direct observations by students of active glacier sur-
face 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 com-
ponents of the program’s instructional philosophy. Students receive on-glacier train-
ing 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 mul-
tiple 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 Program (JIRP) has created a singular summer field experience

founded on Emerson’s educational doctrine (Fig. 1). Southeast
Ralph Waldo Emerson believed in “the education of the Alaska’s maritime rain forest and Coast Range Mountains pro-
scholar by nature, by books, and by action” (Emerson, 1837). He vide the extraordinary glacier laboratory that has guided the
was probably the first North American philosopher to advocate program’s founder and director, Maynard M. Miller, with his
for the education of students using a pedagogy with emphasis application of Emerson’s philosophy by “bringing the students
on direct student involvement and experience relative to biblio- into nature” (Miller, 1994, personal commun.). Each summer,
mania. Over the last half century, the Juneau Icefield Research JIRP students travel to Juneau, Alaska, and receive an extensive,
Connor, C., 2009, Field glaciology and earth systems science: The Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP), 1946–2008, 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, p. 173–184, doi:
10.1130/2009.2461(15). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

173
174 Connor
on-site synthesis of Alaska’s coastal geology, glaciology, clima-
tology, geomorphology, ecology, meteorology, hydrology, geo-
physics, 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 southeast-
ern Alaska and northwestern British Columbia (Fig. 2). Students
are required to develop a research experiment and the data collec-
tion 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 work-
ing 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 Arc-
tic 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
Figure 1. The Juneau Icefield Research
Program’s pedagogy is based on Ralph
Waldo Emerson’s (1837) Philosophy.
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 stud-
ies of Taku Glacier’s mass balance (Heusser, 2007). The “Proj-
ect 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 Gla-
cier also investigated icefield-wide glacier processes, the relation-
ships 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 semi-
nal 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) sum-
mer 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 undergrad-
uates 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 Univer-
sity Alaska Southeast (UAS) began offering National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA)–Alaska Space Grant Scholar-
ships 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
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 loca-
tions, 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 gla-
ciers 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 universi-
ties, range widely in their athletic abilities, and include ski rac-
ers, rock climbers, studio dancers, hockey players, tractor drivers,
and kite fliers (useful skills for deploying low-budget, remote-
sensing instruments on ice). Many students apply their 3–9 sum-
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 avail-
ability. 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
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 McClel-
land, 2000) and observe its record in local metamorphic and plu-
tonic bedrock outcrops and in the area’s extensive gold miner-
alization. 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 land-
scape. They observe the coastal geomorphic evidence for sea-
level 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 pro-
gram’s important links with the Juneau community. This commu-
nity 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 diver-
sity. 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 177

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
33 2002 Liam Cover U. of Alaska Southeast Environmental Science
34 2002 Ryan Cross U. of Alaska Fairbanks Geology
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
§
38 2001 Evan Mankoff SUNY Oneonta, New York Geology/Geomorphology
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
45 1999 Matthew Beedle Montana State University Physical Geography
46 1999 Julian Deiss U. of Alaska Southeast Environmental Science
47 1999 Hiram Henry Western Washington U. Geology
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
57 1996 Shad O’Neel 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
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 nuna-
taks, students begin to make the links between longer-term cli-
mate and landscape development over geologic time scales that
are relatively recent (Herbert, 2006). This physically challeng-
ing 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 informa-
tion 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 skill-
ful at running diesel generators, ColemanTM lanterns, gas cooking
stoves, creating walk-in freezers in snow banks, and safely load-
ing 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 identifica-
tion of crevasse types. After much glacier and camp safety train-
ing, students are assessed as “ice-safe” by ever-watchful JIRP
staff safety trainers. They are next able to begin glacier mass-
balance data collection through the digging of surface snow pits.
Snow stratigraphy, structure, and density are measured in snow-
pit 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 pro-
vides 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 iso-
lated 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 forma-
tion 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 plas-
tically 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 stu-
dents through in-camp lectures and also through the guided col-
lection of data and its interpretation. JIRP faculty cumulatively
expose students to published research data in glacier mass bal-
ance, ice physics and ice velocity, ice thickness, nunatak struc-
tural 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 lec-
ture 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 bound-
ary 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 gla-
cier survival, and, most importantly, from the cohort bonding
resulting from their shared understanding of the processes oper-
ating 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.
JIRP STUDENT PROJECT OUTCOMES
Adding Value to the Climate Research Community
Spanning the 50 yr between the International Geophysi-
cal Year (IGY) 1957–1958 through the International Polar Year
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 Antarc-
tica. 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-grow-
ing 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) rel-
ative 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-bal-
ance 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 devel-
ops 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 pro-
vided ground-truth data for remote-sensing imagery by exam-
ining the relationships among snowpack, surface geochemis-
try, 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, Uni-
versity of Georgia) and identified the cryobiologic elements liv-
ing 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 kilome-
ters implementing global positioning system (GPS) surveys
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 thick-
ness 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 Insti-
tute, 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), Ameri-
can 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 sec-
tion (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 environ-
mental law; carrying out oceanographic research; working over-
seas 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; interpret-
ing 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 scholar-
ships 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 Oper-
ations 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 Mea-
surement 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 Gla-
cier (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 envi-
ronmental 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 Har-
rison, 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 engi-
neer with University NAVSTAR Consortium (UNAVCO), assist-
ing in NSF-funded glacier research projects in Antarctica, Alaska,
 Field glaciology and earth systems science: The Juneau Icefield Research Program 181

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 Colum-
bia Glacier in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Shad’s JIRP training
paid off when, from 2004 to 2005, he was in charge of field logis-
tics for the Columbia Glacier seismic project, including schedul-
ing helicopter, organizing all personnel, supplies, and instrumenta-
tion, 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 cur-
rently 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 affili-
ated with the Glaciological Group at the Geophysical Institute at
University Alaska–Fairbanks.
Figure 4. (A) 2008 Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP) student
and NASA Alaska Space Grant Awardee Nicholas Chamberlain of
Erin Whitney: JIRP (1996)–Researcher, National Appalachia State University pictured at the Herbert Glacier terminus
Renewable Energy Laboratory (2008) (photo by Connor). (B) JIRP 1996 student Shad O’Neel deploys an ice
velocity survey tetrad on LeConte Glacier near Petersburg, Alaska, in
A graduate of Service High School in Anchorage, Alaskan 1999 (photo by Connor).
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 radi-
cals, 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 nanostruc-
tured materials for the storage of hydrogen in next-generation
Figure 5. (A) 1996 Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP) student Erin
automobiles, as well as the development of new electrodes for Whitney poses in front of the JIRP program’s first Camp 17 building,
lithium-ion batteries. This work will lead to solutions to our global the 1954-vintage Jamesway, before skiing about 25 miles from Lemon
fossil-fuel dependency and its consequences. 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).
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 Uni-
versity 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
(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 observa-
tions 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 Amer-
ica. 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 West-
ern 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 sum-
mers of 2000 and 2001 as a senior staff member and teach-
ing assistant. During the winter of 2000, he worked in Antarc-
tica. 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)
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).
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 pro-
posed Juneau access road corridor in northeastern Lynn Canal,
bordering the western edge of the Juneau Icefield (Golder Asso-
ciates, 2006). Henry has since returned to Juneau to work on
bridge engineering with the Alaska State Department of Trans-
portation 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 geo-
physics, 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 expe-
dition. The success of the program can be partially measured by
the scholarly work of its alumni and by their career pathways.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
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 possi-
ble. Thanks also go to Dave Mogk and Steve Whitmeyer for orga-
nizing 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 Insti-
tute, 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 mor-
phology from seismic depth profiles of the Taku Glacier, Juneau Icefield,
Alaska: Program with Abstracts: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysi-
cal 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., Riihi-
maki, C.A., Waddington, E.D., and Loso, M.G., 2004, Strong feedbacks
between hydrology and sliding of a small alpine glacier: Journal of Geo-
physical 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 ris-
ing sea level: Science, v. 297, p. 382–386, doi: 10.1126/science.1072497.
Bass, P., 2007, Nunataks and Island Biogeography in the Alaska-Canada Bound-
ary 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 Cen-
ter 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 lake-
calving 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 geosci-
ence 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 Ber-
ing 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: Geo-
graphical 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 Anniver-
sary 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 tem-
perate glaciers [M.S. thesis]: Portland, Portland State University.
Henry, H.M., and Hulbe, C., 2005, The role of firn pack in melt season drain-
age from temperate glaciers: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical
Union), v. 86, p. 52.
Herbert, B.E., 2006, Student understanding of complex earth systems, in Man-
duca, 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 retrospec-
tive, 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 Com-
panion: 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 vis-
coelastic 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 dur-
ing 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] Open-
File Reports, http://crevassezone.org/).
Meier, M.F., Dyurgerov, M.B., Rick, U.K., O’Neel, S., Pfeffer, W.T., Ander-
son, 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 southeast-
ern 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]: Cam-
bridge, 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 Alaska-
Canada 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: Jour-
nal of Glaciology, v. 4, p. 666–667.
Miller, M.M., 1964, Glaciology and geology of the Mount Everest region, cen-
tral 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 Stra-
tigraphy of North America: New York, John Wiley and Sons, p. 492–563.
Miller, M.M., 1985, Recent climate variations, their causes and Neogene per-
spectives, in Smiley, C.J., ed., Late Cenozoic History of the Pacific North-
west: 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 Wil-
liams, 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, Ice-
thickness 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 Gla-
ciology, 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 Geo-
physical 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 gla-
cier 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 ampli-
tude 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 Measure-
ments 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 Moun-
tains, 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 spectros-
copy 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 pro-
vide 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 meander-
ing 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, synthe-
sis, 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 to our studies but, in one case, for an even longer period of time.
Long-term studies are not solely the domain of geology. Field-
The use of long-term data sets to elucidate slow natural based ecological studies are typically long standing, such as the
processes is not unique to us in either type or length of project. various Long-Term Ecological Research sites (e.g., Greenland
Our limestone weathering cubes project was the result of the et al., 2003) and the well-known Hubbard Brook study in New
convergence of ideas derived from two experiments: one from Hampshire (Likens and Bormann, 1995).
the long-term erosion of Plexiglas rods and cubes by wind in the Long-term projects with field components that involve under-
Coachella Valley, California (Sharp, 1964), and another from the graduate students in data acquisition and analysis, however, can be
study of tombstone weathering in New England (Rahn, 1971). a valuable part of a geoscience education. Like many geoscience
More recently, studies by Godfrey et al. (2008) and Matsukura programs, the Dickinson College curriculum is built around a core
et al. (2007) have examined geomorphological processes similar of field-based experiences. A key factor that makes the Dickinson
curriculum unique is that some of these experiences involve local
*retired site studies and data collection over decadal time scales to solve
Potter, N., Jr., Niemitz, J.W., and Sak, P.B., 2009, Long-term field-based studies in geoscience teaching, 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, p. 185–194, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(16).
For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

185
186 Potter et al.
real-world problems, and thus they foster a sense of research lit-
eracy 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 proj-
ects. 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 natu-
ral 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. Stu-
dents 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
0 5 10
77°30′W
expansion by integrating other long-term data sets into the exist-
ing 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 proj-
ects 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 continu-
ing, 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 sed-
imentology and stratigraphy courses. The Yellow Breeches Creek
Project produced a data set of discharge and suspended and dis-
solved sediment data collected over a 10 yr period from 1993 to
2003. These data are used in introductory geology, geomorphol-
ogy, 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 fre-
quent 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 depart-
ment 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, Pennsyl-
vania (Fig. 1). At normal flow, the stream is only ~10 cm deep
77°W
Figure 1. Map of the Conodoquinet
Creek and Yellow Breeches Creek Wa-
tersheds 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);
40°N northern open dot—Meanders Project
20 study site; southern open dot—Yellow
km
Breeches Watershed sampling site.
77°W
 Long-term field-based studies in geoscience teaching 187

and 30–40 cm wide, but it rises to nearly 1 m deep at bankfull 0.2

after heavy rain. These profiles were not resurveyed until 1979. A
The second survey demonstrated that the meanders were actively
migrating. Over the past 34 yr, we have reoccupied the profile
0
lines 15 times. We have been fortunate to have the same landown-
ers 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

Elevation (m)
-0.2
with steel rebar or pins driven flush with the ground. We estab-
lished a level line with a transit and used a tape to measure hori-
zontal distance and a surveying rod for vertical measurement.
One of the pins became the reference for all future surveys. Since -0.4

the earliest surveys, this project has involved collecting data in the
field, generating topographic profiles, and interpreting the tem-
poral changes between surveys. The mechanics of generating the
-0.6
topographic profiles has become less tedious with the advent of
computers, leaving more time for data analysis and interpretation. 1974 1994
In-depth data interpretation ensures the integrity of the 1979 2004
1985 2008
growing data set while simultaneously providing an opportu- -0.8
6 8 10 12 14
nity to trouble-shoot problem measurements. By examining
data collected in previous years, students recognize little to no Distance (m)
change in elevation at the ends of the profiles on the floodplain
0.2
(Fig. 2). When the students superimpose their data on the recent
Elevation (m)

surveys they are typically surprised by the general agreement 0

in profile shape. However, it is not uncommon for problems to -0.2

become apparent. Typically, these errors fall into three catego- -0.4
ries: (1) transposing numbers when entering the data into the -0.6 1974
spreadsheet, (2) nonsystematic errors within the data set and,
-0.8
B 2008

(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 dif-
ficult 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 survey-
ing 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 par-
ticularly 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 typi-
cally 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.
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 pro-
files 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 tripod-
mounted 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 im-
age. 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 recom-
mendation 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; All-
mendinger et al., 2005).
WEATHERING CUBES
In 1989, we revised the laboratory exercises for our intro-
ductory physical geology course by including a three-labora-
tory landscape development module. Each of these laboratory
exercises emphasized the scientific method, including quantita-
tive 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 differen-
tial 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 col-
lected 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 esti-
mate 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 sug-
gests 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 val-
ley 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 cli-
mate. 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 experi-
ments 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 kinet-
ics 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 car-
bonate terrain in comparison with rates measured in other ter-
rains (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, Pennsyl-
vania (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 measure-
ments of discharge and ~720 water samples had been obtained
(Fig. 6). The water samples were used to determine total sus-
pended 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. Geochemi-
cal 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 denu-
dation 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 dis-
solved load denudation rate compares favorably with the bare-
rock 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 accu-
mulations. 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 steady-
state 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 there-
fore 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 rain-
fall 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 sophis-
tication. 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 ter-
rain, 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 stu-
dents 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, par-
ticularly 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 Wa-
tershed (YBCW) discharge and stream chemistry as total carbonate
rock–sourced elements (Ca2+, Mg2+) and silicate rock–sourced ele-
ments (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 re-
sponses. 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 inter-
vals (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 evi-
dence. 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 push-
ing 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, reconstruct-
ing 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 dif-
ferently. The environmental geology class is mainly populated
by environmental studies majors who do not have the opportu-
nity 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, includ-
ing Cl– and SO42– and those mentioned earlier, are collected at
several locations along the stream’s reach covering forested, agri-
cultural, and urban-industrial land use. The data from this one-
day 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 (ground-
water 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 instrumenta-
tion 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 sandstone-
metavolcanic 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 neces-
sary 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 inter-
vals. The water-level monitors and rain gauges we use are rela-
tively 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 still-
ing 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 proj-
ect have become starting points for senior independent research.
Two examples directly involve the original long-term stream dis-
charge 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 prac-
tices 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 aban-
doned, 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 appor-
tioned 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 collec-
tion 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 down-
stream during the 10 yr study are being used to determine tempo-
ral 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 indic-
ative 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 ground-
water 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 certifica-
tion 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 purg-
ing 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 ground-
water chemistry measurements, we are documenting chemical
transformations within soil types associated with three different
rock types within the farm boundaries as they undergo weather-
ing 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 pro-
cesses 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 Proj-
ect may extend beyond a given faculty member’s career, pro-
vided 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 gradu-
ally 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 regu-
lar measurement of the erosion rods (Figs. 2 and 3), students
found that the rates of erosion of the cutbank accelerate dur-
ing 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 chan-
nel 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 depo-
sition 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 proj-
ect 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 pri-
mary learning outcomes is an increased level of critical think-
ing. 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 long-
term 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 sophisti-
cated 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 measure-
ment 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 long-
term 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 assess-
ment we now do before and after the course within the introduc-
tory 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 under-
standing 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 mea-
sure 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 pro-
file 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 fail-
ure 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 water-
level 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 Eng-
lish 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 stu-
dents 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 Mean-
ders 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, east-
ern 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 Ecosys-
tem (2nd edition): New York, Springer-Verlag, 159 p.
Matsukura, Y., Hattanji, T., Oguchi, C.T., and Hirose, T., 2007, Ten year mea-
surements 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 denu-
dation rate: A 12-year record of limestone weathering in Carlisle, Penn-
sylvania, 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 topogra-
phy 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 Amer-
ica 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 dem-
onstrated 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 geo-
morphic patterns, students gained useful skills in developing and testing scientific
questions in a rigorous and data-rich manner.

INTRODUCTION require application of their scientific and geoscience training.

Geology field courses that include a blending of both tra-
ditional and contemporary topics and targeted research projects
provide the ideal “capstone experience” for undergraduate geo-
science students. Undergraduate students’ participation in origi-
nal 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
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 uncer-
tainties in fluvial geomorphology; and (3) providing insight into
foundational concepts in applied geology and skills in measure-
ment techniques.

May, C.L., Eaton, L.S., and Whitmeyer, S.J., 2009, 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, p. 195–204, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(17). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org.
©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

195
196 May et al.
Why an Environmental Science Component in a Field
Course Setting?
What is the relevance of a geology field course in the twenty-
first 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 undergradu-
ate research experience or an internship is an appropriate substi-
tution 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 stu-
dents’ 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 sev-
eral decades reveal the opposite. The vast majority indicate that
the experience was one of the defining moments of their under-
graduate 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. Sev-
eral geoscience professional organizations concur with the value
of an emersion experience. Both the American Geological Insti-
tute (AGI) and the American Institute of Professional Geologists
(AIPG) recommend a geology field course as part of undergrad-
uate 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, inter-
pretation, and mapping of geologic landforms and structures;
however, many programs do not include opportunities for stu-
dents 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 foun-
dational 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 geochemis-
try, 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 pro-
fessions 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 devel-
oped a broad curriculum. Traditional bedrock and structural map-
ping 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 geomorphol-
ogy, 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 open-
ended, experimental, and intended to promote discovery of new
knowledge. The specific topic of the environmental science com-
ponent 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 fac-
ulty 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 instruc-
tors believe that this is an important and often underrepresented
component of training students to conduct research. Data collec-
tion, although a tangible task, is only interesting when set in the
context of a unique scientific question that provides insight into
geologic principles.
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 stu-
dents experience the scientific method as a rich, complex, and
unpredictable process, instead of the oversimplified representa-
tion that is often taught in classroom settings. We began by iden-
tifying 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 oppor-
tunities to make observations about a particular topic. In this spe-
cific 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, stu-
dents 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?
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 sand-
sized 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-
197
9 54' 00" N
53 44' 00" W
Lower
14 13
Outlet to
River
12
Atlantic Ocean 11
10
9 Middle
River
8
7 6
Northern 5
Ireland 3 41 Upper
2 River
Republic
Study
Area
of Ireland
N
9 42' 00" N
0 1 km 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 inves-
tigated by student groups 1 and 2. Numbered circles indicate the loca-
tion 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 sand-
sized 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 sur-
face layer (Dietrich et al., 1989). This line of inquiry and discov-
ery 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 dis-
covery 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 organic-
rich sediments in the lower floodplain valley have distinct strati-
graphic 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
question
1. Where are deposits of sand-
sized particles most abundant?
2. In reaches of the river where Gravel bars of various sizes were
bars form, can the occurrence
of large bars be predicted?
3. Where in the channel
network do gravel bars form?
4. How do past environmental
conditions affect the modern
river channel?
Observations summarized by
the students
Surficial deposits of sand were
uncommon on the surface of the
streambed or bars throughout the
channel network. The subsurface
sediments of gravel bars in the
low-gradient floodplain valley
contained an abundance of sand-
sized particles.
present in the midsection of the
river. Large bars appeared to be
related to the curvature of
meander bends.
The upstream end of the study
area was bounded by steep
channels, which limited the
potential for bar formation. In the Montgomery and Buffington, 1997). In
midsection of the river, gravel bars low-gradient channels, bar
of various sizes were very
abundant. In the lower river, the
channel was narrow, deeply
incised, and lacked bar
development.
Stratigraphic evidence exposed in
the channel banks indicated that
landforms in the Carrownisky River development.
valley have varied dramatically
through time. Evidence for
alternating conditions of gravel-
bed river floodplains, deltas, and
shallow lakes is present.
Process-based understanding of
observations demonstrated by the
faculty mentor
Streambeds are characterized by two
distinct layers of the sediment. The
surface layer is primarily composed of
coarse sediment that is difficult for the imbricated deposits.
river to transport. This coarse surface
layer protects the finer-grained
subsurface, which more closely
approximates the load the river carries.
The size of gravel bars is largely
dependent upon the space available to
accommodate bar formation. Bar
formation is limited in tightly confined
river canyons but can be extensive in
broad floodplain valleys.
Bar development is limited to channels
with less than 2% slope, which is well
documented in the literature (e.g.,
development can also be inhibited in
narrow channels; however, the
controls on channel width are not well
understood.
Climate change affects river discharge, Stratigraphic evidence for past
sediment load, and fluvial landform
Important concepts in fluvial
geomorphology demonstrated
and discussed
Selective transport of
sediment; channel armoring;
and interpretation of
Gravel bar and meander
development; mechanisms of
bank erosion.
Morphologic channel
development; hydraulic
geometry; bank erosion and
characteristics of cohesive
sediments.
fluvial features; sediment
transport and deposition under development, then areas of
varying environmental
conditions.
198
Specific hypothesis tested
If the streambed is well armored,
then deposits of sand-sized
material will be more abundant in
the subsurface, because the
coarse surface layer prevents
transport of the finer-grained
material stored in the subsurface.
If bar size is determined by the
radius of curvature in meander
bends, then small bars should
occur where the angle of
curvature is low, because there is
less room for lateral expansion
and sediment deposition on the
inside of tight meander bends
compared to broad, high-angle
bends.
If channel width inhibits bar
development in cohesive
sediments, then stream banks
composed of noncohesive
materials will have the greatest
abundance of bars, because
channels can erode floodplains
laterally in noncohesive sediment,
whereas channels incise vertically
into cohesive sediments.
If the cohesion of stream-bank
materials affects channel
cohesive and noncohesive
stream banks are determined by
past environmental conditions,
because paleolake beds and
wetlands contain cohesive
sediments, paleochannels
produce noncohesive sediments,
and deltas have a mixture of
cohesive and noncohesive
sediments.
 Integrating student-led research in fluvial geomorphology into traditional field courses
were taught a structured form of developing hypothesis state-
ments, 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 test-
able 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 tech-
niques 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
Angl
An
Angle
gle
gle (°
(°))
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.
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 character-
ized 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 condi-
tions. 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 sympo-
sium 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 ses-
sions, 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-docu-
mented and organized data as part of their project summaries.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
Student research projects were conducted in the Carrowni-
sky River basin, located in the Murrisk Peninsula of southwest-
ern 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 predomi-
nantly flat, boggy terrain prior to reaching the Atlantic coast,
south of Clew Bay. The river is underlain by lightly metamor-
phosed, 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; Wil-
liams 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 west-
central Ireland is dominated by spectacular cirques, U-shaped
200 May et al.

100
A
B
80

Percent of grains <4 mm

60

40

20

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 sur-
face 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 dra-
matic 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).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
so the differences between surface and subsurface grain-size
distributions is likely to be greater than reported.
Measurements of channel width revealed a surprising pat-
tern. Hydraulic geometry relations predict that channel width
typically increases with drainage area. Data from the Carrowni-
sky 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 nar-
rower 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 y = 70.35x –0.58

broader question. The initial question focused on where gold r 2 = 0.39
Bankfull width (m)

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 10
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
1
proportion of fine sediment in the subsurface was also greater
1 10 100
than in the surface layer (Fig. 3), which supported the students’
2
initial hypothesis that sand-sized material would be more abun- Drainage area (km )
dant in the subsurface. However, it is also important to note that Figure 4. Relation between drainage area and bankfull channel width
pebble counts underestimate the quantity of fine bed material, in Carrownisky River basin.
 Integrating student-led research in fluvial geomorphology into traditional field courses 201

A 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
30
Bankfull channel width (m)
25
20
15
10
5 and pressing questions in fluvial geomorphology over which
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 sedi-
ment 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 chan-
nel. 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 mean-
dering 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, thorough-
ness of the analysis, and content of the final presentation. A high
May et al.
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 pro-
vided answers. Their drive to discover patterns and their underly-
ing 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
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 proj-
ects 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 gain-
ing 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 abun-
dant 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) inter-
preting 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 foun-
dation 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

Figure 7. (A) Large gravel bar formed in

10000 high-angle bend. (B) Relation between
B angle of curvature of the river and surface
area of gravel bars.
y = 0.0003x3.064
r 2 = 0.67

1000
Bar area (m2)

100

10
10 100 1000
Angle of curvature (deg)

A B

steep mountain Figure 8. Conceptual model of

streams steep mountain
streams
how (A) past environmental con-
braided ditions create the template for (B)
stream meandering the modern-day river morphology.
river with
alternate bars

delta and shallow lake

incised and narrow channel
or wetland
with cohesive stream banks and the
absence of gravel bars
204 May et al.
on channel width in the field area that provided a first-order con-
trol 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 pro-
gresses. Only through active inquiry can the evolution of learn-
ing 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 instruc-
tional 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 oce-
anic 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 Ire-
land: 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 Aca-
demic 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 Analy-
ses 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, Dune-
din Academic Press, p. 387–428.
De Paor, D.G., and Whitmeyer, S.J., 2009, this volume, Innovation and obsoles-
cence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the
future, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geol-
ogy Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geolog-
ical 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: Ex-
plorer (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 Geo-
morphology: San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Co., 522 p.
Macklin, M.G., and Lewin, J., 2003, River sediments, great floods and centen-
nial-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 Land-
forms, 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 two-
age 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 under-
graduate 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 Amer-
ica, 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 north-
west 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 criti-
cal 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 addi-
tion, 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 ben-
efit to their education and career development.

INTRODUCTION memorization of abstruse terminology. At many institutions, the

course has been dropped under an assumption that it is not essen-
Petrology at the undergraduate level is a core element of tial to the career needs of students. At other schools, igneous-
geology curriculum. This course plays an important role in the metamorphic petrology is melded into a more general “Earth
education of students, helping them to develop skills in inquiry, materials” course (e.g., Goodell, 2001; Mogk et al., 2003) to
observation, and analysis. In the past 20 years, the undergradu- reflect the focus of modern petrologic research on rock-forming
ate igneous and metamorphic petrology course at many colleges processes in the context of material reservoirs and cycles (e.g.,
and universities has undergone a major transformation. The Dutrow, 2004; Best, 2003). This shift in curriculum has reduced
traditional format of this course often involved laborious, time- student engagement with advanced topics in petrology except at
intensive petrographic and hand-specimen studies of rocks and large, well-funded research institutions equipped with modern
instrumentation and technologies for materials analysis.
*gonzales_d@fortlewis.edu For colleges and universities with limited research infra-
†
semken@asu.edu structure, field studies offer an alternative means of introducing
Gonzales, D., and Semken, S., 2009, A comparative study of field inquiry in an undergraduate petrology course, 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, p. 205–221, doi:
10.1130/2009.2461(18). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

205
206 Gonzales and Semken
authentic research in petrology to enhance the undergraduate
experience. In this paper, we discuss a one-semester, inquiry-
driven 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 petro-
logic 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 petro-
logic studies relevant to current faculty research on igneous-
metamorphic systems. This experiential format is suited to pro-
grams 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 dif-
ferent 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.
INQUIRY IN EDUCATION
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 posi-
tive 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, col-
lect 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 learn-
ing process; (3) dependence upon the contexts in which learn-
ing 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 characteris-
tics 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.
FIELD-BASED STUDIES IN EDUCATION
Most undergraduate geoscience students have some com-
ponent 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 stud-
ies can also benefit faculty mentoring of students (Hoskins and
Price, 2001) and enhance expertise of in-service science teach-
ers (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 geosci-
ence faculty in the United States in 2005 indicated that fewer
than 10% included field studies as a routine part of the curricu-
lum (MacDonald et al., 2005).
COURSE CONTEXT
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 gov-
erned by the state university system. The geoscience department
sustains 60–80 total majors, including traditional and nontradi-
tional (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 con-
text 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 207

instructors. This provides a true sense of student ownership in

the learning process and typifies inquiry learning as defined by
UT CO
Anderson (2007). Learning objectives of the course were con-
AZ NM
ceived to provide preparation for any kind of scientific career
(Carver, 1996; DiConti, 2004).

114° 112° 110° 108° 106° 104°W

CENOZOIC VOLCANIC ROCKS
PROTEROZOIC ROCKS
COLORADO PLATEAU
2007 SJVF
2006
UTAH COLORADO
ARIZONA 2003 NEW MEXICO
SJB N 36°
100 KM
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 var-
ied 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 pro-
mote 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 pre-
defined outcomes. Students choose and pursue projects in a
specific geologic setting (e.g., Ship Rock in 2003) or collabo-
rate 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 chal-
lenges. Students collaborate in research teams and are required
to communicate and defend their findings before their peers and
COURSE DESIGN AND CONTENT
Although the different settings and topics in each offering
42°N
of the course necessitate some logistical variation, the mechan-
ics for each course are similar (Fig. 2; Table 1). On-campus
activities are mostly concentrated toward the start of the tri-
mester and involve 10 to 30 min interactive presentations by
40° 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.
38° A persistent thread of the course is reflection on scientific
inquiry and research methods. Discussion topics and class activi-
ties 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
34°
questions, constructing and testing hypotheses, critiquing scien-
tific 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 prob-
lems 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 Moun-
tains (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 pet-
rogenetic problems related to magma generation and emplace-
ment, volcanic processes, rock deformation, and metamorphic
processes. Most of the students come with some prior, mostly
textbook-based, knowledge of these subjects from the introduc-
tory 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
TABLE 1. A COMPARISON OF TOPICS AND STUDENT TASKS
Course 2003: Ship Rock
calendar
Precourse Fall of 2002: reconnaissance field
work. Discussed potential research
problems, and did literature review.
Week 1 Discussed process of research;
conducted exercises and
discussions on scientific inquiry.
Week 2 Reviewed igneous rock types and
textures, and physical properties of conducted exercises and
magma.
Week 3 Reviewed International Union of
Geological Sciences (IUGS)
classification of igneous rocks.
Studied rock specimens from
Navajo volcanic field and other
local igneous masses.
Week 4 Reviewed earth structure and
igneous systems in tectonic
settings. Constructed an illustrated
summary of igneous-tectonic
systems.
Week 5 Discussed petrogenesis of mafic
magmas. Submitted outline of field-
research for approval, and
presented it to class.
Week 6 Overview of regional Cenozoic
magmatism and Navajo volcanic
field.
Week 7 Overview of geology and Navajo
ethnogeologic knowledge of the
study area. Planned research
strategy with faculty.
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.
Week 14 Completed research report and
presented results of research.
Gonzales and Semken
2006: Western Needle
Mountains
Not applicable
Overview of regional geologic
history and geology of the study
area. Field trip to explore
research topics.
Discussed process of research;
discussions on scientific inquiry. Four-day trip to conduct field research.
Participated in 2 day field
conference focused on topics
near research area.
Group reviewed and presented on Reviewed earth structure and tectonic settings.
reference styles. Submitted
outline of field research for
approval, and presented it to
class. Started field research.
Reviewed earth structure and
tectonic settings. Continued
field research.
Reviewed common igneous rock
types and textures. Classified
igneous rocks in study area
using IUGS scheme.
Continued field research.
Reviewed common metamorphic
rocks. Studied metamorphic
rocks from study area.
Continued field research.
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.
Worked on research report and
presentation.
Finished research report and
presented results of research.
2007: San Juan volcanic field
Not applicable
Discussed process of research; conducted exercises
and discussions on scientific inquiry. Reviewed
reference styles, and compiled bibliography of
existing published work for portfolio.
Overview of regional geologic history, and San Juan
volcanic field.
Constructed an illustrated summary of igneous-
tectonic systems for portfolio.
Reviewed origin and evolution of magmas: conducted
exercises, class activities, and homework on partial
melting and fractional crystallization.
Reviewed volcanic landforms and systems.
Summarized dominant tectonic-magmatic models for
San Juan volcanic field for portfolio.
Reviewed caldera systems and deposits. Students
gave presentations on different calderas systems of
western San Juan volcanic field.
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.
 TABLE 2. SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF PROJECTS, PRODUCTS, AND CONTINUED OUTCOMES FOR FIELD-RESEARCH COURSES
Project goal
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.
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.
2007
Collaborative study with
U.S. Geological Survey to
investigate the acid-
neutralizing capacity
(ANC) of altered igneous
rocks in the western San
Juan volcanic field.
Types of data collected New hypotheses Class products and new Thesis projects Professional
contributions contributions
Maps of composition, distribution, and Diatreme has layered-conical Class research Three students Burgess and
general orientation of rock units and geometry with two different eruptive papers/presentations from course and Gonzales (2005)
features. phases cut by minette dikes and Geologic maps two in 2005 who Gonzales et al.
Hand-sample and thin-section late-stage tuff dikes. Continued faculty did not take the (2006)
descriptions of rocks and textures. Subsurface magma tubes and research class Turner and Gonzales
Geochemical data from dikes. “pillow” formed in segments of dikes New geochemical and (2006)
Structural measurements of diatreme enriched in volatiles. petrologic data
bedding, and dike fabrics and Little or no effects on the mineralogy Digital database
structures. and chemistry of dike rocks from
Described soil horizons and their wall-rock contamination.
geochemical signatures. Foliation developed in outer margins
Studied types and abundances of of dike segments containing tubes;
xenoliths. interpreted as magma-shear fabric.
Petrographic descriptions of Multiple stages of metamorphic Class research Five Herb and Gonzales
metamorphic mineral assemblages mineral growth during ductile paper/presentation (2008)
and fabrics. Documented relationship deformation of ca. 1.78 Ga rocks Continued research by Martin and Gonzales
between metamorphism and under upper-amphibolite-facies faculty and student (2008)
deformation. conditions. New pressure and Marsters and
Geologic map of ca. 1.7 Ga dikes and The grade of metamorphism, and temperature constraints Hannula (2008)
trends. Outcrop and thin-section timing relative to deformation, in ca. from metamorphic Shumway and
descriptions of dike rocks. 1.7 Ga pelitic rocks were mineral assemblages Gonzales (2008)
Documented structural fabrics and inconsistent with previous published New geochemical,
deformational history of dikes, and results. petrologic, and structural
constrained relationships of dike Proterozoic dikes were syn- to data for ca. 1.7 Ga dike
emplacement to deformation. postdeformational, and emplaced rocks and Tertiary
Petrologic descriptions and during N-S compression at ca. 1.7 intrusive rocks
geochemical data for different Tertiary Ga.
intrusive rock units. Tertiary intrusive rocks had similar
petrogenesis and emplacement
histories.
Hand-sample and thin-section Further data on mineral associations Class research One student in 2008 None
descriptions of altered and unaltered and ANC capacities to assess paper/presentation who did not take
rock samples from different units remediation potential of acid-mine Continued research by the class
exposed in the caldera systems of the drainage. Dr. Yager and one
western San Juan volcanic field. student
Measured pH, conductivity, Involvement of Fort Lewis
temperature and dissolved oxygen of College field geology
mine drainage. class in related projects
Set up a map grid to collect unaltered in summer of 2008
and altered rocks to use in ANC- Results contributed to
titration tests and scanning electron the ongoing U.S.
microscope (SEM) analyses at U.S. Geological Survey
Geological Survey facilities; measured research
field magnetic susceptibility of rocks.
209
210 Gonzales and Semken

2003 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 Precourse 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

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 Precourse 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

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 trimes-
ter (January to April), which limited significant fieldwork until
weather allowed, around the eighth week. We moved the subse-
quent 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 prac-
tice 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 estab-
lish 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 respon-
sible 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 pro-
cess, but students are responsible for their own hypotheses, tests,
and conclusions. Throughout the course, the students are encour-
aged to discuss their findings and problems with each other, and
again during lecture periods or outside of class, to facilitate shar-
ing of data that might contribute to other projects.
Research papers and presentations were the capstone deliv-
erables 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 portfo-
lio 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 vol-
canic 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 com-
pilation 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 field-
research courses (Fig. 1; Table 2) reflected the interests of the
instructors and students. Selections were influenced by logisti-
cal 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 comple-
mentary 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 per-
mitted the group to work independently on topics but allowed
collaboration on a common geologic feature. These projects con-
tributed 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 cam-
pus (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 prob-
lems that were scientifically and logistically independent. This
had the unanticipated effect of diminishing interaction and col-
laboration among student groups.
The 2007 course took a different tactic: it was organized
to complement the ongoing regional research of a USGS pro-
fessional, Dr. Doug Yager. The overarching theme (Table 2)
was Oligocene volcanism in the San Juan Mountains, particu-
larly 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 vicin-
ity of the historic mining town of Silverton, Colorado, in sup-
port 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 drain-
age. 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 stu-
dents worked alongside Dr. Yager and two instructors. The stu-
dents 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 base-
line data for water quality (pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity,
and temperature), and improved their skills in the use and inter-
pretation 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, stu-
dents learned to do ANC titration and scanning electron micro-
scope (SEM) analyses of their samples at the USGS laboratory
in Denver.
CONTENT EVALUATION
The student learning objectives for the course, and the char-
acteristics 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 quan-
titative 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 petrol-
ogy 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 anony-
mously 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 compo-
nent (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 proj-
ects (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 famil-
iar with their study site before taking the class (2.9). It is interest-
ing 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 posi-
tive and negative impressions of the course, and on its impact
on their knowledge, interests, and professional preparation. Stu-
dents 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 prac-
tice 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 sur-
vey 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 sum-
mary 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
Enhance interest in geology and petrology
through focused study of a significant local
crystalline-rock body or landform.
Enhance familiarity with the region.
Conduct an authentic research project from
initial planning to interpretation and
dissemination of results.
Enhance skills in scientific inquiry and critical I better understand how scientific research is
thinking.
Apply petrologic and other geologic knowledge
and skills in a field setting.
Relevant item(s) from summative evaluation 2003 means 2006 means 2007 means
(N = 12) (N = 7) (N = 4)
My interest in geosciences increased as a result 4.6 ± 0.6 4.6 ± 0.52 5.0 ± 0.0
of taking this class.
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.
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.
I understood the objectives of my research 4.2 ± 0.8 4.1 ± 0.64 5.0 ± 0.0
project.
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.
4.7 ± 0.6 4.6 ± 0.53 4.8 ± 0.50
done as a result of taking this class.
My interest in doing field work increased as a 4.6 ± 0.6 4.6 ± 0.52 5.0 ± 0.0
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 proj-
ects 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 vol-
canic 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 proj-
ects 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 (Mar-
tin 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
you thought could be better? Needed more opportunity to develop communication skills: 2
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
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
Did the course have an impact on your professional development?
Explain.
Have you continued the research topic that you started in the course? If
you have, explain how.
Are you considering any topic in the field of petrology for graduate
studies? Did this course influence your decision? Explain.
Is there anything else you would like to write about this course?
*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 vari-
ous levels. One of the students joined faculty and graduate stu-
dents from ASU to study Navajo diatremes in the Chuska Moun-
tains, 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 scien-
tists at New Mexico Tech and ASU. As noted previously, stu-
dents 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 fea-
sible 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 pro-
fessional collaboration may also be possible.
Students who completed the field-research petrology course,
and who have taken positions in industry or pursued graduate
215
Responses
Yes: 10; No: 1
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
Yes: 10; No: 1
As a senior thesis: 4
Through continued collaboration with professional geologist: 2
In other courses: 1
Through employment: 1
In community outreach activities: 1
Yes: 4; Maybe: 4; No: 3
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
studies, have noted that their experience in the course had a sig-
nificant impact on their success. One student commented: “The
research aspect of the class was the most valuable part. Learn-
ing 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 stu-
dent 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 fac-
ulty 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 sedimen-
tology course (G. Gianniny, 2004, personal commun.).
In 2008, we administered a survey to all departmental fac-
ulty (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 sub-
sequent interactions with students. These data are presented in
216 Gonzales and Semken

Table 9, embellished with additional comments on positive and

opportunities

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
Research

7, 9, 0.67
7, 9, 0.67
5, 10, 1.0
0, 10, 1.0
2, 8, 0.75
8, 10, 1.0
4, 8, 0.67
3, 8, 0.71
5, 8, 0.75
4, 8, 0.67
5, 10, 1.0
negative impacts of the course. The responses were analyzed

0.81
and coded by a constant-comparative method (Merriam, 1998),
TABLE 6. COMPARISONS OF STUDENT RESPONSES (2006 AND 2007) TO THEIR PERCEIVED GAIN IN KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS FOR THE TOPICS LISTED

in which the data were categorized to correspond to the nine

student outcomes.
Several themes emerged from this survey. Faculty respon-
Communication

dents felt that the greatest impact of the field-research petrology

7.5, 9, 0.6

5, 10, 1.0
1, 8, 0.78
7, 9, 0.67

4, 8, 0.67
4, 8, 0.67
2, 5, 0.38
6, 9, 0.75
8, 9, 0.5
5, 7, 0.4

4, 4, 1.0
skills

0.67
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
development
Professional

6, 8.5, 0.63
7, 9, 0.67

5, 10, 1.0

4, 6, 0.33
3, 7, 0.57
4, 6, 0.33
3, 7, 0.57
10, 10, 0

skills. Respondents suggested that substitution of research depth

5, 8, 0.6

5, 9, 0.8

5, 9, 0.8
0.57 for topical breadth may not serve all students equally well in sub-
sequent geoscience courses.

COURSE CHALLENGES AND INSTRUCTOR

Knowledge of

4, 8, 0.67

2, 9, 0.88
2, 10, 1.0
2, 9, 0.88
5, 10, 1.0
4, 8, 0.67
1, 9, 0.89

3, 6, 0.43
7, 8, 0.33
scientific

5, 8, 0.6

2, 6, 0.5

OBSERVATIONS
citation

0.71

Engaging students in field-based and inquiry-driven learn-

ing is rewarding but met with challenges such as the expense
and difficulty of scheduling field trips, safety and liability con-
5.5, 8.5, 0.67
Research

4, 8, 0.67
2, 8, 0.75
4, 10, 1.0
8, 10, 1.0

3, 9, 0.86
3, 7, 0.57
5, 8, 0.6

2, 6, 0.5

5, 7, 0.4
3, 7, 0.8

cerns, instructor or student unfamiliarity or discomfort with

skills

0.71

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,
4, 8, 0.67
6, 9, 0.75
3, 10, 1.0
6, 10, 1.0

2003; Elkins and Elkins, 2007). However, these challenges had

5, 8, 0.6
5, 8, 0.6

2, 6, 0.5
5, 6, 0.2
5, 8, 0.6
5, 7, 0.4
3, 7, 0.8
Field
skills

0.56

little impact on our courses.

A research course allows for less subject-matter “cover-
age” than a conventional course, as considerable class time
Understanding of

must be devoted to skills development and then the student

6, 8.5, 0.63
6, 9, 0.75
5, 8, 0.75
5, 10, 1.0
1, 8, 0.78
6, 9, 0.75

6, 7, 0.25

4, 8, 0.67
petrology
topics in

2, 6, 0.5

5, 8, 0.6

5, 8, 0.6

research projects. The more latitude students are given to pur-

0.66

sue diverse topics, the more difficult it becomes for the instruc-
tor 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
field studies
Interest in

7, 10, 1.0
5, 10, 1.0

6, 10, 1.0
4, 8, 0.67

8, 10, 1.0

6, 9, 0.75
8, 10, 1.0
10, 10, 0
8, 10, 1.0

teams with specific issues. These time constraints were particu-

5, 8, 0.6

9, 9, 0.5

0.77

larly 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
7, 10, 1.0
5, 10, 1.0

7, 9, 0.67
6, 9, 0.75
8, 10, 1.0
10, 10, 0
10, 10, 0

10, 10, 0
research
Interest in

5, 9, 0.8

8, 9, 0.5
5, 9, 0.8
,

to render the teams self-sufficient, but with a few students, more

0.59

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
Interest in

7, 9, 0.67
7, 9, 0.67

8, 10, 1.0
8, 10, 1.0
7, 9, 0.67

3, 7, 0.57
6, 9, 0.75
petrology

10, 10, 0
5, 9, 0.8
2, 6, 0.5

5, 7, 0.4

them in the field.

0.64

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
Mean change

teaching multiple classes) on logistical and advisory activities

Responses

difference).

outside of the classroom and field. These activities involved

communication with other scientists involved in projects, sched-
uling 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 Assessment criteria
5 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.
4 Meets requirements for assignment. Summaries are complete, thorough, and supported with additional information. Summary is a
good resource.
3 An average, solid job. Summary provides basic information that has been discussed or covered in textbook; does not add further
insight into the issue.
2 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.
1 Summary is inadequate, and there are major flaws in explanations and organization. The information does not serve as a useful
resource.
0 No summary is turned in on the deadline date.

TABLE 8. GRADING RUBRIC USED TO ASSESS CAPSTONE ORAL PRESENTATIONS

Grade Assessment criteria
6 Superior presentation of research and results.
5 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.
4 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.
3 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.
2 Presentation is poorly developed and does not guide audience to an understanding of the topic. Has limited effectiveness. No written
summary is turned in.
1 Presentation is poorly developed and ineffective.
0 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 propos-
als 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 consid-
erable 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 experi-
ences in the curriculum. The general education requirements for
undergraduate degrees at many institutions hold that basic sci-
entific 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 scien-
tific 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. How-
ever, 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 guide-
line 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 col-
laborative 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 mem-
bers 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
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 objectives and
criteria
Enhance interest in geology and petrology
Impact on enthusiasm for 5 5
geology and petrology
Preparation to conduct an authentic research project
(1) Impact on professional 5
development
(2) Impact on quality and 4 4
success of senior
theses
Gonzales and Semken
OVERALL MEANS AND RESULTS)
Numerical ratings* Mean Overall results Additional responses
ratings
5 3 4 4.4 ± 0.9 Somewhat Most of the students who take this elective class are
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.
5 4 3 NA 4.3 ± 1.0 Somewhat Improves the students’ basic research skills by exposing
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.
4 3 4 3.8 ± 0.4 Somewhat Continued work on a single topic during [field-research
better course] and then as a senior thesis topic strengthens their
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 critical- 4 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, wind-
blown dust made it difficult to work on some days. In 2006, our
field studies were interrupted by a major snowstorm in late Sep-
tember that left outcrops covered for several weeks. Students
continued their field studies as best they could, but cold tempera-
tures 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 stu-
dent-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 infor-
mation 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 petrol-
ogy 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 pit-
falls, however, and they can be taxing for both faculty and students.
The most significant outcome of a research-based petro-
logic 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 under-
graduate courses, students are not compelled to reengage with
learning outcomes until graduate studies or employment. The
field-research petrology course encouraged students to con-
tinue 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 contri-
butions. 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 undergradu-
ate 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 Sci-
ence Education: Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
p. 807–830.
Apedoe, X.S., 2007, Engaging students in inquiry: Tales from an undergradu-
ate 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 Uni-
versity 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 stu-
dent 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., Lip-
man, P.W., and Zoback, M.L., eds., The Cordilleran Orogen, Contermi-
nous 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 dia-
tremes in the northern Navajo volcanic field, Weber Mountain, southwest-
ern 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, Wads-
worth Publishing Company, 152 p.
Carver, R., 1996, Theory for Practice: A Framework for Thinking about Experi-
ential 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: Signifi-
cant geosciences concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geol-
ogy 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: Jour-
nal 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 for-
mation 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, southwest-
ern 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 pro-
fessional 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 teach-
ers: 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 learn-
ing: 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 Geo-
science 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 Geosci-
ence 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: Geo-
logical 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, Colo-
rado: 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., Lip-
man, P.W., and Zoback, M.L., eds., The Cordilleran Orogen, Contermi-
nous 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: Relation-
ship 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 Educa-
tion, 1997, Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook: Washington,
D.C., National Academy Press, 88 p.
National Research Council (NRC), 1996, National Science Education Stan-
dards: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 262 p.
Oldow, J.S., Bally, A.W., Avé Lallemant, H.G., and Leeman, W.P., 1989, Pha-
nerozoic 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 Amer-
ica, 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 Math-
ematics, v. 93, p. 325–331.
Orion, N., and Hofstein, A., 1994, Factors that influence learning during a sci-
entific 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 Communi-
ties: 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 for-
ward: 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 Soci-
ety 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: Jour-
nal 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 Amer-
ica 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 Colo-
rado: 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

ABSTRACT

Field-based learning has been embraced at Georgia Southern University as an

emphasis first applied to geology majors courses 40 yr ago and then to teacher educa-
tion programs for the past 30 yr. Building upon a strong foundation of field education
for geology majors in geology courses, we transferred the concepts to in-service edu-
cation majors. From limited summer teacher workshops coupling lectures to field-site
visits, a comprehensive field-intensive program evolved to enhance the capability and
number of middle school science teachers. Courses integrating lecture, laboratory,
and field-based learning have been offered for 28 yr, providing teachers with educa-
tion in physical geology, fundamentals of historical geology, and collections of miner-
als, rocks, ores, and fossils. These courses are tied to regional geology and supple-
mented with maps, posters, field guides, and textbooks. The St. Catherines Island
Sea Turtle program was developed concurrently, and 2008 marks 18 yr of integrating
“conservation, research, and education” into a program that conserves loggerhead sea

Bishop, G.A., Vance, R.K., Rich, F.J., Meyer, B.K., Davis, E.J., Hayes, R.H., and Marsh, N.B., 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, 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, p. 223–251, doi:
10.1130/2009.2461(19). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

223
224 Bishop et al.

turtles and incorporates modeling and practice of field science and pedagogy through
teacher-centered activities. Fourteen teacher-interns per summer investigate logger-
head 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, experi-
enced teacher mentors, and local experts collaborate to produce one of the most suc-
cessful teacher education programs in Georgia with respect to continuity of funding
and positive teacher and program review feedback.

INTRODUCTION With this strong emphasis on field-based geology within

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 field-
trip offerings, including week-long spring break trips and longer
summer trips to regions including California, Nevada, Utah, Col-
orado, 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 Geor-
gia 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 exempli-
fied 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).
a university that evolved from a teachers college (1929–1958),
the extension of various field-based science programs for teach-
ers 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 spon-
sored 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 knowl-
edge 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 Pro-
gram 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 pro-
grams. 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
(4 credit hours each)
1989–1995 Principles of Geology, Field
Geology of the Southeast, Geology
of Georgia, Introduction to
Industrial Minerals, Georgia’s
Mineral Resources, Mineral
Resources of the Southern
Appalachians
1992– Sea Turtle Natural History, Sea
present Turtle Conservation, Sea Turtle
Conservation II
% field Target audience Funding source
component
65–74 Preservice and Federal funds distributed through state agency:
in-service teachers Eisenhower Higher Education–Improving
of grades 6–8, but Secondary Math and Science Instruction in
K–12 accepted Georgia
83 In-service teachers Federal funds distributed through state agency:
(for sea turtle of grades K–12 have Eisenhower Higher Education–Improving
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 administra-
tion. This evolved into the Higher Education Eisenhower Pro-
gram 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 tech-
niques 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 atten-
tion to a teacher education system that emphasized teaching
methodology to the deficit of science content knowledge and sci-
ence 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 try-
ing 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 “Prin-
ciples of Geology ” and “Field Geology of the Southeast U.S.” to
provide teachers with maximum graduate credit for degree pro-
grams 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 princi-
ples 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 Appa-
lachian 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 Associa-
tion 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 excur-
sion. 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 consid-
ered 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 deposi-
tional 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 under-
stand 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 deposi-
tional environments that can be observed along the current coast.
Consequently, the field trips provided an opportunity for imme-
diate practice and reinforcement of the fundamental principles
introduced in the classroom and laboratory.
Field excursions laid foundations for a deeper understand-
ing 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

Physiographic province: General site geology Site teaching applications Reference
Location: and/or features
Coastal Plain:
Tybee Island, GA Developed barrier island Coastal geology and engineering; heavy mineral sand Alexander and Henry
concentration (2007)
Cumberland Island, GA Undeveloped barrier island Coastal geology and ecology; depositional Henry et al. (1993)
environments
Reids Bluff, FL Cutbank on St. Marys River Stacked facies, Walther’s law; depositional Pirkle et al. (2007)
environments
Starke, FL Trail Ridge Ore Body Heavy mineral sand deposit; mining and concentrating Pirkle and Pirkle
(2007)
Okefenokee Swamp, GA Freshwater swamp Wetland ecology; coal swamp analog Rich (2007a)
Sandersville and Wrens, Cretaceous-Tertiary strata in Paleogeography; depositional environments; economic Pickering et al. (1997)
GA open-pit kaolinite mines geology
River Road and Griffins, Eocene Barnwell Group Ophiomorpha and fossil oysters; depositional Huddleston and
GA environments Hetrick (1979)
Eutaw Springs and Santee Limestone and Fossil collecting; depositional environments; industrial Ward and Blackwelder
Berkeley Quarry, SC associated strata minerals (1980)
Providence Canyon State Cretaceous sediments Cretaceous paleogeography; soil conservation Donovan and
Park, GA Reinhardt (1986)
Highway 27, Frog Bottom Upper Cretaceous strata Cretaceous fossils and paleoenvironments Marsalis and Fridell
Creek, GA (1975)
Ohoopee Dunes at Camp Stabilized dunes Sand ridge geology and ecology Vaughan (1992)
Boyd, GA
Highways 80 and 78 road Cretaceous Tuscaloosa Fm. Cretaceous paleogeography; fluvial deposits Reinhardt et al. (1986)
cuts, AL
Blue Springs, MS Cretaceous sed. rocks Cretaceous paleogeography; fossil crabs and bivalves Bishop (1983)
Highways 301 and 601, Orangeburg scarp Coastal plain geomorphology and sea-level fluctuation Colquhoun (1986)
SC

Piedmont:
Strom Thurmond Carolina terrane; metamorphic Metamorphic grade, shear zones, terranes, “growing” Dennis and Secor
Reservoir, GA rocks continents (2007)
Burks Mountain, GA Kiokee belt ultramafic rocks Origin of serpentinite, tectonic significance, mineral Sacks et al. (1989)
collecting
Graves Mountain, GA Kyanite resource in a fossil Industrial minerals, geologic history, tectonic setting, Hartley (1976)
hydrothermal system environmental geology, mineral collecting
Barite Hill, SC Small volcanic massive sulfide Volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits, Carolina slate Clark (1999)
deposit belt geology, ore samples
Ridgeway, SC Disseminated Au deposit Carolina slate belt economic geology, ore mining and Gillon et al. (1998)
processing
Dorn Mine, SC Au-bearing vein Vein deposits, multiple episodes of mineralization, Whitney and Allard
mining methods (1990)
Lake Murray, SC Kiokee belt; metamorphic Spectacular continuous exposure of amphibolite-facies Carr (1978)
rocks metamorphic rocks and Mesozoic diabase dikes
Heggies Rock, GA Granite pluton Igneous petrology, geomorphology, rare plants on U.S. Fish and Wildlife
granite balds Service (1991)
Sparta, GA Granite pluton Granite, pegmatite-aplite dikes, Mesozoic diabase Whitney and Wenner
dikes (1980)
Elberton, GA Granite batholith Granite phases, host rock, monument industry, Granite Whitney and Wenner
Museum (1980)
Hartwell, GA Mica mine Weathering of granitic pegmatite, muscovite mining Grant (1958)
and processing
I-75 road cuts north of Pumpkinvine Creek Fm. Amphibolite with relict pillow structure, protolith Abrams and
Lake Allatoona, GA McConnell (1986)

Blue Ridge:*
Rosman, NC Brevard zone Piedmont–Blue Ridge fault contact, ductile vs. brittle Horton and Butler
deformation (1986)
Toxaway Falls, NC Toxaway gneiss Grenville basement, continental growth, radiometric Hopson et al. (1989)
dating
Woodall Shoals, GA-SC Tallulah Falls Formation Migmatitic gneiss, granitic pegmatite amphibolite, Hopson et al. (1989)
complex deformation
Winding Stair Gap road Migmatitic gneiss Granulite-facies metamorphic rocks, depth Absher and McSween
cuts, NC represented, uplift (1986)
Chunky Gal Mountain Amphibolite, trondhjemite Protolith and metamorphic rock, tectonic discrimination Hatcher (1986)
road cuts, NC of amphibolite
Ducktown, TN, and Sulfide mineralization Mining history, environmental geology, origin of Abrams (1986)
Copper Hill, GA mineralization
(Continued)
 Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors 227

TABLE 2. FIELD STOP SITES USED IN TEACHER COURSES (Continued)

Physiographic province:
Location:
Blue Ridge (Continued ):
Spruce Pine, NC
Boone to Linville Falls, NC
Fort Mountain, GA
Marble Hill, GA
Dahlonega, GA
Ocoee Gorge road cuts, U.S.
64, TN
Carters Dam, GA
Valley and Ridge:
Cartersville, GA
Ballard Mine, TN
Red Mountain Expressway
Birmingham, AL
Idol Mine, TN
Short Mountain Silica, TN
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
Appalachian Plateau and Interior Basins:
Highway 27 road cuts, Camp
Nelson, KY
Highway 64 and B, Combs
Mountain Parkway, KY
Natural Bridge State, KY
Highway 80 and Hindman
access, KY
Lost Creek Mine, AL
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.
General site geology
Granitic pegmatites
Ashe Metamorphic Suite,
Grandfather Mtn. Formation
Fort Mountain gneiss basement
massif
Murphy Marble
New Georgia Group,
metamorphic rocks
Precambrian–Lower Cambrian
strata
Fault zone
Barite and ocher mine
Barite mine
Red Mountain Formation
Zinc mine
Silica mine
Paleozoic strata
Pennsylvanian rocks
Paleozoic sed. rocks
Floyd Shale
Coosa fault in Paleozoic strata
Middle Ordovician strata, faults Paleogeography, depositional environments, Kuhnheun and Haney
Devonian to Pennsylvanian
strata
Mississippian to Pennsylvanian
strata, arches
Pennsylvanian deltaic strata
Pennsylvanian coals in Black
Warrior Basin
Site teaching applications Reference
and/or features
Pegmatite petrology, feldspar and mica mines, Harben and Bates (1990)
industrial application
Thrust faults, windows, petrotectonic Trupe et al. (2003)
associations
Blue Ridge–Valley and Ridge boundary, talc McConnell and Costello
deposits, industrial applications (1984)
Underground marble mine, protolith, industrial Fairley (1988)
applications of calcite
Au host rocks, economic geology and history, German (1986)
Gold Museum, mines
Low-grade metasedimentary rocks of the Blue Hatcher and Milici (1986)
Ridge–Valley and Ridge transition
Blue Ridge–Valley and Ridge boundary; McConnell (1986)
deformation in fault zones
Origin of residual ores, ore samples, industrial Reade et al. (1980)
mineral application
Mississippi Valley Type (MVT) ore deposits, Maher (1970)
mineral collecting
Iron formations, economic development, Thomas and Bearce
museum, paleogeography (1986)
Room and pillar mining, MVT deposits, Zn ore McCormick et al. (1971)
samples and applications
Industrial resources and applications, origin of www.shortmtnsilica.com
high-purity quartz sandstones
Geomorphology, collecting fossils and trace Byerly et al. (1986)
fossils, structures
Collecting coal and plant fossils Cramer (1986)
Depositional environments, paleogeography, Rindsberg and Chowns
fossil collecting (1986)
Collecting Mississippian fossils Waters (1983)
Fault, primary sedimentary structures in Shady Chowns (1986)
and Rome Formations
normal faults (1986)
Paleogeography, depositional environments, Ettensohn (1980)
fossil collecting
Geomorphology, depositional environments Dever and Barron (1986)
Distributary bars and coal Chestnut and Cobb (1986)
Economic geology, coal samples and W.A. Thomas (1988)
paleoenvironment

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 pro-
vided 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 compo-
nent of the field trips. Georgia is a major producer of industrial
minerals, and these mineral resources were tied to the state econ-
omy, regional geology, and physiographic provinces through
the field excursions and the collection of teaching samples. The
application of essential mineral resources in construction materi-
als 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 Savan-
nah 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 pos-
sible depositional environments of the kaolinite deposits. Min-
eral 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 vid-
eos 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 pro-
fessors, 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 altera-
tion 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 high-
grade 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 transi-
tion 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 Ridge-
way 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 min-
ing operations of the 1800s. Visits to the historic Dorn Mine,
South Carolina, and the Dahlonega district of Georgia empha-
sized both the economic and cultural impacts of gold mining.
The Dahlonega gold rush of 1828 brought a surge of prospec-
tors and eventual settlers, a temporary economic boom, and a
regional mint. Unfortunately, it also produced a landscape rav-
aged 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 evolu-
tion of gold mining from initial placer operations, to hydraulic
mining with large-scale sluice box recovery, to eventual under-
ground 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 Find-
ley Ridge and walked in the ravines and gullies made by hydrau-
lic 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 Com-
pany 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 manu-
facture 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 Neoprotero-
zoic 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 dolo-
stone bedrock exposed in bottom of open pit operated by New River-
side 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 continen-
tal core of eastern North America (Toxaway Gneiss) and post-
Grenville continental accretion. The spectacular Winding Stair
Gap road-cut stop dramatized the temperature-pressure condi-
tions 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 oro-
gen, 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 pro-
duced 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. Dur-
ing the last day or two of the courses, time was allotted to assist
teachers with sample curation and to ensure correct identifica-
tion 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 per-
sonal 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 refer-
ence 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 educa-
tion. The courses we describe operated from 1989 through 1995,
providing enhanced teaching capability, essential laboratory
materials, confidence, and summer graduate credit or certifica-
tion credit for many teachers. The proportion of field hours in
the courses ranged from ~62% to 71%. The Georgia Plan–Eisen-
hower–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 teacher-
participant 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 lec-
tures, 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 sys-
tem that immerses teachers in work that builds science methodol-
ogy 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 con-
serve 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 pre-
sentations. 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 for-
mal teaching followed by actually doing. It lends credibility to so
many of those buzzwords we use in papers and proposals—real-
world, 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 model-
ing heavy mineral sand accumulation on St. Catherines Island
(Figs. 4A and 4B), a project that was sponsored by a Chan-
cellor’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 log-
gerhead 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 challeng-
ing nesting environment seemed to lead to their being the perfect
icon for a new teaching effort. Ms. Marsh suggested that conser-
vation of sea turtle nests would be a great way to teach teach-
ers 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 Eisen-
hower 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 mari-
time forest (dark green), salt marshes
(light green), and Atlantic beaches (yel-
lowish) utilized for nesting by logger-
head sea turtles; and (B) geomorphic
map of St. Catherines Island showing
bounding scarps, accretionary terrains,
and hypothesized ancient doublet is-
land, Guale Island. Shaded area (Pleis-
tocene island core) is surrounded by
lower-lying Holocene accretionary ter-
rains 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 Infor-
mation 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 Conserva-
tion) 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 men-
tors, 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 syn-
ergistic 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, Fresh-
water 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 numer-
ous 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 Carpen-
ter, 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, teacher-
directed study groups, and lesson study. Elkins and Elkins (2007)
demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in geosci-
ences 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 experi-
ence 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 paral-
leled by the evolution of field-based learning at GSU. Informa-
tion 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 learn-
ing 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” repre-
sented by the knowledge reservoirs (boxes) below each “scientific
 Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors 233

accept
test
hypothesis observation modify
background experiment
define modeling reject
accept
test anomaly
hypothesis observation modify missing data
background experiment
define modeling reject
the continually increasing body of new knowledge
anomaly
accept missing data
test lack of precision
hypothesis observation modify
background experiment the increasing body of new knowledge
define modeling reject
accept a paradigm shift
test the new body of knowledge lack of precision
hypothesis observation modify new & better technology new connections new & better technology
background experiment
define modeling 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 “spi-
ral 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, sponsored initiative designed to improve teachers’ science and
whether anomaly, new observations, new technology allowing math content knowledge.
new ways of investigation, missing data, new connections previ- The salient features of the natural history sustainability
ously not recognized, paradigm shifts, or some other mismatch model (Fig. 7) have been previously cited (Bishop and Marsh,
in data, lead directly into the “scientific methodology model,” 1999a) and are enhanced herein. The variables that feed into a
i.e., they begin with a definition of a problem, gather background successful, sustainable project (exemplified here by the SCISTP)
information, and formulate a hypothesis or multiple hypotheses include, but may not be limited to, those depicted by arrows in
(Chamberlin, 1890), and test by observation, experimentation, or Figure 7. Projects are built upon a charismatic focus (depicted by
modeling, and conclude with acceptance, modification, or rejec- the dynamic, spinning “project focus” in the center of Fig. 7) and
tion of the working hypotheses. We also have expanded the sci- have high interest or particularly relevant foci that will be favored
entific method to include various ways that we test reality in the
scientific methodologies, by direct observation, by experimenta-
tion, 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, formu-
lating 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 place-
based operation. The SCISTP has been sustained for 19 yr with
collaborative funding spearheaded by the Georgia Higher Edu-
cation 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, in-
Figure 7. The natural history sustainability model relies on a char-
kind, field support for the program. There have been occasional ismatic and significant foundation problem as a learning core for
grants from the Edward John Noble Foundation (administered scientists and teachers. The program is energized or propelled by a
through the American Museum of Natural History) and the St. collaborative approach to funding and staffing within a field-based
Catherines Island Scientific Research Advisory Committee, The program that embraces a cross-disciplinary, hands-on, inquiry-
Turner Foundation, The JST Foundation, and the M.K. Pente- based mode of learning and application of emerging technology.
Participant feedback and experienced multidisciplinary staff guide
cost Ecology Fund. Recently, additional teacher support has also the evolution of the program, which is sustained and advertised
been provided by the Partnership for Reform in Science and by growing learning communities of satisfied teacher participants.
Mathematics (PRISM), a National Science Foundation (NSF)– “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 collabor-
ative learning methods will be most successful. Successful proj-
ects 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 espe-
cially 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, engineer-
ing, 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 per-
tinent to us (although a PC metaphor with digital plug-ins might
be better understood today), and we herein upgrade the syner-
gistic CPU project model as a representation for the SCISTP.
The SCISTP is synergistic in the sense of having a robust cen-
tral work generator and numerous substantial, peripheral plug-
in projects, and it is incredibly reactive to small funding oppor-
tunities 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 (edu-
cational 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 com-
pounded if content and the pedagogical techniques the program
promotes are utilized throughout a teacher’s career (i.e., by suc-
cessive 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 capabili-
ties, and thereby expanding program impacts.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Introduction
The St. Catherines Island Sea Turtle Program provides Geor-
gia 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 nec-
essary 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 pro-
vides 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 Geor-
gia 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 tur-
tle 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 asyn-
chronous distance learning, digital photography used in Power-
PointTM 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 schoolteach-
ers, with preference for groups of up to four teachers from a
school, system, or region (Mooney, 2006). Teacher-interns moni-
tor beaches, record nesting data, and protect nests for a 7 d inter-
val 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 fun-
damentals of sea turtle biology and the field and classroom tech-
niques 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, fund-
ing, and collaboration through the cen-
tral processing unit (CPU) with output
of learning, service, and research. The
core program (CPU) supports multiple
peripheral project units (PPU) that syner-
gize the central core and peripheral units.
Smaller project plug-ins (PPIs) synergize
with the PPUs, reacting to evolving re-
search and funding opportunities.

TABLE 3. STRUCTURE OF THE ST. CATHERINES ISLAND SEA TURTLE PROGRAM (SCISTP)
Date Event Activities
Summer: 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
Following spring: GEOL 5741 G: Sustained contact with teachers to ensure integration of SCISTP experience into
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.
236 Bishop et al.
by distance-learning technology from classrooms at Georgia
Southern University, with remote sites dependent upon the geo-
graphic 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 demon-
strated. Safety, emergency actions, and field triage under extreme
circumstances or emergency conditions are discussed. Interac-
tions 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 (indig-
enous 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 con-
servation screening (Hayes et al., 1996). Techniques of scien-
tific 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 antic-
ipated schedule. When unusual circumstances occur, the stu-
dents 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, strate-
gies, 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 “teach-
ing moments” and “opportunities.” The ability to take advan-
tage of these opportunities is another aspect of field triage, and
experienced field geologists are comfortable with “opportunis-
tic 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 Hof-
stein’s (1994) thesis that the educational value of a field trip is
enhanced by its structure, learning materials, and teaching meth-
ods, 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 sea-
son and the beginning of the hatching season. Participants spend
7 to 8 d on the island monitoring nests on a daily basis. This activ-
ity 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, ero-
sional 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 sci-
entific 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 doc-
umented, sketched, and/or photographed, located by global posi-
tioning 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 teacher-
intern 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 com-
puters 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 eve-
ning 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 Superin-
tendent 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 presenta-
tions 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 meet-
ings 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 class-
room 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 pre-
sentation 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 tur-
tles, or scientific methodology in field research. Additional sup-
porting 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, South-
eastern 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 con-
taining images, slide shows, and spreadsheets of the data accu-
mulated during the summer. This meeting allows each participant
the opportunity to follow up their summer course with the acquisi-
tion 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 evalu-
ations 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 inte-
gration of course content into their curricula. This course uti-
lizes 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 tur-
tles 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, environmen-
tal action, and endangered species.
238 Bishop et al.
Follow-up and evaluation of the effective integration of con-
tent, 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 par-
ticipate in the training meetings for the new intern group. This
further integrates them into a network and into distance-learn-
ing 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. Cath-
erines Island Sea Turtle Program includes the physical geologi-
cal processes observed daily on the beaches, tidal channels, and
marshes of St. Catherines Island, plus a host of geological prin-
ciples 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 inter-
preting 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 nest-
ing 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 nest-
ing 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 hard-
wired behavior that exhibits little variation. The sequence of activ-
ities (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 exqui-
sitely 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 high-
tide 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 lami-
nated 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
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
1. Copulation in the ocean None
2. Approach to the beach None
3. Ascent of the beach 3. Entrance crawlway
4. Wander to find nest site 4. Wandering crawlway
5. Wallow a body pit 5. Body pit
6. Excava te the egg cham ber 6 . E g g c h a m be r
7. Depo sit the eg gs 7. Egg cham ber
8. Backfill the egg chamber 8. Egg chamber discontinuity
9. Covering activity 9. Covering pit
10. Return to the ocean 10. Exit crawlway
*The one known crawlway is attributed to being a wandering crawlway due to its position relative to the egg chambers and body pit.
Figure 10. Extensive wandering pattern of a single loggerhead sea tur-
tle searching for a nesting site on North Beach, St. Catherines Island
(nest 06-108; deposited 24 July 2006). Students read this sign and fol-
low 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 relo-
cated on 24 July to ensure hatching 107 of 113 eggs on 20 September.
Crawlway width is approximately 1 m wide as scale.
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 cov-
ering 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.
239
Fossil record?
No
No
Possible
Yes*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Possible
Crosscutting Relationships
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 distinc-
tion between entrance and exit crawlways. The truncation (or
lack of truncation) of crawlways by the high-tide line also pro-
vides 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 horizon-
tal laminations of the backbeach facies, as does the egg cham-
ber 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 care-
fully 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
Geological cross sections are presented to the teacher-
interns as a way of introducing them to Steno’s laws of lateral
continuity, original horizontality, and superposition. These dia-
grams 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 cur-
ricula. 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’s-
eye” 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 back-
ground, 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 Wal-
ther’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 sec-
tions 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 ver-
tical 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 visual-
ization skills. This also has been done using “mock nest” exer-
cises, 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 So-
ciety 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 commu-
nication 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 microstratigra-
phy of the backbeach at the nest site. Four additional egg cham-
bers 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 crawl-
ing, 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 ex-
posed 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. Plas-
tic 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 mark-
ing 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 243

Figure 16. Application of uniformitarianism to sea turtle tracks and traces interpreting Cretaceous Fox Hills sea turtle nesting struc-
tures (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.
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 excavat-
ed, 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 vali-
dated by careful archaeological style excavation.
In 2007, GaDNR intern Alyse Eddy extended the use of
these nest interpretation techniques, measuring crawlway param-
eters 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 sketch-
ing 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 teach-
able moments (Figs. 18A and 18B) in which to discuss predation,
trace fossils, and critical thinking. Offending vertebrate preda-
tors (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 activ-
ity. Teachers observe the burrowing of crabs in the marshes and
on the beach and note the characteristic disruption of strata dur-
ing 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 evi-
dence 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 numer-
ous 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 tur-
tles 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 chemi-

cal 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 exten-
sively across the SCISTP activities. In terms of geologic educa-
tion 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 mod- Figure 19. Studies in taphonomy. Graduate student Mike Knell docu-
ern knowledge to the discovery of a fossilized suite of nesting ments progressive bone scatter of decomposing and disarticulated log-
structures (Figs. 16A–16H) in the Cretaceous Fox Hills Sand- gerhead and Kemps Ridley sea turtle carcasses in South Lagoon, South
Beach, St. Catherines Island, for comparison to Cretaceous Western
stone near Limon, Colorado (Brannen and Bishop, 1993, 1994; Interior fossil sea turtles.
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. d, exiting the egg by cutting its flexible membrane with an egg tooth
(carbuncle). Upon hatching, the enrolled hatchling straightens, and
Additional Field Lessons—Turtles and Mining Engineering its carapace and plastron “harden,” forming a fully functional turtle
capable of crawling and swimming upon emergence at the surface.
Sea turtle eggs are incubated by solar heating in beach sand. Because the eggs are deposited in an egg chamber at some depth
The embryonic turtles develop within the eggs and hatch after ~52 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 bod-
ies. 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 con-
ditions, usually involving the wetting of the surface sand, the stope
or escape chamber roof becomes strengthened while the floor con-
tinues 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 trap-
ping 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, includ-
ing archaeological and anthropological studies, wildlife and con-
servation 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, expand-
ing their understanding of field science techniques and methodol-
ogy. As programs evolve, teachers sometimes have an opportu-
nity 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 reloca-
tion was producing sex biasing in hatchlings. The sex of hatch-
lings 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 ongo-
ing 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 con-
ducted 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 excava-
tion 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 mea-
sured 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 inter-
val, 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 fur-
ther 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. Cath-
erines than all my high school and college years combined.…[and had]
positive female role models.
These open-ended comments, selected from the evalua-
tions, 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, con-
sidering 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 envi-
ronment, 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 suc-
cessful 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 manipu-
latives in their classrooms, and encourage “risk-taking” peda-
gogical 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 infor-
mal 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 for-
mative 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 effective-
ness 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 class-
rooms, where it compounds as it is taught to cohort after cohort
of students. These K–12 students are confronted by an enthusias-
tic 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 technol-
ogy (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 [learn-
ing].” As colleagues and teachers see successful integration of
content, pedagogy, and technology into the classroom and labo-
ratory, 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–Improv-
ing 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 South-
ern University, GeoTrec LLC of Fayette, Iowa, and the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources (Non-Game Division). Occa-
sional 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 Foun-
dation, 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 Mack-
innon. The board members of the St. Catherines Island Founda-
tion, 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 Duck-
town District, Georgia, in Misra, K.C., ed., Volcanogenic Sulfide–Pre-
cious 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 Vol-
ume 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., Cen-
tennial 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—Compar-
ing 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, Bench-
marks 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 under-
graduate geoscience education: Is the viability of the geosciences in jeop-
ardy?: 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 Biol-
ogy, 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 Janu-
ary 2009).
Bishop, G.A., and Bishop, E.C., 1992, Distribution of ghost shrimp, North
Beach, St. Catherines Island, Georgia: American Museum of Natural His-
tory 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 Oce-
anic 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. Cathe-
rines 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 inte-
gration 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 Sci-
ence Education Model: Georgia Southern University Academic Innova-
tion 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 Geor-
gia, 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: Pro-
ceedings 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-Year-
Old 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 bur-
rowing 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 Conser-
vation 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 Con-
ference: 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 implica-
tions 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. Cath-
erines 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: Implica-
tions 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 Geo-
logical 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, Proceed-
ings of the 14th Annual Symposium of Sea Turtle Biology and Conserva-
tion: 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, Geor-
gia, 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 sec-
tion 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., Cen-
tennial 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, Geo-
logical 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 Soci-
ety 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: South-
eastern 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 Far-
rell, 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 east-
ern Piedmont of South Carolina and Georgia and their Alleghanian tec-
tonothermal 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, east-
central 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 Can-
yon 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 deposi-
tion 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 Mur-
phy Belt and Related Rocks, Georgia and North Carolina: Georgia Geologi-
cal Society Guidebook, v. 8, no. 1, 23rd Annual Field Trip, p. 23–34.
Frodeman, R., 1995, Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and histor-
ical 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 field-
oriented 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 his-
tory, 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 His-
tory: New York, W.W. Norton, 352 p.
Grant, W.H., 1958, The Geology of Hart County, Georgia: Georgia State Divi-
sion of Conservation and Geological Survey Bulletin 67, 75 p.
Gulko, D.A., and Eckert, K.L., 2004, Sea Turtles: An Ecological Guide: Hono-
lulu, Hawaii, Mutual Publishing, 128 p.
Hailman, J.P., and Elowson, A.M., 1992, Ethogram of the nesting female log-
gerhead (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 Dis-
tribution during the Campanian Lower Pierre Shale of South Dakota
[Master’s thesis]: Rapid City, South Dakota School of Mines and Tech-
nology, 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 Neath-
ery, 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, Geo-
logical Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 265–270.
Hayes, R.H., Marsh, N.B., and Bishop, G.A., 1996, Sea turtle nest depreda-
tion 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 Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum
MNFS-SEFSC 387, p. 129–134.
Hemler, D., and Repine, T., 2006, Teachers doing science: An authentic geol-
ogy 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 over-
view of the geology of barrier island complexes near Cumberland Island,
Georgia, in Farrell, K.M., Hoffman, C.W., and Henry, V.J., Jr., eds., Geo-
morphology and Facies Relationships of Quaternary Barrier Island Com-
plexes 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, Geo-
logical 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 teach-
ers: 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 Neath-
ery, 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 sci-
ence: 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, Mas-
sachusetts, 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 Theoreti-
cal 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, Design-
ing 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 Geo-
science 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, Educa-
tors, 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 his-
tory 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-wash-
over fan deposits: Yellow Banks Bluff, St. Catherines Island, Georgia: Geo-
logical 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: Southeast-
ern 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, Colo-
rado, 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 Bar-
tholomew, 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, Envi-
ronment of the zinc deposits of the Mascot–Jefferson City District, Ten-
nessee: 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 Logger-
head 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 edu-
cation 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, engi-
neering, and technology: A report on its review of undergraduate educa-
tion: 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 Educa-
tion, v. 60, p. 493–512, doi: 10.1002/sce.3730600410.
Nyer, E.K., 2001, Fieldwork makes great training ground: Ground Water Moni-
toring 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 sci-
entific 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, Stratig-
raphy and Origin of Georgia Kaolins: Field Excursion F4, 11th Interna-
tional 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 depos-
its 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 depos-
its in the Cartersville District, Bartow County, Georgia: Geological Soci-
ety 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 Neath-
ery, 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 Theoreti-
cal 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 Educa-
tion, 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 Meet-
ing, Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America: States-
boro, 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, Geo-
logical 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 Nea-
thery, 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 Ameri-
can 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, Geologi-
cal 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: Northwest-
ern 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, Excur-
sions 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 Insti-
tute, 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 Ala-
bama’s poorest counties. Its main goal is to help students and teachers from resource-
poor schools become knowledgeable about surface water and groundwater so they
can identify and sustain “safe” aquifer zones, where clean water resources are avail-
able 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 perme-
ability) 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

*leeming@auburn.edu

Lee, M.-K., Wolf, L., Hardesty, K., Beasley, L., Smith, J., Adams, L., Stone, K., and Block, D., 2009, Water education (WET) for Alabama’s black belt: A hands-on
field experience for middle school students and teachers, 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, p. 253–259, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(20). For permission to copy, contact editing@
geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

253
254 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 commu-
nities. 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 agricul-
tural activities may make some groundwater sources unusable.

85.92° W 85.86° W
32.45° N To Tallassee 32.45° N

Elmore County
iver
Macon County
poosa R
Talla
Railroad

Milstead
EVS2-3
EVS1

Rd. 40
County
EVS4-5
E.V. Smith Center
AL-229 Experiment Fields
Figure 1. Location map of E.V. Smith
To Auburn
Center in east-central Alabama and lo-
cations (solid circles) of five ground-
I-85 water monitoring wells used in WET
(water education) field-day activities.
To Montgomery
0 1 km
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 255

Groundwater at some local sites is contaminated with trace ele-
ments, 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 proj-
ect 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 water-
resources issues relevant to youth (i.e., stimulate interest in main-
taining water resources).
THE WET PROGRAM
Project WET Alabama promotes water-resource educa-
tion 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
understanding of (1) the scientific method, (2) water and carbon
biogeochemical cycles and their effects on Earth, and (3) fac-
tors 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 con-
cepts and to provide a context in which they can assimilate infor-
mation 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 qual-
ity (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 per-
form 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
Modules Activity Materials/Equipment
Aquifer in a 1. Marking the position of water table; identifying saturation and unsaturated zones; adding 10 gallon aquarium
tank water, and then observing the new position of water table; learning concept of recharge. Gravel and sand
2. Observing connection of groundwater to a lake; learning the concept of groundwater PVC pipe and plug
discharge to surface-water body; learning the structure of well screens and well casing Liquid soap pump
and their uses; visualizing contaminant transfer. Empty yogurt cup
3. Removing water from the tank using a handheld pump; observing how the position of the Plastic tubing
water table changes in response to pumping; describing the effects of drought on water Squirt bottle
table. 1 gallon tub
Erasable markers
Fruit juice

Aquifer 1. Measuring the amount of water ponding above different sediments (gravel, sand, clay) Three 500 mL glass beaker
materials after water infiltrates downward and fills up open pore spaces between solid sediment Gravel, sand, clay
grains (porosity assessment).
2. Comparing the rate at which water flows through syringe filled with gravel, sand, and clay Three 60 mL syringe
(permeability assessment). Three millipore (0.45 µm) filter
Gravel, sand, clay

Darcy’s Conducting the classic Darcy’s experiment to visualize flow and contaminant transport Constant-head permeameter
experiment through a sand layer under varying hydraulic gradient. (HM-3891, Humboldt Inc.)
Fruit juice
Sand
5 gallon bucket
50 mL graduated cylinder

Water-quality Use titration method to measure dissolved oxygen (DO) on a surface-water sample. HACH surface-water test kit
acquisition (model 25598-33)
256 Lee et al.
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 stu-
dents 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 com-
mon aquifer materials—gravels, sands, and clays (Fig. 3). Sam-
ples of sediments collected from wells drilled at the E.V. Smith
field site are compared in this activity. For the Darcy’s experi-
ment activity, students use a constant-head permeameter (HM-
3891, 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.
and contaminant transport (fruit juice provides a colored tracer)
through a sand layer under a given hydraulic gradient. In the test-
ing water quality module, students use the HACH surface-water
test kit and employ a titration method to measure dissolved oxy-
gen (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
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 coastal-
plain sediments that belong to the Upper Cretaceous Tuscaloosa
Group. The Tuscaloosa Group is present in central-south Ala-
bama 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 shal-
low 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 stu-
dents to map the water-table surface of a shallow unconfined allu-
vial aquifer. The water-table surface shows the spatial variations
in hydraulic head within a single aquifer and provides the infor-
mation 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 gradi-
ent exists within the aquifer. The existence of vertical gradients
reveals significant interaction between surface water and ground-
water near the groundwater discharge area.
During the well installation, continuous sediment core sam-
ples were collected by a split-spoon sampler with a rotary core-
drilling 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–col-
ored 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 Figure 4. Students obtain a
test water quality to determine if the groundwater has become representative water sample by
purging the well. They with-
contaminated. A book titled, “Well…What’s All That Drilling draw the water sample from
About?” (American Ground Water Trust, 2007) is distributed to well EVS 1 using a bailer.
participating students and their schools. The book, with its color
illustrations, centers on two young children watching the drill-
ing 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 water-
table 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 informa-
tion with surface elevation data to calculate the groundwater-
table 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, indicat-
ing a vertical, upward hydraulic gradient between the underly-
ing and overlying sediments. The existence of vertical gradi-
ents 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 (with-
draw) water from the well. Bailers are easy to operate, and stu-
dents 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 submers-
ible 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.
Water-Quality Assessment
In this activity, students learn the quantities that are impor-
tant 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-qual-
ity 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, ground-
water from the nearby deeper well EVS 3 is clean and free of
Fe-oxyhydroxide solids. The deeper groundwater exhibits mod-
erately 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 differ-
ent depths (aquifers) at a site can vary in water quality; such a
concept is practical and important for finding clean water sup-
ply from different aquifer zones.
Program Assessment and Evaluation
The overall goal of the WET project is to enrich the knowl-
edge 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 under-
stand the interplay among natural and anthropogenic changes
and the water cycle. At the conclusion of the WET activities, stu-
dents revisit key concepts by participating in a series of assess-
ment activities. The first activity involves matching basic hydro-
logic 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 contamina-
tion.
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 expres-
sion 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 success-
fully 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 hands-
on 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 con-
cepts of balance in recharge and water use, and they understood
how drought, pumping, and pollution might affect water qual-
ity 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 deter-
mine how effective the activities are in getting students to retain
key concepts over time. Having conducted the WET field activi-
ties 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 indi-
cate 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 par-
ticipation. 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 stu-
dent’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 field-
based, 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 stu-
dents 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 effec-
tive means of information transfer to every student. In a broader
sense, the WET field activities gave the students a chance to fol-
low the scientific method in making observations and interpret-
ing 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 direc-
tion; 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, how-
ever, the field-based activities imparted a deeper, more thor-
ough understanding of hydrologic concepts than the labora-
tory-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 under-
scores 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 connec-
tions to recruit future students and foster the support of our con-
stituents. 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 par-
ticipation 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 field-
day 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 Ala-
bama Bulletin 156, 105 p.
Foster, S., 2006, Groundwater; sustainability issues and governance needs: Epi-
sodes, v. 29, p. 238–243.
Gates, A.E., Langford, R.P., Hodgeson, R.M., and Driscoll, J.J., III, 1996, Ground-
water-simulation apparatus for introductory and advanced courses in envi-
ronmental geology: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 44, p. 559–564.
Horton, J.W., Jr., Zietz, I., and Neathery, T.L., 1984, Truncation of the Appala-
chian 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 physical-
geology 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 hydro-
geology 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 aqui-
fer, Alabama: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 112, p. G02026, doi:
10.1029/2006JG000238.
Moench, M., 2005, Groundwater; the challenge of monitoring and manage-
ment: World’s Water, v. 2004–2005, p. 79–100.
Penny, E., Lee, M.-K., and Morton, C., 2003, Groundwater and microbial pro-
cesses 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 oppor-
tunities 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 Geosci-
ence 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 Acapul-
co, 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 plan-
ning, institutional support, and a program design built on diverse experiences of the
instructional team and tailored to educator needs, including an integrated C3 (con-
nections, communications, and curriculum) instructional approach. The C3 approach

*Current address: European Union Center, Annenberg Presidential Conference Center, 1245 TAMU, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-1245, USA.

St. John, K., Leckie, R.M., Slough, S., Peart, L., Niemitz, M., and Klaus, A., 2009, The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program “School of Rock”: Lessons learned
from an ocean-going research expedition for earth and ocean science educators, 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, p. 261–273, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(21). For permission to
copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

261
262 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 undergradu-
ate to graduate level for nongeoscientists, as part of the field program, the partici-
pants 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 commu-
nity 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 inter-
national (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 sub-
seafloor 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 Drill-
ing Program (IODP) and its legacy programs, Deep Sea Drilling Proj-
ect (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 repos-
itories at the University of Bremen in Bremen, Germany, Kochi
University in Kochi, Japan, and Texas A&M University in Col-
lege 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 sedi-
ment 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). Investiga-
tions of marine core records employ the same scientific skills
and interpretative principles that are used to “read” and inter-
pret traditional land-based outcrops. Thus, marine cores, like
outcrops, are a geologic archive that can be drawn upon for stu-
dent learning in the geosciences at all educational levels.
The DSDP-ODP-IODP legacy program is arguably a cor-
nerstone research program for earth system science. This pro-
gram’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 drill-
ing research and education was only loosely constructed. Dur-
ing 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 class-
room. 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 Gla-
ciation workbook (Domack and Domack, 1993), and the expe-
dition-focused interactive CDs “Mountains to Monsoons” (JOI,
2001a) and “Gateways to Glaciations” (JOI, 2001b).
A programmatic shift for scientific ocean drilling educa-
tion came in 2004 when IODP’s U.S. Implementing Organiza-
tion (USIO) and U.S. Science Support Program provided full-
time funds to support a small education staff for scientific ocean
drilling. The ramp-up for the “School of Rock” (SOR) expedi-
tion 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 stu-
dents, 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
A B
Select Scientific Ocean Drilling Practices
and Discoveries
Making observations, collecting data,
analyzing and synthesizing results, making
and testing hypotheses
Fundamental Using a multiproxy approach to characterizing
practice to all sediment and rocks
ocean drilling
Drawing on diverse talents and teamwork to
research achieve scientific goals
Determining age from fossils,
paleomagnetism, isotopes
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 Confirmed the details of tropical climates in
scientific polar regions 55 m.y.; confirmed the timing of
discoveries gateway opening between Australia and
about the Antarctica and the establishment of the
Antarctic Circumpolar Current; documented
earth system
abrupt global warming events (e.g., PETM)
that interrupted a 40 m.y. cooling trend in the
Cenozoic
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 expedi-
tions, 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 Expe-
dition 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 objec-
tives 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-
St. John et al.
Select National Science Education Content
Standards grades 5-8 & 9-12 (NRC, 1996)
Content Standard A: Science as Inquiry
Content Standard G: History and Nature of Science
…All students should develop understanding of
science as a human endeavor…
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.
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, com-
pleting paperwork, and securing physicals and passports. Ten
grade 5–12 teachers with progressive, inquiry-focused philoso-
phies and demonstrated track records of curriculum develop-
ment 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 publish-
ing 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 plan-
ning 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 imple-
mented by Leckie and St. John, both of whom had sailed numer-
ous 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 gradu-
ate 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 asso-
ciate 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 sup-
port 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 profes-
sional 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, integrat-
ing 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 (paleocean-
ography) would be the primary content focus.
4. The program could not be taught as would an under-
graduate field course for geology majors. The SOR field pro-
gram would neither be a capstone experience in which geol-
ogy students work independently and show what they learned
after a multiyear degree program, nor would it be a show-
and-tell, as may be more typical for a novice audience. The
SOR audience would be professional educators, all with col-
lege degrees, but not necessarily in the earth sciences; most, in
fact, had education or biology bachelor degrees. SOR curricu-
lum 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 cur-
riculum for their classrooms during and after the SOR expedi-
tion. 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 devel-
oping 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 “design-
based research” approach (or design studies), which emphasizes
both qualitative and quantitative data collected in cooperation
between researcher and practitioners (Bell et al., 2004). Design-
based research is a systematic but flexible approach to studying
educational innovations in authentic teaching and learning con-
texts (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-in-
time” 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 (Krath- Figure 4. “School of Rock” logo.
wohl, 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 expe- days in port in Acapulco. From the time the educators arrived
rience and knowledge, people, memorable events, instructional on the JOIDES Resolution (Fig. 5) until they departed for their
ideas) encountered during laboratory, classroom activities, cur- flights home, the cohort of educators, as well as the SOR instruc-
riculum development, classroom communications, and through- tional team, were immersed in a learning community of scientific
out the day. The teachers were also asked to record frustrations, ocean drilling. The days were long for the teachers (12–14 h) and
or missed connections. A more summative evaluation included even longer for the instructional team, since about half of the cur-
focused interviews and observations after the expedition by the riculum used in the SOR was developed while at sea, and instruc-
field program evaluator. Questions and observations focused on tors were continuously adjusting to address teacher questions and
teacher involvement in a variety of required and elective activi- needs. A summary of the daily schedule is provided in Table 1.
ties sponsored by the SOR program, including reflection on the Field instruction modeled and supported open inquiry using
efficacy of these activities and implementation of the developed exercises based on authentic shipboard research activities and
curricula in their respective classrooms. Additionally, long-term data. The educators worked with previously drilled sediment and
impact of the SOR experience was collected through systematic basement cores that were sent to the ship from the IODP Gulf
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 pre-
sentation at a conference that includes/involves SOR) of the SOR
participants and instructors. The e-mail includes prompts to con-
tinue to provide examples of the ways in which the participants
and instructors continue to use SOR curricula, develop new cur-
ricula, 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.

IMPLEMENTATION

The SOR field expedition for educators took place dur-

ing the IODP pre–Expedition 312 transit from Victoria, British Figure 5. JOIDES Resolution in port in Victoria, British Columbia,
Columbia, Canada, to Acapulco, Mexico, from 31 October to 12 Canada, October 2005. Photo is courtesy of Julie Marsteller, “School
November 2005 (Fig. 4). The SOR continued for two additional of Rock” (SOR) participant.
 TABLE 1. “SCHOOL OF ROCK” DAILY SCHEDULE
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6
In Port—Victoria, British Under way to Acapulco, Mexico
Columbia, Canada
Morning Transport participants to JOIDES Warm up and debrief, Warm up and debrief, Warm up and debrief, teachers Warm up and debrief, C3 time
Resolution depart Victoria, view core flow introduction, share core descriptions and biostratigraphy continued Ship tour
Cabin assignments, paperwork Juan de Fuca Strait, tour of the core sample cores (Group B) and C3 time
Orientation: life on board, introduction to water laboratory, Marine sediments lecture (Group A)
communications and meteorological core description
data collection activity: visual core
Plate tectonics description smear
discussion and slides, creation of
activities barrel sheets

Afternoon Orientation: safety Lifeboat drill Core description activity Introduction to biostratigraphy: Biostratigraphy continued: C3 time
JOIDES Resolution tour and Plate tectonic activities continued construction of age-depth plots sample processing in
introductions continued and sedimentation rates paleo laboratory,
Ocean drilling legacy lecture C3 Time = (Group A) and C3 time (Group photomicroscopy of smear
“History of Our Planet Revealed: connections, B) slides
Stories Only Rocks Can Tell” by curriculum, and
Dr. Jeff Fox, Director, IODP communications

Evening Open Open Core description Open Open Open

continued
(Continued )

TABLE 1. “SCHOOL OF ROCK” DAILY SCHEDULE (Continued )

Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 10 Day 11 Day 12 Day 13
Under way to Acapulco, Mexico Under way to Acapulco, In Acapulco
Mexico, and in Acapulco
Morning Introduction to Warm up and debrief Warm up and Warm up and Warm up and Activity on sediment point- Climate
geochemistry “CORK 101” lecture debrief debrief debrief count analysis and change
Geochemistry (via ship-to-shore C3 time Abrupt events in Climate cyclicity interpretation discussion
activity on percent videoconference) Earth history discussion Observe arrival in port
carbonate Presentation on discussion Activities on Customs and immigration
analysis viewing the Activities on K-P Milankovitch
C3 time Expedition 301 extinction, PETM, cyclicity and
CORK sites via E-O boundary and suborbital
submersible Oi1 event oscillations
C3 time
Afternoon Paleomagnetism C3 time Ocean crust C3 time C3 time C3 time C3 time
laboratory tour Geophysics lecture and
lecture, core
and activity: tour of underway description, thin
polarity reversal, geophysics section photo-
stratigraphy, laboratory microscopy
correlation to Geophysics activities:
GPTS, seismic stratigraphy
construction of in site selection and
age-depth plots sea-level curves
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.
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 inves-
tigate 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 edu-
cators 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 incorpo-
rating 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 stu-
dents, 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 stu-
dents in several different time zones. It was essential to integrate
communication time to the classrooms with curriculum develop-
ment 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 con-
ference 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 pre-
sented a unique opportunity to engage teacher-to-student inter-
action 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 exer-
cise, a video question-and-answer section, participant biogra-
phies, and a library of background resources. Through these var-
ied 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 confer-
ence was also set up so a scientific expert on shore could teach a
unit on marine hydrothermal circulation and answer SOR educa-
tors’ questions about IODP in situ monitoring of such a circula-
tion 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 instruc-
tional laboratory demonstration videos. The career interview for-
mat 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 incor-
porated 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; meteorologi-
cal and oceanographic data, which were normally collected and
recorded twice daily by the bridge deck crew, became a shared-
task 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 pro-
mote a conceptual change of prior knowledge (Chinn and Mal-
hotra, 2002). By bringing teachers into the field setting of marine
geoscientists, the teachers develop their own skills of observa-
tion, 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 collabora-
tion, 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 rele-
vance 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 produc-
tivity 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 scien-
tific 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 power-
ful compared to their previous descriptions of “scientists have
researched this.” Scientific ocean drilling’s contribution to pow-
erful 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 Resolu-
tion 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 cap-
tain.” The majority of this information was edited and sent back
to his school in almost real-time with the help of JOIDES Reso-
lution and SOR staff and an enthusiastic computer technician at
his home school. A teacher noted, “The JOIDES Resolution rep-
resents 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 demon-
strated 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 Web-
based access to data as essential to scientists and teachers alike—
“research at my fingertips.” One stated that “data was [sic] inte-
gral 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 reposi-
tory.
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 cre-
ating something in a void, and then cramming it down our throats, the
organizers sought to respond to an existing need; and during the pro-
gram, 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 car-
ried 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 excep-
tion, this resulted in a personal relationship between the partici-
pants 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 pro-
files all likely contributed to this spirit, but perhaps more impor-
tantly, 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 partici-
pants 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 com-
munity. 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 con-
tinue to develop curricula together, as well as present at confer-
ences 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 partici-
pants who was hired as a full-time member of the Ocean Lead-
ership 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 profes-
sional development for science educators on the east coast. In
part because of her SOR experience and SOR professional con-
nections, 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 contin-
ues 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 fel-
low 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 Reposi-
tory. 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 Outstand-
ing 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 educa-
tor; 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 teach-
ing 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 out-
comes are the subsequent SOR shore-based programs for educa-
tors, 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, Uni-
versity 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 intro-
ductory 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 contin-
ued engagement directly impacted their interests and ability to
take the next steps in their careers, opened up many new profes-
sional opportunities, stimulated some impressive educational
awards, and provided outlets for developing significant cur-
ricular resources. These participants still have opportunities to
attend other professional development programs. Instead, their
 †
TABLE 2. EXAMPLE SOR* CURRICULUM MATERIALS
Title Keywords Curriculum category Developed by Grade Level
Plate Tectonics and Contributions from Scientific Seafloor spreading | plate tectonics | Mid-Atlantic Ridge | Classroom exercise SOR instructors Grades 9–12
Ocean Drilling—Going Back to the Original Data Deep Sea Drilling Project Undergraduate
Nannofossils Reveal Seafloor Spreading Truth! Seafloor spreading | plate tectonics | Mid-Atlantic Ridge | Classroom exercise SOR participant Grades 5–8
microfossils Grades 9–12
Inquiry into Sediment Cores Marine sediments | inquiry | cores | composition Classroom exercise SOR instructors Grades 9–12
Undergraduate
Microfossils: The Ocean’s Storytellers Microfossils Poster with classroom SOR instructors and Grades K–4
exercises participants Grades 5–8
Grades 9–12
Undergraduate
How Old Is It? Part 1—Biostratigraphy Relative age | micropaleontology | extinction | biozones | Classroom exercise SOR instructors Grades 9–12
biostratigraphy | absolute age Undergraduate
How Old Is It? Part 2—Magnetostratigraphy Paleomagnetism | magnetostratigraphy | magnetic reversal | Classroom exercise SOR instructors Grades 9–12
(Paleomagnetism) and the Geomagnetic Polarity Earth history | declination Undergraduate
Timescale
Abrupt Events of the Past 70 Million Years— Stable isotopes | rapid climate change | paleoceanography | Classroom exercise SOR instructors Grades 9–12
Evidence from Scientific Ocean Drilling mass extinction | global warming | Earth history Undergraduate
Secrets of the Sediments—Using Marine Sediment core | oxygen isotopes | microfossils | climate Classroom exercise SOR participant Grades 9–12
Sediments to Study Climate Change change
It’s a Small World After All JOIDES Resolution | geography | flags | countries of the Classroom exercise SOR instructors Grades K–4
world Grades 5–8
Grades 9–12
W hat Do Y o u W ant t o Be? Analytical chemist | driller | editor | electronics technician | Career profiles and SOR participants Grades K–4
marine curator | naval architect | radio operator | second online interactive and SOR instructors Grades 5–8
mate | steward program Grades 9–12
Undergraduate
§
High S.E.A. Adventures Bridge | geophysics lab | core lab | microfossil sample Video tours, lessons, SOR participant Grades 5–8
preparation and interviews Grades 9–12
*SOR—School of Rock
†
These (and others) can be found at http://www.oceanleadership.org/learning.
§
S.E.A.—Science & Engineering Academy
271
272 St. John et al.
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 Vic-
toria, 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 pro-
vided the educators with an opportunity to experiment on ocean-
floor core samples and participate in hands-on learning in a num-
ber 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 edu-
cational resources and accessible on the Web.
By living, working, and learning aboard the JOIDES Reso-
lution, the educators discovered the conditions of life at sea, the
highly collaborative nature of scientific investigation, the work-
ings 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 con-
nections with people, previous knowledge, and experiences, cre-
ate original age- or audience-appropriate activities, and share
their new experiences with their classrooms, museums, col-
leagues, 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 pos-
sibilities for bridging partnerships between science research and
education. It strengthens and supports excellence in science edu-
cation; 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 Trans-
ocean, 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 Expedi-
tion 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 edu-
cational 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 Institu-
tions, 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: Inte-
grated 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 fora-
miniferal 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 determina-
tion 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 Kom-
mers, P., and Richards, G., eds., Proceedings of the World Conference
on Education Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunication, 2006:
Chesapeake, Virginia, Association for the Advancement of Comput-
ing 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 (Transac-
tions, American Geophysical Union), v. 89, no. 53, Fall meeting supple-
ment, 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 Scien-
tific 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: Sci-
ence, 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 ulti-

mately enhance diversity within the discipline, we recruited ten middle and high
school science teachers for a three-week field experience to the Central Mexico volca-
nic belt. Supported by the National Science Foundation’s Opportunities for Enhanc-
ing Diversity in the Geosciences (OEDG) program, the experience began with a mini-
pedagogy 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 quanti-
tatively via pre- and post-tests to assess affective domain changes (i.e., confidence lev-
els, 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 iden-
tify specific activities that are both effective and efficient in changing teacher behav-
iors and attitudes, enabling them to better connect with their Hispanic students in
their geoscience classrooms.

*kkitts@niu.edu

Kitts, K., Perry, E., Jr., Leal-Bautista, R.M., and Velazquez-Oliman, G., 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, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geol-
ogy Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, p. 275–289, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(22). For
permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

275
276 Kitts et al.
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 representa-
tion 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 His-
panics 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 Geo-
logical Institute (2009) estimate that by the year 2050, Hispanics
will represent 29%–30% of the population. These trends are par-
ticularly troubling as Hispanics have traditionally been the most
underrepresented population in science and math (National Cen-
ter 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 gener-
ated 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, high-
wage jobs requiring advanced technical, scientific, and profes-
sional skills (Sassen, 1991, 1994). Additionally, Lynch et al.
(1996) found that socioeconomic status is the single most power-
ful 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 dis-
proportionate number of Hispanic students, by virtue of where
they live, attend underfunded schools, exacerbating their difficul-
ties and limiting their choices.
However, despite a recognition of the economic value of an
advanced education, only 52% of immigrant and native-born His-
panic 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 coun-
terparts 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 com-
bined science, culture, and pedagogy and began with a multi-
cultural 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 Mexi-
can 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 Mex-
ican 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 geo-
thermal 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-per-
ceived inability to reach their Hispanic students and interest them
in science (Kitts, 2005). Second, the multiplicative effect is effi-
cient 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 impor-
tance 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 self-
imposed due to a limited exposure to English in early child-
hood. 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 learn-
ing 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 relega-
tion 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 bear-
ing 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 meth-
odologies; (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 pedagogi-
cal 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 introduc-
tory mini-courses, which prepared the teachers for both geologi-
cal 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 com-
munity. 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 confer-
ence 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 pre-
liminary 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 strate-
gies is presented next. For an additional in depth review of multi-
cultural education, see Banks and Banks (2004).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Starting in the 1960s, science education research and litera-
ture 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 Multicultural workshop

misconceptions 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 Field experience

materials 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 inter-
est gap might be due to girls and ethnic minorities being less
cognitively capable in science. In the 1980s, feminist and mul-
ticultural 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 defi-
cit model, and the paradigm switched to examining possible
environmental reasons why success or failure in science cor-
related with gender and ethnicity. Since the mid-1990s, most of
the studies have focused on societal/cultural biases and expec-
tations. 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
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 expecta-
tions (Kahle and Meece, 1994; Farenga and Joyce, 1999; Aiken-
head, 2008; Hanson, 2008), (2) negative teacher attitudes (Jones
and Wheatley, 1990; Potter and Rosser, 1992; Guzzetti and Wil-
liams, 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; Catsam-
bis, 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 leverag-
ing of cultural strengths (Smith and Hausafus, 1998; Simpson
and Parsons, 2008; Fouad, 2008), (7) lack of role models (Sey-
mour 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,
279
Figure 1. A time line of activities for
track 1 cohort 1 (2006) and track 2 co-
hort 2 (2008).
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 con-
fidence, (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 Super-
vision, only ~15% of the science teachers teaching geoscience
content in grades 6–12 in northern Illinois have a degree in geo-
science. This is due in part to the way teachers are certified in Illi-
nois. Secondary teachers (6–12) are required to have a degree in
the discipline in which they teach, but this is not true for elemen-
tary certification holders (K–9) (ISBE, 2008). This overlap allows
elementary certified teachers to teach middle school science with-
out 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 activ-
ities are especially effective for the nontraditional science stu-
dent. 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 scien-
tific 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 attempt-
ing to incorporate more female- and minority-friendly meth-
odologies 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 tech-
niques in regular science instruction. As Roberts (2008) points
out, the term “science literacy” means different things to differ-
ent 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 com-
municate but understands the intricacies and subtleties associated
with the nature of science. We define literacy here by the broad-
est 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 prepa-
ratory 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 teach-
ers 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 ben-
eficial 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 inter-
ventions, we also recognized the importance of teachers as lead-
ers. 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 grass-
roots. They define a teacher leader as someone who strives to
improve relationships with peers, students, and the broader com-
munity; 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 oth-
ers. Roth (2008) listed many advantages of having teachers do
research, such as positive identity development, higher confi-
dence and competency levels, new knowledge production, peer-
mentorship, collaboration, and access to materials and instru-
mentation 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 partici-
pate actively in the research themselves. Specifically, Roth cites
studies showing that institutional changes are often more read-
ily accepted, fully implemented, and thereby deemed more suc-
cessful when initiated by peers.
FIELD EXPERIENCE EVALUATION
Quantitative and Qualitative Efficacy Studies
We measured the efficacy of the field experience and associ-
ated activities quantitatively by (1) pre- and post-tests designed to
assess both the affective domain changes in educators (i.e., confi-
dence 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) partici-
pant journal entries in field books; (3) participants’ rankings of
usefulness and interest of each activity; and, finally, (4) partici-
pant surveys and self-evaluations conducted just before, directly
after, and one year after the experience.
The quantitative affective domain instruments were devel-
oped 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 cross-
linkages, 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 con-
cept 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) defini-
tion of science; (2) attitudes toward learning science; (3) atti-
tudes toward teaching science; (4) attitudes toward the current
and previous professional development activities (two instru-
ments 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 con-
fidence 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 stu-
dents. 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 6 4.37 ± 0.31 4.77 ± 0.08 0.09 None
• 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
• Middle school 6 2.72 ± 0.71 2.21 ± 0.33 0.04 Significant
• High school 4 2.36 ± 0.16 1.95 ± 0.42 0.03 Significant
• All 10 2.57 ± 0.37 2.11 ± 0.27 0.02 Significant

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 sci-
ence. 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 con-
fidence levels in teaching science showed a corresponding sta-
tistically significant increase by the middle and high school par-
ticipants. 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 con-
fidence in translating their previous and current workshop experi-
ences 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 dis-
coveries 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 sta-
ble 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 try-
ing 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 relation-
ships with the high school teachers and NIU and UNAM faculty.
They are now actively seeking help as they teach geoscience con-
cepts in which they have no official training beyond this experi-
ence, as measured by e-mail activity from 2006 to present, addi-
tional 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 self-
reported that they felt that they were more “positive” and “pre-
pared” 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 pro-
gram, 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 mid-
dle 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 hon-
estly respond to the questions in the pre- and post-tests evalu-
ating attitudes toward nontraditional science students because
this introduction raised their comfort level.
Despite the development of a “safe” environment for discus-
sions, with only ten participants, we were not confident that we
would be able to see a difference in the pre- and post-tests. How-
ever, this was not the case. We found significant changes in pre-
and 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 His-
panic 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 stu-
dents must ask the question, formulate the method, and develop
an interpretation. Despite not suffering from many myths asso-
ciated 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 standards-
based, inquiry lessons plans. To illustrate, the teachers were
escorted to two maars in central Mexico. They were encour-
aged 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, devel-
oped 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 coop-
erating 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 Con-
ventions of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).
Although the participants showed positive change in the fre-
quency of use and quality of their inquiry-based lesson plans,
they did not succeed at implementing any science literacy meth-
odologies. 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 “for-
gotten.” 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 Cen-
tral 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 pre-
paredness in Spanish. All of the participants and their nine stu-
dent 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 scien-
tific 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 pre-
sented 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 immi-
grant 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 experi-
ence, 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 scien-
tists 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 men-
tors 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 par-
ticipating 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 Adminis-
tration (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 proj-
ect is online and requires only computer access with an Internet
connection on the part of the project schools. To date, two His-
panic 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 materi-
als 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 stu-
dent teachers. These preservice teachers were subsequently intro-
duced 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-a-
thons 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 partic-
ipants 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 stu-
dents 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 conven-
tion, six of the teachers felt that presenting at a national confer-
ence 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 trans-
ferred in a negative way to the students.
DISCUSSION
One of the goals of this volume is to document the criti-
cal 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 geol-
ogy 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. Teach-
ers cannot model what they themselves have never experienced.
According to pedagogical research on foreign-language instruc-
tion (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 mul-
ticultural 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 Bap-
tiste 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. Popo-
catépetl 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 stereo-
typing, 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; Guz-
zetti 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 opportuni-
ties 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 devel-
oping connections between the teachers and their students.
With their comfort level raised, the teachers were more willing
to honestly evaluate their attitudes toward nontraditional sci-
ence 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 par-
ticipant pointed to a conversation between two female Mexi-
can 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 conversa-
tions 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, develop-
ment of a method of investigation, and the interpretation of
the resultant data. Despite the fact that national science stan-
dards (NSTA, 2008) mandate the use of the inquiry method,
most science teachers begin their career with only an under-
graduate degree and have never experienced a science class-
room 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 insti-
tutional 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 (Hunt-
oon and Lane, 2007).
For example, Kozoll and Osborne (2004) found that
expanding the worldview of the children of migrant agricul-
tural 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 experi-
ences of 15 successful women of color over the course of their
undergraduate and graduate studies in science and into science-
related 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 sci-
ence was not sufficient. Role models who could demonstrate a
successful balance between career and family were a require-
ment. Thus, the development of a mentoring system made pos-
sible 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 com-
munity can aid these teachers and make the field experience
even more beneficial for reaching and supporting these non-
traditional geoscience students by making simple adjustments
to their field experience model. These modifications should
include: providing a safe environment and strategies to exam-
ine 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; sup-
porting 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 sum-
mer course on adolescent identity development and science lit-
eracy 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 partici-
pation 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 self-
autonomy 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 insti-
tutions and for being such wonderful hosts. This research is sup-
ported 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: Jour-
nal 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 Multicul-
tural 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 gen-
der 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 Pro-
mote 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: Jour-
nal 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: Jour-
nal 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 mid-
dle 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: Experi-
ments 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, Transform-
ing 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 differ-
ences: 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: Science-
Daily: 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 Evalu-
ation, v. 12, p. 359–372, doi: 10.1080/13803610600765786.
Furner, J.M., and Duffy, M.L., 2002, Equality for all students in the new mil-
lennium: 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 baccalaure-
ates: 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 Univer-
sity Press, 224 p.
Huntoon, J.E., and Lane, M.J., 2007, Diversity in the geosciences and success-
ful 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 Cer-
tification: http://www.isbe.state.il.us/certification/Default.htm (accessed
18 August 2009).
Jones, G., and Wheatley, J., 1990, Gender differences in teacher-student inter-
actions 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: Sci-
ence 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 class-
rooms: 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 Sci-
ence 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 Foun-
dation (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 profes-
sional 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 con-
structs 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: Life-
world, 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., Rojas-
Medlin, D., Secada, W., Stefanich, G., and Willetto, A., 1996, An Equity
Blueprint for Project 2061, 2nd Draft: Washington, D.C., American Asso-
ciation for the Advancement of Science, 282 p.
Markus, H.R., and Nurius, P., 1986, Possible selves: The American Psycholo-
gist, 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 Publica-
tion 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 Publi-
cation 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 Leder-
man, 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 con-
cepts and the need for cyclic concept maps: Journal of Research in Sci-
ence 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 Educa-
tion, v. 50, p. A8–A12.
Senior, D., 1998, Beyond learning Italian: Total immersion for cultural diver-
sity: Italica: Linguistics and Pedagogy, v. 75, no. 4, p. 517–531.
Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N.M., 2000, Talking about Leaving: Why Under-
graduates 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 eth-
nic 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 engineer-
ing students: Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineer-
ing, 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, sci-
ence, 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 envi-
ronment 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. Qualita-
tive and quantitative data were collected from 62 students from a single UK univer-
sity 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 gener-
ated new negative responses, while extracurricular social and cultural activities gen-
erated 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 out-
side 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 which students learn in the field is limited. Many geoscientists

Fieldwork is widely considered to be one of the most
effective means of learning in the geosciences (e.g., Mond-
lane and Mapani, 2002; Butler, 2008; Kelso and Brown, this
volume). Most importantly, it enables students to contextual-
ize knowledge and make sense of the world through hands-
on interaction with their environment, and to become profi-
cient in a range of subject-specific and generic transferable
skills. However, general understanding of the processes by
might argue that it is not necessary to understand the “how”
of fieldwork—it should just be done. But simply taking stu-
dents 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, effec-
tively measured. Increasing threats to fieldwork mean that
geoscience departments are under growing pressure to justify
its continued inclusion in the undergraduate geoscience cur-
riculum (Boyle et al., 2007), so it is important to understand

Stokes, A., and Boyle, A.P., 2009, 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,
p. 291–311, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(23). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

291
292 Stokes and Boyle
the particular characteristics of fieldwork as a learning envi-
ronment 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 con-
ceptualization) 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, atti-
tudes, 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 learn-
ing to occur (Eiss and Harbeck, 1969; Iozzi, 1989; Perrier and
Nsengiyumva, 2003; Beard and Wilson, 2005) (Fig. 1). Exam-
ining the role of the affective domain is thus crucial to under-
standing learning processes (Koballa and Glynn, 2007).
The relationship between affect and cognition is of particu-
lar 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
LEARNING
BEHAVIOR
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 af-
fective, 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 out-
comes, 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 abil-
ity 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 experi-
ences 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 per-
spectives 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 percep-
tions 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 Lind-
say, 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). Con-
versely, 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
• Intention to understand
• Vigorous interaction with content
• Relate new ideas to previous knowledge
• Relate concepts to everyday experience
• Relate evidence to conclusions
• Examine the logic of the argument
Surface approach
• Intention to complete task requirements
• Memorize information needed for assessments
• Failure to distinguish principles from examples
• Treat task as an external imposition
• Focus on discrete elements without integration
• 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 dur-
ing learning (Gasper and Clore, 2002; Clore and Schnall, 2005;
Storbeck and Clore, 2005). Most significantly, positive moods
can encourage superficial and less systematic processing strate-
gies (Schnall et al., 2008), while negative moods tend to trig-
ger more vigilant and effortful processing styles (Forgas, 2001).
Hence, a happy mood may not always be conducive to the learn-
ing 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 problem-
solving 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, reflec-
tion, 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 lat-
ter 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 sen-
sory 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 adrena-
line 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 particu-
larly 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 disen-
gagement from the learning process by inhibiting activity in cer-
tain 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 environ-
ments 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; Ban-
dura, 1986). By engaging in shared activities and experiences
with other students and faculty members, both within and out-
side 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’ motiva-
tion 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 Prov-
ince 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 land-
scape (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, anno-
tated cross section, and supporting field notes; and
(3) demonstrate an ability to operate in a safe, professional,
logical, and systematic manner.
B (Boyle et al., this volume), and in many respects, the field experi-
C ence described here is typical of those provided by British and
A Irish institutions. In the United States, similar experiences might
Figure 2. Overview of the field mapping area north of Aliaga, Spain.
The area is characterized by well-exposed marine and continental sedi-
ments featuring prominent limestone units (A), and large-scale tec-
tonic structures in the form of folds (B) and faults (C).
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 instruc-
tion to groups of ~12 students. Students then worked in self-
selected 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 cog-
nitive 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 maxi-
mized “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 loca-
tion, 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 camp-
site, 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
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
This study used pre- and postexperience surveying, indi-
vidual 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 “quan-
tifiable measure” of changes in the students’ feelings and atti-
tudes, 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 fac-
tors 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 (three-
point), 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 memora-
ble 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 indepen-
dent 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 prede-
termined 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 valu-
able 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 visual-
izing 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 dura-
tion 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 word-
ing 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 stu-
dents, the impact of the field course on learning in general, and
issues specific to mapping such as visualizing in three dimen-
sions. In contrast to the field interviews, the setting was outside of
the learning environment and during the students’ free time. Par-
ticipants 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 provid-
ing 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 inter-
view.
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 litera-
ture (e.g., Orion and Hofstein, 1994; Lai, 1999), yet this proce-
dure can provide valuable insight into the learning process (Lin-
coln 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 inter-
actions) 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 nega-
tive) 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 prelimi-
nary data collection. For the remainder of the time, the research-
ers 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 obser-
vations in this way is a particularly useful means of cross-check-
ing and hence validating the findings from qualitative research.
Observations provide checks on information gathered from inter-
views, while interviews enable the researcher to explore the inter-
nal feelings of the students, rather than just their external behavior
(Patton, 1990). Both data sets were strengthened through immer-
sion in the learning context over time (Morrison, 1993). In this
study, the observational data are used to support and provide fur-
ther 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 nonpara-
metric methods. The continuous data were analyzed using the
Wilcoxon signed ranks test, which is the nonparametric equiva-
lent 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 identi-
fied 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 com-
parison (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 obser-
vation 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 semi-
quantitative 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, collab-
oration, motivation and enjoyment, and procedures. The findings
presented here are based on 62 students from a single UK institu-
tion participating in a single, common field activity.
Anticipation and Reflection
As a preliminary measure of anticipation and reflection, stu-
dents 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 find-
ings 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 undertak-
ing 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 297

A Positive feelings Negative feelings

35

30
Number of responses

25

20

15

10

0
Eagerly Can’t Relaxed Happy Confident Concerned Worried Don’t Don’t Apprehensive
anticipating wait about know want
what is what to to go
expected expect

B Positive feelings Negative feelings

40
Key
35
Rank 3
Number of responses

30
Rank 2
25
Rank 1
20

15

10

0
Learned Worthwhile Thoroughly Glad we Want to Found Wish not Did not Lived up Didn’t
a lot enjoyed it had to go go again it hard compulsory enjoy to my fears 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 achiev-
ing the academic demands of the work, and decreased in rela-
tion to coping with physical challenges. Although none of these
changes is statistically significant, the data are indicative of gen-
erally 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 signifi-
cant 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 Post-fieldwork data Significance
Anticipation and reflection n mean SD n mean SD (two-tailed)
§
a) Getting to know the staff (faculty) 62 0.742 0.477 51 0.882 0.325 0.077
†
b) Visiting a different place 62 0 .8 87 0 .3 1 9 51 1 .0 00 0 .0 00 0.016
c) Working all day in the outdoors 62 0 . 468 0 .6 71 51 0 . 52 9 0 .6 44 0.607
d) Coping with physical challenges 62 0.629 0.579 51 0.588 0.572 1.000
e) Achieving the academic demands of the work 62 0.516 0.646 50 0.600 0.535 0.791
f) Getting to know the other students on the course 62 0.790 0.517 50 0.843 0.464 0.549
Collaboration, motivation and enjoyment
a) Fieldwork is an activity I enjoy 61 0.689 0.564 53 0.792 0.409 0.267
b) I would recommend fieldwork to others 61 0.738 0.513 53 0.792 0.454 1.000
c) I like to be challenged in my academic work 61 0.557 0.646 53 0.755 0.477 0.167
d) The more fieldwork I undertake, the more interesting 61 0.574 0.618 53 0.679 0.547 0.238
the work becomes to me
e) It is important to be able to work with others 61 0.918 0.277 53 0.981 0.137 0.375
f) I use colleagues as an information source 61 0.639 0.517 53 0.642 0.484 1.000
g) I trust the contribution of my group/peers when 61 0.672 0.507 53 0.755 0.434 0.332
completing group work
§
h) I would always check the group’s answer, and if I 61 0.574 0.531 53 0.774 0.466 0.096
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 53 0.226 0.697 0.832
weather
Proced ure s in fieldwork
a) I feel fully prepared for this fieldwork 62 0.210 0.656 53 0.264 0.593 0.648
§
b) The information that we have been given about this 62 0.258 0.676 53 0.509 0.576 0.052
fieldwork has answered all of my questions
c) I am careful to record exactly what I observe 62 0.532 0.593 53 0.528 0.608 1.000
d) I am not fazed by having to use technical equipment 62 0.581 0.560 53 0.698 0.503 0.238
e) I am comfortable reading a map, i.e., I can 62 0.645 0.603 53 0.906 0.295 0.003*
recognize hills, valleys, give accurate grid
references, etc.
f) I find it easy to visualize things in 3D 62 0.258 0.626 53 0.434 0.537 0.332
g) I know how to calculate true dip 62 0.306 0.715 53 0.792 0.409 0.000*
h) I know what is meant by strike 62 0.548 0.619 53 0.943 0.233 0.000*
i) I know the difference between the apparent offset 62 –0.032
–0.032 0.768 53 0.358 0.682 0.001*
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 val-
ued the opportunity to work independently of academic faculty
(Marques et al., 2003), showing high levels of trust in their col-
leagues 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 dis-
cussed 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 signifi-
cant 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 success-
ful 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 299

(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 interpret-
ing 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 cog-
nitive and psychomotor skills, feelings of efficacy can be indica-
tors 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 visual-
ize 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 visualiza-
tion 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 field-
work. 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 under-
standing of the subject” and “first-hand experience of themes/
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 interpre-
tive 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 relat-
ing 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 field-
work 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 Post-fieldwork data Significance
Knowledge n mean SD n mean SD Z (two-tailed)
§
a) Firsthand experience of themes/topics studied in class 62 8.302 1.880 53 7.994 1.685 –1.792 0.073
makes it easier to understand them
b) Fieldwork gives me a chance to develop my problem- 62 7.976 1.963 53 8.338 1.515 –0.842 0.400
solving skills
Perception of fieldwork as being u s eful
†
a) Fieldwork will help my understanding of the subject 62 8.682 1.672 51 8.365 1.397 –2.076 0.038
§
b) It is important to know how to solve problems in the field 62 8.576 1.813 51 9.124 1.057 –1.714 0.086
c) Without a field experience, my degree subject would be 61 7.328 2.534 53 8.336 2.055 –3.334 0.001*
too academic and theoretical
d) Fieldwork skills will be important to me in my choice of 61 7.580 2.558 53 7.958 1.976 –0.136 0.892
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.
300 Stokes and Boyle

Presage Process Product

Student characteristics Learning Outcomes

1. Demographic 2. Personal 7. Experiential processes 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
8. Social processes 10. Nongeologic/
Nongeologic/ Nonacademic
Geologic/Academic peer-to-peer learning
Nonacademic
independence/autonomy
3. Physical 5. Logistical novice-expert interaction
teamwork
nature of terrain/ accommodation time management
physical challenge food safety awareness
learning environment weather Approach social relationships/skills
location illness/injury confidence
surface
duration lack of sleep/tiredness
deep
4. Academic 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. Ap-
proaches 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 pro-
cesses operating during the fieldwork.
Factors Influencing the Student Experience
Six of the ten themes identified relate to the input, or “pres-
age” 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 Hof-
stein, 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.
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, stu-
dents embarked on the fieldwork with generally positive atti-
tudes and feelings. While some students did not know what to
expect from the field course (Fig. 3), the majority held opti-
mistic 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.”

Student Characteristics
Student characteristics are defined by demographic (e.g., age, “Learn new skills and improve on others, get to know other students
gender) and personal factors (e.g., prior experience, expectations). 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).
“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 quantita-
tive 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 col-
leagues, and thereby increase self-confidence.
“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.”
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 stu-
dents that fieldwork (and geology as a discipline) is a typically
“masculine” endeavor. This was particularly evident in relation
301
to the physical aspects of the fieldwork, where a lack of confi-
dence 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.’”
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 com-
pared to other environments.
“I have more motivation to be getting up here than I would at home or
to be going to a lecture.”
“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 dis-
played 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 stu-
dents (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 sup-
port.” 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 stu-
dents, learning was intrinsically motivated. However, to suc-
ceed 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 stu-
dents’ affective responses, and their overall fieldwork experi-
ence (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. Practi-
cal 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 unfamil-
iar 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 reduc-
ing 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 posi-
tive, 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 2 Weather 18

Duration of field course
Safety
Uncertainty/confusion
Lack of physical ability
2 Illness/injury 16
1 Tiredness 7
1 Camping/food 6
1 Local people 5
Cultural activities 1
7 53

Most memorable 48 Geology/scenery 10 Cultural activities 32

Learning process 2 Social activities 11
Camping/food 3
12 46
*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 fac-
tors 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 pro-
vided enhanced opportunities for students to form social relation-
ships 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 stu-
dents 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 hav-
ing 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 par-
ticularly 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) det-
rimental 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 con-
sider 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. Logis-
tical 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 activ-
ities, 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 social-
ization of the students outside of the field environment helped to
strengthen social relationships and interactions during the field-
work. This is discussed further in the section on social learning.
Overall, we found that presage factors prompted both posi-
tive and negative feelings in the students, and that they appeared
both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated to learn. These find-
ings are suggestive of the students adopting both deep and sur-
face 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 find-
ings suggest that learning was predominantly influenced by expe-
riential 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 com-
petency in a range of subject-specific and generic skills. They con-
sidered “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 knowl-
edge, 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 under-
standing…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 learn-
ing 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 sen-
sory 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.
“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 geosci-
ence knowledge domains (Golledge et al., 2008), and we found
that the physical process of collecting data from three-dimen-
sional 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 adopt-
ing a deep approach, or without physically interacting with their
learning environment.
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 physi-
cal 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 collab-
orative 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 talk-
ing to other people…it is just listening and then your brain becomes
tired because you’re not occupied.”
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 learn-
ing 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 stu-
dents to gradually acquire the knowledge, skills, and behaviors
characteristic of geology, within the context of “real” field activi-
ties (Lave and Wenger, 1991).
Many students had embarked on the field course with work-
ing relationships and friendships developed during previous resi-
dential 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 major-
ity 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 quanti-
tative 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 inde-
pendently, 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 feed-
back 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 residen-
tial 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 behav-
iors 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
TABLE 5. CHANGES IN STUDENTS’ SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AS IDENTIFIED FROM THE POST-FIELDWORK SURVEY
Change in relationship
Social group Number of Good or Unchanged
responses improved
Mapping group 52 41
Other students 50 33
Academic faculty, graduate 51 51
students, and technical staff
*Where a response referred to “getting to know more people,” this was not assumed to indicate good or improved relationships, unless explicitly
stated.
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 uncer-
tainty 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 observa-
tions, 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.”
Declined Other significant change N
8 0 Some conflict/differences of 6
opinion
2 0 Got to know more people* 22
0 0 Increased confidence to 12
approach
306 Stokes and Boyle
This ability to cope with uncertainty is an important out-
come from the learning experience, since the complex and vari-
able 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 achieve-
ment and satisfaction felt by students reflected the value attached
to the learning outcomes, and hence likely attitudes to future field-
work (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 cog-
nitive 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 willing-
ness 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 indepen-
dently, 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 out-
comes from their fieldwork are unclear. It may reflect a greater
perceived value in outcomes that are assessed (i.e., that will con-
tribute toward their final grades) and thus performance goals, or,
alternatively, the students may simply not be conscious of hav-
ing 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 inde-
pendently, and to cope with the uncertain nature of geologic data.
As mentioned previously, many students were initially uncom-
fortable 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 out-
comes 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, how-
ever, 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 practi-
cal 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, tra-
versing 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 learn-
ing 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 conclu-
sive (Tables 2 and 3). In fact, in contrast to Boyle et al. (2007),
significant changes in feelings were rarely identified. It is inter-
esting 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 spe-
cific 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 motiva-
tion 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 collab-
oratively), 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 rela-
tion to geologic mapping as an activity, meeting physical chal-
lenges, 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’ com-
ments 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 Hof-
stein, 1994), and feelings toward the physical and academic
aspects of the field course improved as the students gained exper-
tise 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 stu-
dents’ affective responses and motivation levels.
Overall, the learning process was found to be positive,
and the students successfully achieved outcomes in the cogni-
tive, 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 develop-
ment—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 outward-
bound or adventure-style courses (Hattie et al., 1997), yet such
skills can be successfully developed through geoscience field-
work, especially field mapping training where students are prob-
lem solving in difficult terrain.
Wider Implications
This study has identified factors prompting positive and neg-
ative 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 inter-
play 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 indi-
vidual students, and also over time.
Some of the factors identified in this study may be com-
mon 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 activi-
ties. 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 eas-
ily 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 process-
ing (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 col-
laborating 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 learn-
ing outcomes. Our findings also identify significant improve-
ments 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 ben-
efits cannot be assumed. Neither can we assume that active par-
ticipation 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 inter-
act 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 con-
ditions, 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 facili-
tate 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 assump-
tion 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 contin-
ued inclusion on the undergraduate geoscience curriculum. Fur-
ther, geoscience students need to be made aware of their sublimi-
nal acquisition during fieldwork of valued generic employability
skills such as leadership.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Grateful thanks go to Kirsty Magnier for help with data col-
lection 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 help-
ful 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 Psy-
chology, 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, Carry-
ing 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 Cogni-
tive Theory: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 544 p.
Bandura, A., 1997, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control: New York, Free-
man, 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 Improv-
ing Student Learning: London and New York, Routledge, p. 3–15.
Biggs, J.B., 2003, Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd ed.): Buck-
ingham, 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 stu-
dent 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 Educa-
tion: 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 Acad-
emy 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 moti-
vation: 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 Infor-
mation 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 Albar-
racin, 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 Educa-
tion (5th ed.): New York, Routledge Falmer, 446 p.
Crompton, J.L., and Sellar, C., 1981, Do outdoor education experiences con-
tribute 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 percep-
tions of learning and assessment: Higher Education Research & Develop-
ment, 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 Innova-
tors 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: Signifi-
cant geoscience concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geol-
ogy 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: Lon-
don, Croom Helm, 248 p.
Entwistle, N., and Smith, C., 2002, Personal understanding and target under-
standing: 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 sur-
vey 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 Sci-
ence 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, Law-
rence 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, Interna-
tional perspectives on the effectiveness of geography fieldwork for learn-
ing: 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 out-
comes: 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 Sci-
ence, 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 psychother-
apy: Clinical Neuroscience Research, v. 87, p. 201–211.
Golledge, R.G., Marsh, M., and Battersby, S., 2008, Matching geospatial con-
cepts 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 educa-
tion 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 promot-
ing deep learning: A preliminary investigation: Assessment and Evalua-
tion, v. 27, p. 539–555, doi: 10.1080/0260293022000020309.
Hsieh, H.-F., and Shannon, S.E., 2005, Three approaches to qualitative con-
tent 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 Educa-
tion, 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 expe-
riences 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 Educa-
tion, 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 learn-
ing: 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: Affec-
tive 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 Par-
ticipation: 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 educa-
tion: Qualitative data: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 50, p. 195–200.
Lincoln, Y.S., and Guba, E.G., 1985, Naturalistic Inquiry: Beverly Hills, Cali-
fornia, 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 theo-
retical 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 long-
term 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 educa-
tion: 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 tec-
tonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk,
D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspec-
tives 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 Psychol-
ogy, v. 46, p. 4–11.
May, C.L., Eaton, L.S., and Whitmeyer, S.J., 2009, this volume, Integrating stu-
dent-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 Educa-
tion: 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 expe-
rience 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 Sci-
ences, v. 27, p. 129–131.
Morrison, K.R.B., 1993, Planning and Accomplishing School-Centred Evalua-
tion: Norfolk, UK, Peter Francis Publishers, 224 p.
Murphy, P.K., and Alexander, P.A., 2000, A motivated exploration of motiva-
tion 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 Envi-
ronmental Education, v. 8, p. 190–198, doi: 10.1080/10382049908667608.
Orion, N., and Hofstein, A., 1994, Factors that influence learning during a sci-
entific 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-sci-
ence education and spatial visualization: Journal of Geoscience Educa-
tion, 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 moti-
vational 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 learn-
ing components of classroom academic performance: Journal of Educa-
tional 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: Histori-
cal 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 phenom-
enology 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 stu-
dents’ comprehension of topographic maps: Journal of Geoscience Edu-
cation, v. 55, p. 5–16.
Roberson, P.K., Shema, S.J., Mundfrom, D.J., and Holmes, T.M., 1995, Analy-
sis of paired Likert data: How to evaluate change and preference ques-
tions: Family Medicine, v. 27, p. 671–675.
Rozell, E.J., and Gardner, W.L., 2000, Cognitive, motivation, and affective pro-
cesses 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 Ameri-
can 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 Psycho-
logical 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., Hand-
book of Educational Psychology: New York, Macmillan, p. 243–310.
Snyder, K., 2003, Ropes, poles, and space—Active learning in business educa-
tion: 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?: Geo-
logical 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 hap-
piness, 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 achieve-
ment: 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 Explor-
ing 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 authori-
ties, government agencies, government legislation, European Union) that have pro-
duced 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 con-
tinuing government legislation; (2) compliance with the requirements of accrediting
bodies and government auditing agencies; and (3) the needs of students and employ-
ers for appropriate field class learning outcomes and associated assessment strategies.

INTRODUCTION European-wide “Higher Education Area” by 2010. Much activity

in Europe is aimed at compliance with Bologna, and this will be
Fieldwork has always been an important part of any geosci- discussed in greater detail later in this paper. The paper will not
ences training, but, at least in the UK and Ireland, it has undergone concern itself with the many factors that are putting pressure on
a number of significant changes over the last few decades due to fieldwork, but instead we discuss the relationship between the
the influence of external drivers. These drivers can be grouped drivers that are the main focus of this paper and the drivers that
under four headings: general guidance from professional asso- seek to diminish fieldwork teaching.
ciations for working in the field; educational guidance (including Before going further, it is worth emphasizing that provision
accreditation); employer needs; and government legislation. This of fieldwork in UK and Ireland degree programs differs signifi-
paper will discuss each of these in turn using short experiential cantly from the norm in North America. Geoscience fieldwork
accounts to show how fieldwork provision has evolved as a result, provision in the UK and Ireland is incremental. In a typical three-
after which their overall impact on fieldwork will be considered. year program in England or Wales, students will have 10–14
Much of this is now tied up in the Bologna Declaration of 1999, days of introductory training in year one, 10–14 days of map-
which became a trans-European project aiming to produce a ping training in year two, followed by 10–14 days of detailed
Boyle, A.P., Ryan, P., and Stokes, A., 2009, 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, p. 313–321, doi:
10.1130/2009.2461(24). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

313
314 Boyle et al.
techniques training before students commence independent geo-
logical 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 develop-
ment 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 avail-
able 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 depart-
ments 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 Insti-
tute published BS 8848: A Specification for Adventurous Activi-
ties, 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, includ-
ing risk assessments, individual training and preparation, dealing
with incidents, and insurance coverage. Although the specifica-
tion 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 field-
work, 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 organiza-
tions 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 Sci-
entist status, professional qualifications recognized for employ-
ment 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/</education/page3253.html, accessed 21 August 2009), it
is now expected that a typical accredited Geology B.Sc. program
will involve at least 60 field days over the three years, and at least
24 of those days will be devoted to independent project work in
the third year. The expectation that fieldwork training will ulti-
mately lead to competence in geological mapping is embodied in
the following statement: “It is expected that graduates in geologi-
cal sciences (or similarly titled) degree schemes will be trained
in geological mapping and will practice it independently as part
of their project work...” (http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/op/</
education/page3253.html, section 1, accessed 21 August 2009).
It is also noteworthy that degrees at two overseas universities in
Saudi Arabia and the West Indies have been accredited by the
Geological Society of London, and that similar schemes have
been and are being discussed in the United States (e.g., Corbett
and Corbett, 2001; Drummond and Markin, 2008).
Quality Assurance Agency
In 2000 (updated in 2007), the Quality Assurance Agency
(QAA), a UK governmental organization, published a set of
benchmark statements for earth and environmental sciences to
guide the content of UK first degrees. The benchmark docu-
ment emphasizes the need for clearly defined learning out-
comes and related assessment for students. The 2007 update
notes: “Developing field-related practical and research skills
is, therefore, essential for students wishing to pursue careers in
Earth Sciences…” (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Edu-
cation, 2007, p. 7, section 4.3).The 2008 update to the Geologi-
cal Society’s accreditation principles draws very much on the
benchmark statements by listing a set of competences in terms
of skills and techniques needed in geoscience and cognate
disciplines. This approach of defining learning outcomes and
 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 stu-
dents 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 demonstra-
tion 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 (includ-
ing 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 inter-
view with the student in the field. One member of staff can typi-
cally deal with the whole cohort on a particular day. The advan-
tages 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, cap-
tion, annotation, etc., on sketch); and
(4) the student gains experience of a viva voce–style assess-
ment.
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—geo-
logic, social, and logistical.
(2) Fieldwork becomes increasingly “hands on” and inde-
pendent—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 stu-
dents with the main types of geology; the development of a “tool-
box” of field techniques;
Stage 2: training for independent project work, i.e., geologic
mapping; further development of field competencies and tech-
niques;
Stage 2/3: carrying out independent field mapping over the
summer; and
Stage 3/4: “regional synthesis” enabling integration of knowl-
edge 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 labora-
tory 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 univer-
sities occur every five to seven years and involve the preparation
of a self-assessment report by the course team, which is then vali-
dated 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, pro-
moting 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 aca-
demic structures in 2000. This review culminated in a European
University Association (EUA) report (European Union Associa-
tion, 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 mem-
bers. 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: geol-
ogy, 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 com-
petences 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 sec-
ond-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 compa-
rability 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 transpar-
ent 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 com-
parability 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 learn-
ing and teaching…fieldwork trains Earth Science students to formulate
sound conclusions on the basis of (necessarily) incomplete data. Stu-
dents and employers consider this an important aspect of their train-
ing…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 edu-
cation 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 fourth-
year 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 317

EMPLOYER NEEDS subject areas of chemistry, education science, geology, physics,

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 manage-
ment, planning, and taking responsibility (Gedye and Chalkley,
2006). Penn (2001) identified further competencies that are desir-
able in geoscience-related careers, including numeracy, innova-
tion/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 employ-
ers 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 com-
petence. 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
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 indus-
trial 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 manda-
tory regardless of whether a job is desk or field-based.
If [universities] can provide subject knowledge and grounding in atti-
tudes/behaviours and skills, then when [graduates] come into compa-
nies 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 environ-
ment 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 Competence description Academic Employer Graduate
imp1 Capacity for analysis and synthesis 2 1 3
imp2 Capacity for applying knowledge in practice 5 3 2
imp4 Basic general knowledge 1 12 12
imp5 Grounding in basic knowledge of the profession 8 11 14 13
imp6 Oral and written communication in native language 9 7 7
imp7 Knowledge of a second language 15 14 15
imp8 Elementar y computing skills 16 4 10
imp9 Research skills 11 15 17
imp10 Capacity to learn 3 2 1
imp12 Critical and self-critical abilities 6 10 9
imp13 Capacity to adapt to new situations 7 5 4
imp14 Capacity for generating new ideas (creativity) 4 9 6
imp16 Decision-making 12 8 8
imp18 Inter personal skills 14 6 5
imp20 Ability to work in an interdisciplinary team 10 13 11
imp22 Appreciation of diversity and multiculturality 17 17 16
imp28 Ethical commitment 13 16 13
318 Boyle et al.
the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains) can be inte-
grated. 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 provi-
sion; 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 embod-
ied 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,” includ-
ing 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 field-
work 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 field-
work. 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 under-
taking 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 situa-
tions. 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-note-
book 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 proj-
ect work. In the UK and Ireland, this typically involves students
visiting a field area where they make a geological map and col-
lect relevant data so that they can write a thesis on the geologi-
cal evolution of the area. At Liverpool, students still work inde-
pendently 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 stu-
dents all stayed on the same camp site in Entraunes and worked
on adjacent areas. Every day, each student left detailed instruc-
tions 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 cen-
ter 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 asso-
ciated with the fieldwork, which again students must read and
sign. An additional requirement of the risk assessment for Euro-
pean 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 coin-
cide 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 mini-
mum 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 under-
stand 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 simi-
lar 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) coast-
lines 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 pub-
lished 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; own-
ers have a duty of care to those entering their lands, including
trespassers, and despite some clarification of the liability situa-
tion 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 map-
ping field classes in the west of Ireland for over 30 years. Our
first significant issue was in 1995, at the time the Occupiers Lia-
bility 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 stu-
dents have easy access to some of the most outstanding expo-
sure in the UK. Extensive access is also available to local quar-
ries (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 informa-
tion 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 epi-
demic (a highly contagious disease affecting cloven hoofed ani-
mals, 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 alter-
natives to UK or Irish-based field courses where access was no
longer possible, or in some cases withdrawing fieldwork provi-
sion 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 relo-
cated to Cyprus and a year three field class to Donegal in Ireland
was relocated to SE Spain. Many final year independent map-
ping 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 spe-
cial needs and/or disabilities;
(5) there is fear of litigation; and
(6) there is a perception that there are technological alterna-
tives 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 benchmark-
ing have placed an effective ring-fence around the time devoted
to geoscience fieldwork. Prospective students expect to under-
take an accredited degree program, with its specified fieldwork
component. Since accreditation became the norm for UK geo-
science 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, sub-
ject benchmarking, and the move to a learning outcome peda-
gogy 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 some-
where 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 benchmark-
ing, 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 Dec-
laration 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. Avail-
able at http://www.gees.ac.uk/pubs/guides/fw/fwgeosci.pdf (accessed 24
August 2009).
Comhairle na Tuaithe, 2006, National Countryside Recreation Strategy: Dub-
lin, Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, 45 p. Avail-
able 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 Sci-
ence in geology degree as offered in the United States: Journal of Geosci-
ence Education, v. 56, no. 2, p. 113–119.
European University Association, 2004, Quality Review of the National Uni-
versity 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: Jour-
nal 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: Plym-
outh, 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, Environ-
mental 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 Sur-
vey: 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 per-
spective 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 lec-
turers’ 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. Avail-
able 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 Educa-
tion: 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’ edu-

cation, 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 position-
ing 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 topog-
raphy 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.

Riggs, E.M., Balliet, R., and Lieder, C.C., 2009, Effectiveness in problem solving during geologic field examinations: Insights from analysis of GPS tracks at
variable time scales, 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, p. 323–340, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(25). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological
Society of America. All rights reserved.

323
324 Riggs et al.
INTRODUCTION
Field-based instruction is widely acknowledged to be a
central part of undergraduate education in the geological sci-
ences; 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 demon-
strating 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 deep-
ens 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 stu-
dent 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 com-
bination 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 geo-
logical 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 correct-
ness of students’ geological models, and to understand how stu-
dents 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 influ-
enced 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 sta-
bility 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 stu-
dents 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 pro-
ceed 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 geo-
logic concepts by the choices students make in gathering and
interpreting class and categorical data in the field. Work to under-
stand 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 vari-
ables involved are many and human factors (i.e., human response
to terrain, exhaustion, discomfort, etc.) become involved. There-
fore, 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 analyz-
ing navigational choices recorded on GPS units worn by stu-
dents 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 mak-
ing (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 (Chamber-
lin, 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 proposi-
tion 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 mak-
ing is presented in Riggs et al. (2009), and we present a con-
densed version of that discussion here. An issue in this research
is what is problem solving, and what is geologic problem solv-
ing 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 represen-
tations 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 mas-
tery 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 ever-
present 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 labora-
tory 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 command-
ers, air-traffic controllers, and many others. Expert problem solv-
ers 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 solu-
tions 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 deci-
sion 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 rel-
evant 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 adjust-
ment 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 pro-
vided by identification and elaboration knowledge; and
(4) execution knowledge—the ability to utilize skills and
procedures as needed to provide further information or take addi-
tional action to further a solution.
These are iterative, interactive portions of the larger mental
model (schema) that a decision maker uses to recognize emerg-
ing situations and direct current actions and future data collection
priorities, but the absence of any of them prevents effective prob-
lem 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 exter-
nalized. From checking completed geologic maps, notes, and
other direct observations in the field, it is clear if an identifica-
tion 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 plan-
ning 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 con-
tractional 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 com-
pliance 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 triangulat-
ing 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 exer-
cise 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 Oligo-
cene 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 indepen-
dent 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 lacustrine-
fan-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 under-
stand convolved structural and sedimentary geometries. Espe-
cially 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 examina-
tions of this type, the test area was deliberately selected to have
similar geology to the earlier group exercise area in order to mini-
mize 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 geo-
logic 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 simpli-
fied 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 interpreta-
tion, 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 loca-
tion every minute for the entire test period. They were allowed to
look at these units, but their base maps deliberately had no coor-
dinate (i.e., latitude and longitude or UTM) georeferencing infor-
mation, 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 loca-
tions 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’ per-
formance in this field area with their performance in the exami-
nation 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 low-
performing 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 instruc-
tion, referenced to the map presented in Figure 1. We adopted
an approach similar to Kelly and Riggs (2006) in the construc-
tion 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 cod-
ing using both 5 and 15 min polygons as described later herein.
Points were awarded for accurate recognition and place-
ment 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 accu-
racy 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 con-
structing 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 stu-
dents. 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 con-
tinuous 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 329

larity effect exists in human movement relative to our coding
and interpretations of geologic problem-solving ability and pro-
cesses, 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 poly-
gons with crossbars between all points involved in the poly-
gons 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 “second-
ary” 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 inves-
tigatory forays from a single starting point in a region, called
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 problem-
solving approaches and challenges emerged from the close read-
ing 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 % of
Student back go cross forth codes polygons total
Adrianne 11 18 3 4 8 44 86 51
Jay 15 15 5 12 2 49 89 55
Mark 5 2 3 6 16 82 20
Jesse 4 5 3 7 2 5 26 74 35

Secondary codes 15 min

Double Retrace Touch and Path Back and Branch Zigzag Total Total % of
Student back go cross forth codes polygons total
Adrianne 5 3 3 11 25 44
Jay 3 9 2 2 16 26 62
Mark 3 1 1 5 23 22
Jesse 2 2 3 7 22 32

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 anal-
ysis 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 investiga-
tion, 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. Unfortu-
nately, the print medium does not permit the dynamic presenta-
tion 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.
Mark
Mark’s map had poorly distributed structural measurements
and in general reflected a correct but unsophisticated interpre-
tation 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 par-
ticular is useful for highlighting moments of intensive investiga-
tions 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 poly-
gon tracks.
Mark’s field day started at a measured pace, taking advan-
tage 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 move-
ments as recorded in both sets of polygon tracks show him exe-
cuting this plan to collect additional data and test his stratigraphic
and structural hypothesis.
As he entered the second hour of his field day, Mark encoun-
tered 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, col-
lecting 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 331

Figure 3. Final geologic maps for each student.

 332

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 com-
pleted maps, to allow them to highlight their structural interpretations.
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
333

and posted animations for sequences (http://www.purdue.edu/eas/riggslab/fieldnav/index.html).

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, paus-
ing 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 outly-
ing 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 inten-
tions 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 con-
sisted of collecting confirmatory data for the southern section,
which he felt he understood better.
Jesse
Jesse’s map shows reasonably well-distributed measure-
ments 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 lithol-
ogy, which ultimately greatly complicated the structural interpre-
tation 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 strat-
egy 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 addi-
tional loop and eventual detailed retracing of some of the initial
loop to the west does leave his map with good detail in the mega-
breccia 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
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 zigzag-
ging 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 sedimentologi-
cally in this area, he makes no attempt to justify or explain this
apparent contradiction in his cross section.
Jay
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 uncon-
formity 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 devel-
oping 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 obser-
vations 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 examina-
tion 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 reach-
ing 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 interpreta-
tion 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 basi-
cally 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 sta-
tion 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 investi-
gation, in this case, largely derived from a failure in the identi-
fication 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 out-
crops 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 interfin-
gering units there, but by and large, hers is one of the most suc-
cessful maps in the group.
After a very short excursion out of the field area to the south-
west, probably on personal business, she begins her field day
with a careful and measured traverse north and west, document-
ing 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 observa-
tion station (2—marked with a triangle on her map), just into the
basalt sill.
From this point, she embarks on a 1 h reconnaissance tra-
verse 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 incor-
porates 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 pinpoint-
ing 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 sta-
tions at 11–14. Despite having data and structures plotted in the
southeastern quadrant of the field area, her GPS data do not sup-
port her station placement, suggesting some minor location con-
fusion. 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
cross section is one of the better ones turned in for this map exer-
cise. 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 dif-
ficulties. 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 ineffi-
cient 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 sim-
plistic interpretation of our numerical results derived from our
coding approach.
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 ear-
lier 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 per-
centage. 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 cod-
ing 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 sensi-
tive 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 gener-
ated by the 5 and 15 min coding approach by plotting the percent-
age of secondary codes out of all polygons for each student at the
15 min time scale versus the same quantity for the 5 min poly-
gon coding. This is presented in Figure 7. We found a very good
337
Code percentages for 5 and 15 min polygon tracks
0.70
% total 15 min
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 poly-
gons. The R2 value shows that percentages are similar regardless of the
time resolution and therefore do not affect the coding analysis.
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 essen-
tially 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 spe-
cifically 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, plan-
ning, and execution phases more clearly. Hints to elaboration
came from the student notes, but their larger-scale traverse trajec-
tories 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 evo-
lution 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-solv-
ing 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 reflec-
tive interviews where students relay their interpretation of their
own maps and codes. The interpretations presented in our previ-
ous 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 sub-
jects 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 loca-
tions. It is likely that all of these methods will result in much finer
interpretations of mapping and problem-solving intent and dif-
ficulties 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 fac-
tors are considered. First, as discussed already, the maps were
scored on more factors than just raw accuracy. This was a com-
bination 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 instruc-
tor’s maps. This prevents a completely analytical score from
being developed for this area. Scoring was driven also by inter-
nal 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 refine-
ment of multiple working hypotheses. Accounting for her early
finish to the field problem and subtracting all the polygons accu-
mulated 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 dif-
ficulties 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 poly-
gons at both time scales. His tracks also show the most obviously
confusion-related features, which greatly increased his second-
ary 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 complex-
ity 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 inter-
pretation of the geology. Somewhere in the middle is the right
balance between back-tracking inefficiency as students reinvesti-
gate 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 difficul-
ties. 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. Accord-
ing 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 mul-
tiple 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 finer-
scale 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 criti-
cal 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.
This assertion needs to be tested much more, and we are con-
tinuing work to understand the effects of topography on naviga-
tion 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 ter-
rain 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 sup-
port 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 strat-
egies 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.), Com-
mittee 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 map-
ping: 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: Mah-
wah, 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 Promo-
tion of Science, p. 176–190.
Frodeman, R., and Raab, T., 2002, What is it like to be a geologist? A phenom-
enology 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 teach-
ers: 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 Teach-
ing, 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 Moun-
tain 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 Geo-
wall to increase student confidence and performance during field map-
ping: An example from an introductory-level field class: Journal of Geo-
science Education, v. 54, p. 158–164.
Kent, M., Gilbertsone, D.D., and Hunt, C.O., 1997, Fieldwork in geog-
raphy 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 learn-
ing: Journal of Geological Education, v. 34, p. 180–183.
Klein, G.A., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., and Zsambok, C.E.E., 1993, Deci-
sion Making in Action: Models and Methods: Norwood, New Jersey,
Ablex Publishing, 480 p.
Kozhevnikov, M., and Hegarty, M., 2001, A dissociation between object manip-
ulation spatial ability and spatial orientation ability: Memory & Cogni-
tion, v. 29, p. 745–756.
Libarkin, J.C., and Kurdziel, J.P., 2006, Ontology and the teaching of earth sys-
tem 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., New-
combe, 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, Ger-
many, Springer, p. 171–187.
Lieder, C.C., 2005, Problem Solving Strategies of Geology Students during
Independent Field Examination Shown by GPS Tracks: San Diego, Cali-
fornia, San Diego State University, 76 p.
Lieder, C.C., and Riggs, E.M., 2004, Problem solving strategies of geology stu-
dents during independent field examinations shown by GPS tracks: Geo-
logical 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 natu-
ralistic 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 Uni-
versity 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 Educa-
tion, 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 Math-
ematics, 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 sci-
entific 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: Geologi-
cal 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 cogni-
tion: 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 environ-
ments: 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 under-
graduates: 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 sup-
port 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 research-
based 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, evalu-
ative 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, instruc-
tional actions, and curricular organization. Using data derived from these sources, evalu-
ations 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 and values are universally valued within geoscience departments

(Baker, 2006). However, outside of geoscience departments, the
There is little doubt that field camp experiences, or field challenge is to provide administrators with a justification for the
course experiences, are intensive of financial, faculty, and mate- resource-intensive nature of field course experiences, especially
rial resources. As costs have risen, it is not an unreasonable ques- in a climate of budget shortfalls and (relative to other depart-
tion to ask if the investment is worth the outcome. A cursory ments) lower enrollments in geoscience programs. Academic
review of the intended outcomes of field course experiences, freedom lasts right up to financial exigency, and then the need for
as posted online (Baker, 2006; King, 2009) provides a gener- clear justification becomes paramount.
ally consistent view that field course experiences serve to hone
students’ skills, prepare them for the workplace, allow them to Field Course Experience
apply classroom-based learning to real situations, serve as a cap-
stone learning experience, or immerse them in the conventions There is a considerable body of research literature focus-
and expectations of professional geoscientists. These outcomes ing on the nature of effective science learning experiences that
Pyle, E.J., 2009, 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, p. 341–356, doi:
10.1130/2009.2461(26). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

341
342
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 sci-
ences is that the questions are often based on incomplete infor-
mation about complex, interactive, and (ultimately) uncontrol-
lable 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 con-
firmation of previous results, it is perhaps merely defensive and
“safe” in instructional situations. Given the ambiguity and uncon-
trollability of geoscience phenomena, the conservative approach
would favor instruction that demonstrates effectiveness in situ-
ations 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 experi-
ence 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 stu-
dent 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 knowl-
edge, 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 consid-
ered when designing instruction that can be employed by faculty
to best promote student learning? Based on data collected dur-
ing 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 evalu-
ation framework sets the stage for implementation in the first,
post-transitional, offering of the course. Through such a compre-
hensive approach to evaluation, the justification for field course
experiences should be evident, not just to geoscientists, but also
to academic administrators.
Pyle
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 assess-
ment 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 (Kiz-
lik, 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 appropriate-
ness of experiences to an overall curriculum model or larger
set of expectations. These determinations become statements
of “value-addedness” to student preparedness for future profes-
sional roles.
Field Course Experience Outcomes
As is implied in describing the general importance of field
course experiences, the geosciences have a unique set of con-
ventions 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 methodolo-
gies 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 profes-
sional 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 geologi-
cal 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 Geo-
logical 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 actu-
ally 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 syn-
thesis 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 com-
munication 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 interest-
ing 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 geol-
ogy 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, gener-
ate a data base, and return home safely. The main objective is for you
to become confident at scientific observation, interpretation, and solu-
tion of geological problems in the field. You will learn to recognize and
interpret a wide variety of rock types, structures, and geomorphic fea-
tures. We will place emphasis on methods of map-making, data record-
ing, 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 cor-
relative 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 sev-
eral 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 devel-
opment 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 collec-
tion, 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 com-
plete 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 informa-
tion that could inform the development of evaluation questions on
student preconceptions and metacognition. Fifteen students came
from James Madison University, eight came from Boston Uni-
versity, 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 course-
work 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, paleon-
tology, and sedimentology. Only a few students had taken envi-
ronmentally oriented courses. Interestingly, students expressed a
344
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 con-
fidence, 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 mas-
tery 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 expe-
rience 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 expe-
rience (week 6). Students were asked about their prior experi-
ence 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
Pyle
from open (anonymous) comments as well as observational
notes, personal reflections, and brief post–field course experi-
ence 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 evalua-
tive 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 sug-
gested 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 bet-
ter 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 instrumen-
tation 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 345

Task Week Nature

1 1 Individual geologic map

2 2 Group glacial features mapping
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 interac-
tions with students or instructional decisions is not well docu-
mented 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 cur-
ricular framework that research on science learning has demon-
strated 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 sci-
ences and made a clear distinction between class work, labora-
tory 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 pro-
gram 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 stu-
dent growth in the affective or psychomotor domains, making
these forms of data normally unavailable for program evaluation.
Boyle and his colleagues (2007), however, provided compre-
hensive 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. Inter-
estingly, 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 devel-
opment programs for earth science teachers are often externally
funded through grants, there is a need for comprehensive evalua-
tion 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 docu-
mented by Huntoon and her colleagues (2001), O’Neal (2003),
and Hemler and Repine (2006). In each of these projects, mul-
tiple and varied forms of assessment data were used, includ-
ing 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 dis-
positions 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 inter-
pretation 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 char-
acterizes 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 assess-
ment is a prerequisite to ensuring the consistency and reliability
of both administration and interpretation of assessment data. Fur-
thermore, the complexities of the contexts of earth science instruc-
tion, 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 com-
municated back to students in order to promote continued growth
toward mastery, but also to faculty in order to indicate course cor-
rections. 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 ele-
ments reflective of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The fol-
lowing is a brief summary of the ways in which assessment ele-
ments 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 tax-
onomy, 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 indi-
cate student mastery of that objective (Chiappetta and Koballa,
2006). Using this taxonomy, many familiar field course experi-
ence 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 think-
ing 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 Dispositions

employment or in graduate school.
Psychomotor
The sciences, when practiced for the generation and verifica-
tion 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., Simp-
son, 1972), but the work of Dave (1975) matches well to field
course experience tasks and supports the development of measure-
able 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 introduc-
tion to the psychomotor domain is that the geosciences are of spe-
cial 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 con-
text (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 dia-
grams, 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.
The third domain to consider in the preparation of geoscien-
tists 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 con-
cerned largely with feelings and emotions, but they are not lim-
ited 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 curric-
ulum, and few instructors would not attach some value or profes-
sional 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 instruc-
tion and assessment. Returning to the structure of the discipline,
assessment items or tasks can be built around: (1) knowledge-
based representations, as distinct from “knowledge” as beliefs
described previously; (2) lexical representations of terminol-
ogy 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
Knowledge- Based 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 design-
ing or modifying instruction, selecting particular prior learning
that can be built upon or that needs particular attention in subse-
quent 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 profes-
sional 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 solu-
tions (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 assess-
ment needs to adhere to several characteristics in order to con-
tribute 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 valu-
able 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—Assess-
ments 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 stu-
dents 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 deliv-
ery, 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 epi-
sodic tools—Constant low-stakes formative assessments provide
clarification to both students and instructors, and summative, epi-
sodic assessments signify completion of tasks.
6. Assessments should make a difference with issues of
use and illuminate personal questions—With particular atten-
tion 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 disposi-
tions for students.
7. Assessments should document and communicate suc-
cesses, growth, and experiences to instructional and public audi-
ences—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 con-
tribute 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-of-
course student evaluations of instruction. There are biases inher-
ent in the administration and use of these instruments in higher
education classrooms, as has been documented (Fox and Hacker-
man, 2003). However, if these instruments are biased, there is no
guarantee that anecdotal information from student written com-
ments 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 learn-
ing. With the nearly full-time contact between faculty and stu-
dents 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 assess-
ments are to be explicit and largely objective, then faculty assess-
ment 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 experi-
ences. In addition, an environmental science–oriented module
was piloted, based on reconnaissance during the previous sum-
mer. 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 col-
lection 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 situ-
ations. In addition, the information that is produced is valuable
for both formative purposes in the internal evaluation of learn-
ing experiences, but it is also useful for external summative pur-
poses, 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 audi-
ences the intended result of the instruction, what happened dur-
ing 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 instruc-
tor, 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 primar-
ily 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 dis-
cussion 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
Instructor structuring statements “ Your task is to map the lithologic units, contacts, and major structural features of the beach from Point A to
Point B.”
Student questions “ How can I tell a joint from a fault?”
Instructor feedback “ That grain might be plagioclase, but how could you tell it from orthoclase?”
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.
Audiotaping Students or instructors carry a tape recorder in field to either “ talk out” actions while at outcrop, or capture
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 tech-
niques be varied. Student artifacts become more complex, struc-
turing 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 man-
ner, 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 char-
acteristics include:
1. Knowledge of subject matter—Does the instructor dem-
onstrate:
• 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 assign-
ments?
• Recognize when students have difficulties?
• Encourage discussion between students, and between stu-
dents 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 stu-
dents, 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, interpre-
tation, 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 man-
ner, 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 super-
vision 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 con-
textual experience that can be relied upon. Thus, faculty prepa-
ration 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 wide-
lens technique, capturing dialogue between faculty and students.
Map-based techniques will be also be employed by faculty mem-
bers, tracking students across the field area. Finally, the range
of student artifacts themselves (e.g., maps, cross sections, litho-
logic 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 sci-
ence, Bransford and his colleagues (2000) suggested that learning
in science is dependent on three factors: (1) identification of stu-
dent 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 precon-
ceptions, alternative conceptions, and misconceptions are deep-
seated and related directly to past experiences and actions. Unfor-
tunately, 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 inven-
tory (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 expe-
rience evaluation frameworks thus should use an analysis of stu-
dent 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 knowl-
edge, skills, and dispositions, scaffolded from their preconcep-
tions 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 stu-
dents, and it may well be used as a part of program assessment
when consulting alumni, but an analysis of the sense that stu-
dents 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 dis-
positions. If such an evaluation were to include clear documen-
tation 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-ref-
erenced 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 stu-
dents’ knowledge base, particularly in course areas (1) that they
feel particularly comfortable with, (2) that they may be uncom-
fortable 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 tech-
niques 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 geo-
morphology. This was based in part on perceived student inter-
ests 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 sci-
ence 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 prog-
ress 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 anal-
ysis of student assessment, faculty clinical supervision, and atten-
tion to curricular design elements provides a triangulation of effort
that establishes the “worth” or value of a given field course experi-
ence. 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 indi-
rect 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 suc-
cess 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 expe-
riences 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 person-
nel, 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 compari-
sons 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 instruc-
tor 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 neces-
sary 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 self-
evaluation 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 experi-
ences 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 docu-
mented, 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
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 evalu-
ative 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 develop-
ment 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 evalua-
tion of curricular materials is of demonstrable value in achieving
learning goals (Kesidou and Roseman, 2002).
One consideration in comprehensive evaluation frame-
works 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 activi-
ties 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 profes-
sional 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-
Pyle
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 pro-
fessional 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 sci-
ence, 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 instruc-
tion 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 nontradi-
tional 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 deliv-
ered, the match of student performance and learning relative to
the intentions of the faculty must be determined. The relation-
ship of field course experience learning experiences to overall
undergraduate program goals and the expectations of the profes-
sion should be continually demonstrated in order to justify asser-
tions 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, provid-
ing 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 construc-
tion 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 asso-
ciated skills of location on topographic maps and air photos and inter-
pretation 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 sec-
tions 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 transi-
tion from student to professional geologist.
9. To develop senses of self-confidence and professional compe-
tence.
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.
James Madison University
After completing the field course, students will be qualified to work
for an industrial, governmental, or academic employer who needs indi-
viduals to make their own way to an isolated village in a foreign country,
assess the local geology, natural resources, natural hazards, environmen-
tal conditions, etc., write a project report, draft a publishable map, gen-
erate 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 Quater-
nary, and correlative rocks and sediments of the northern Appalachians.
Bowling Green State University
The course will teach students how GPS navigation and digi-
tal 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 record-
ings, and sound interpretations of the geology seen in outcrop. Exer-
cises include measurement and analysis of sedimentary sections, con-
struction of geologic maps, structural analysis of folds and faults, slope
stability analysis, and environmental assessments. Students will learn
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 meta-
morphic 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 sev-
eral 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 encom-
passing 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.
University of Hawaii
1. Students can explain the relevance of geology and geophysics to
human needs, including those appropriate to Hawaii, and are able to dis-
cuss 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 real-
world 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 prin-
ciples 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.
REFERENCES CITED
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 stu-
dents: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, no. 2, p. 172–178.
356
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 Class-
room: 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: Wash-
ington, 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 (Nor-
mal, 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, Geog-
raphy, 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: Arling-
ton, 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 representa-
tion 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 Assess-
ment 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 Under-
graduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathemat-
ics: 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 histor-
ical 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.
Pyle
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 geol-
ogy 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, Environ-
mental 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 teach-
ers: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, no. 3, p. 235–248.
Kesidou, S., and Roseman, J.E., 2002, How well do middle school science pro-
grams measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review: Jour-
nal 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: Affec-
tive Domain: New York, David McKay Co., 196 p.
Lawrence, S., and Margolis, E., 1999, Concepts and cognitive science, in Mar-
golis, 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: Jour-
nal 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: Sci-
ence, 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 Psy-
chomotor 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
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
3. Field camp: Using traditional methods to
train the next generation of petroleum
geologists
James 0. 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
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
3300 Penrose Place • PO Box 9140
Boulder, CO 80301-9140, USA
9. International field trips in undergraduate
geology curriculum: Philosophy and
perspectives
Nelson R. Ham and Timothy P. Flood
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
13. Integrating ground-penetrating radar
and traditional stratigraphic study in an
undergraduate field methods course
R.K. Vance, C.H. Trupe, and FJ. Rich
Original Research in Field Education
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
18. A comparative study of field inquiry in an
undergraduate petrology course
David Gonzales and Steven Semken
. . THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
• OF AMERICA®
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 Leal-
Bautista, 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
ISB N 978-0-8 137-2461-4