Integration of Field Observations with Laboratory Modeling ... · Integration of Field Observations...

Integration of Field Observations with LaboratoryModeling for Understanding Hydrologic Processesin an Undergraduate Earth-Science CourseJeffrey Michael Trop, Gerald Howard Krockover, and Kenneth Daniel RidgwayDepartment of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences1397 Civil Engineering Building, Purdue UniversityWest Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1397<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

ABSTRACTUnderstanding how water is transported and

stored in the subsurface is a difficult concept forintroductory earth-science students. We have de-veloped a hydrology minicourse that integratesfield and laboratory experiences to help under-graduate students gain a better understanding ofground-water flow in aquifers. The centerpiece ofthe minicourse is an investigative field trip thatpermits analysis of a local aquifer that providesdrinking water for the university community. Stu-dents collect qualitative and quantitative field dataon grain size, thickness, and geometry of differentstratigraphic horizons within the aquifer and thenconstruct a small-scale laboratory model of theaquifer using boundary conditions determined fromthe field investigation. The aquifer model allowsstudents to test hypotheses of ground-water flowby conducting a series of modeling experiments. Theexperiments test questions such as: “What is theinfluence of porosity and permeability on ground-water flow?” and “What is the effect of regionaldip on ground-water flow?” Analysis of pre- andpost-minicourse examinations demonstrates thatstudents are able to better communicate funda-mental hydrologic concepts after completing theminicourse.

Keywords: Education – geoscience; education –undergraduate; geology – field trips and field study;geology – teaching and curriculum; hydrogeologyand hydrology.

INTRODUCTIONRecent science-education reform efforts have en-

couraged the development of “hands-on” laboratoryand field activities to improve undergraduate sciencecourses (for example, NSF, 1996; Boyer Commission,1998). In addition, many science-education reformrecommendations call for “active” learning styles thatfoster critical thinking and problem solving ratherthan “passive” learning (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1997).This article outlines an innovative teaching approachthat we developed at Purdue University to help stu-dents actively investigate ground-water flow in aquifersusing “hands-on” field and laboratory activities. Vari-ous concepts in hydrology, particularly ground-waterflow, have historically been difficult topics for under-graduate students to learn in a meaningful way. Thisdifficulty can be attributed, in part, to the inherentcomplexity of the topic and the fact that hydrology is

commonly not discussed in high-school science coursesso students have no useful background preparation.As part of an introductory earth-science course forpre-service teachers, we have the students (1) par-ticipate in an investigative field trip that providesanalysis of aquifers, watersheds, and watertables, (2)construct a small-scale laboratory model of an aqui-fer using boundary conditions determined during thefield investigation, and (3) test working hypotheses ofground-water flow by conducting a series of labora-tory experiments using the model. The field trip al-lows students to make direct observations, collectscientific data, experience the scale and complexityof geologic problems, think critically, and formulatefield-based hypotheses. The laboratory modeling helpsstudents discover fundamental hydrologic conceptsthat are difficult to observe in the field, such as re-gional fluid flow through an aquifer. This study pre-sents results from an introductory geoscience coursefor pre-service teachers, but the hydrologic conceptsand teaching approaches can be applied in a varietyof introductory courses.

The approach used in the course is unique in thatobservations that students make in the field form theboundary conditions of their model and laboratoryexperiments. Numerous studies have demonstratedthe educational effectiveness of field experiences (forexample, Novak, 1976; Mason, 1980; Orion, 1989;Orion, 1993), but few studies have reported on the in-fluence of integrating laboratory and field experiences(for example, deWet, 1994). In this article, we discusshow we attempt to have students connect field-tripobservations with laboratory modeling in an intro-ductory undergraduate course for pre-service teachers.In traditional classrooms, students are often providedwith predetermined boundary conditions as part ofa modeling exercise. Our approach allows the studentsto determine the appropriate boundary conditionsthemselves, through observing natural phenomenain the field. This method allows pre-service teachersto understand science as a process and, subsequently,to teach scientific concepts in a meaningful way.

The team that created and assessed the hydrol-ogy minicourse at Purdue University worked as partof the Collaborative Action Based Research (CABR)Pilot Program sponsored by the National ScienceFoundation. Individuals working on the CABR projectmade use of action research (Hamilton, 1995; Keatingand others, 1998) to promote change in the instruc-tion of undergraduate science courses, especially thosetaken by pre-service teachers, and to enhance students’

Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 48, 2000, p. 514

understanding of scientific concepts. The action re-search team for this study included faculty membersin geoscience and geoscience education, an elementary-school teacher, a graduate teaching assistant in edu-cation, a graduate teaching assistant in geoscience,and two undergraduate students in education who hadcompleted the course. This diverse team structure wasdesigned to provide multiple perspectives for instruc-tion of the course material as well as interpretation ofresearch data collected to evaluate the educationaleffectiveness of the minicourse. We also discuss avariety of evaluation techniques that were used todetermine how this integrated approach affectedstudents’ conceptual understanding of hydrologicprocesses.

Our teaching methods include: (1) having stu-dents make observations of natural phenomena, (2)prompting students to use their observations to de-velop scientific hypotheses, and (3) providing stu-dents an opportunity to construct a laboratory modelto test their hypotheses. We emphasize students ac-tively working as scientists rather than having themread about or listen to lectures about what scientistshave already discovered. Students emulate scientistsby making observations, developing hypotheses, anddesigning experiments to test their hypotheses. Duringthe minicourse, the role of the instructor is to assiststudent exploration and discovery by providing op-portunities for them to make scientific observations.Our approach also tries to change the expectations ofelementary-education majors, many of whom expectscientists to simply provide them with the “right” an-swers. We hope that the future teachers will be ableto teach science as a process by incorporating similarteaching approaches in their science courses (Manner,1998). Finally, in an effort to improve student col-laborative skills, they are required to work in smallteams in each phase of the minicourse.

FIELD TRIPProcedure

The hydrology minicourse consists of four interre-lated steps that are completed in six class periods: apreparatory unit, an investigative field trip, laboratorymodeling exercises, and a classroom synthesis. Be-fore the preparatory unit, students are interviewedindividually by course instructors to determine theirprior knowledge of hydrologic concepts. In addition toanswering a series of questions about hydrology, stu-dents are asked to draw a sketch of how ground watermigrates in the subsurface (Figure 1A). In the pre-paratory unit, students complete instructor-providedworksheets that introduce the fundamental conceptsto be covered during the minicourse. To help studentsgain this basic knowledge, instructors also provide ex-tensive resources, including journal articles, web-siteaddresses, and handouts that can be used through-out the minicourse. Students participate in the hy-drology field trip as soon as they complete thepreparatory unit. The main goals of the field trip areto have students: (1) actively collect, compile, and in-terpret geologic field data, (2) effectively experiencethe scale, complexity, and three-dimensional spatial

characteristics of a watershed and an aquifer, (3)realize the limitations of real scientific data sets, (4)effectively communicate their observations and inter-pretations orally, (5) formulate and test working hy-potheses in the field, and (6) propose additionallaboratory investigations to evaluate hypotheses de-veloped in the field.

The 22-km field-trip route is completed duringthe normal allotted classroom time (110 minutes).Instead of taking the entire class to the field at once,instructors conduct the same field trip multiple timeswith small groups of students. With two instructorsand only six to eight students in the field at once,student-instructor interaction is frequent and groupdiscussions involve each student. Although studentsare prompted through oral questioning by the in-structors, observation- and inquiry-based learning isemphasized throughout the field trip. The field tripincludes four stops that are outlined below.

Geologic SettingPurdue University is located in west-central

Indiana, a region that underwent multiple Pleistoceneglaciations, which deposited gravel, sand, and mud


Integration of Field Observations with Laboratory Modeling for Understanding Hydrologic Processes

Figure 1. A) Actual pre-minicourse sketch by a studentwho was asked to explain the following questions:Where does ground water originate and how does ittravel in the subsurface? B) Post-minicourse sketch by astudent who was asked to explain the following ques-tions: Where does ground water originate and how doesground water travel in the subsurface? The student wasalso asked to explain the entire hydrologic cycle, so thediagram includes more components of hydrology thanthe sketch in Figure 1A. Note the apparent improvedunderstanding of the origin of ground water, the role ofaquifers, and the impact of regional gradient on ground-water transportation.

unconformably above Paleozoicstrata (Figure 2). Pleistocene sedi-ments were deposited by ice-contactprocesses and by eolian, fluvial, andlacustrine depositional systems lo-cated adjacent to ice margins. Re-peated glacial advance and retreatresulted in depositional units thatare laterally and vertically hetero-geneous with abrupt changes ingrain size, sorting, and beddingthickness. The unconsolidated Pleis-tocene deposits are the primaryhosts for migration and storage ofground water in the study area. Sub-surface aquifers within the Pleisto-cene glacial sediments supply mostof the drinking-water that is usedat Purdue University (Figure 2).

Field SitesStop 1 – Purdue University waterwells and chlorination facility.Purpose: Introduce students to basichydrologic concepts including groundwater, aquifers, and the source oflocal drinking water supplies.

Procedure: After hearing an over-view of the main learning objec-tives and itinerary of the field trip,the students are taken to a cam-pus water-well field located less thanone mile from the classroom (Stop1 on Figure 2). Inside unmarkedbrick buildings at this locality, thereare water wells and chlorinationfacilities that supply most of thedrinking water for the universitycommunity. Upon arrival at the wellfield, students are asked the follow-ing question: “Where do you thinkthe water you drink on campuscomes from?” Students are encour-aged to discuss possible answersto this question in small groups.The most common answers fromstudents are that water is takendirectly from the Wabash River (Fig-ure 2), from Lake Michigan (located90 miles north of Purdue Univer-sity), or from pipes originating fromunknown sources. On the basis ofthis brief exercise, it is evident thatprior to the field trip, the studentsare unaware that local drinkingwater is derived from shallow aq-uifers located directly beneath thecampus. Instructors promote fur-ther discussion by demonstratingthat the brick buildings containwater wells and chlorination facili-ties. This knowledge allows students

to consider the following questions:“Where is the water being storedin the subsurface?” and “What arethe physical characteristics of thesubsurface (aquifer)?” Stop 2 isdesigned to help students answerthese questions firsthand.

Stop 2 – Pleistocene aquifer.Purpose: Have students make directobservations concerning the physi-cal characteristics of an aquifer anddevelop working hypotheses as tothe physical controls on ground-water migration within an aquifer.


Figure 2. Generalized geologic map of part of the 1° x 2° Danville quadrangle,Indiana. Map location shown on index map of Indiana. Note that the studyarea is dominated by Pleistocene proglacial and ice-contact deposits and re-cent sediments. Geology adapted from Wayne and others (1966).


Procedure: Stop 2 is a sand and gravel quarry inwhich students inspect Pleistocene deposits that formthe uppermost part of the aquifer that supplies drink-ing water to Purdue University (Stop 1 on Figure 2).The quarry is located at the southern edge of campus,four km from Stop 1 (Figure 2). The primary objectiveat the quarry is to have students make detailed obser-vations concerning the lateral and vertical arrange-ment of unconsolidated sediment comprising theaquifer (Figures 3A, B). After dividing into smallgroups, students examine different sections of the wellexposed quarry walls and make observations concern-ing the lateral and vertical variations in grain size(gravel, sand, and mud), sedimentary structures (cross-stratification, clast imbrication, and channels), andpresence or absence of ground water. Students are pro-vided with tape measures, graph paper, trenching ma-terials, and hardhats and are encouraged to measurestratigraphic sections, construct detailed field sketches,make qualitative descriptions, and collect quantita-tive data (for example, percent gravel, sand, and shale).The excellent exposures and pronounced variationsin grain size, bed thickness, bed geometry, and sedi-mentary structures permit first-order observationsregardless of students’ prior knowledge of geology(Figures 3A, B). The students are encouraged to diginto the sediment to determine whether fluids areactually present within the aquifer. Most studentsreadily identify interbedded clay horizons that act asconfining layers and partition sand- and gravel-dominated zones of high porosity and permeability.Water is often concentrated along the interface be-tween clay horizons and overlying sand and gravel.

After the field data have been collected, student-led discussions allow them to share what they havediscovered by comparing and contrasting the physi-cal characteristics of different parts of the quarry. Theyare then encouraged to develop working hypotheseson how ground water would be transported throughdifferent parts of the aquifer. As part of a group dis-cussion, they consider questions such as: “Is the aq-uifer lithologically homogeneous or heterogeneous?”;

“Is ground water more prevalent in certain parts of theaquifer than others?”; “Why?” “What lithologies appearto transport and/or contain the most ground water?”;“Why?”; “Where in the quarry would a water well beinstalled to maximize intake of shallow ground water?”



Figure 3 (right). A. Photograph of a typical outcrop faceexamined by students at Stop 2. Note the heterogeneityin the outcrop that is a product of variations in grain sizeand bed thickness. Person (right center) for scale. B.Line drawing interpretation of the outcrop face shown inFigure 3A. Dashed lines mark the part of the outcropmodeled in the laboratory (Figure 3C). C. Sketch of a hy-drology model constructed by students for laboratoryexperiments. Students arrange grain sizes in the modelaccording to their observations of an outcrop face exam-ined in the field (aquifer at Stop 2). For example, in themodel shown here, gravel, pebbly sand, sand, and clayare arranged from part of the outcrop face shown in Fig-ures 3A, B. The part of the outcrop that is modeled isoutlined by the heavy black dashed lines in Figure 3B.Water wells (four vertical cylinders) are installed at vari-able depths in the modeled aquifer. A moveable pump(shown in well on upper right) can be installed in the waterwells to perform pump tests. A small plug (lower right) isused to drain the model in order to study ground-water-transport rates.

After completion of the sedimentological analy-ses, the gravels layers are reexamined to determinethe clast composition. The goal of this exercise is tohave students collect and interpret quantitative datasets that encourage consideration of the role thatvariations in gravel-clast types might have on ground-water quality. Each group of students documents thegravel-clast composition of a representative portionof an outcrop face by identifying and recording eachclast located within a delineated rectangle. At thispoint in the course, students have had experienceidentifying rocks and minerals using hand lenses,hydrochloric acid, and streak plates. Students willlater compile and interpret the compositional dataduring the laboratory portion of the minicourse.

Stop 3 - Regional traverse.Purpose: Expose students to hydrologic concepts con-cerning regional transportation and storage of groundwater.

Procedure: After discovering that local water suppliesare drawn from subsurface aquifers, the studentsconsider the migration pathways of water from thesurface to the subsurface as well as potential sourcesof ground-water contamination along the pathways.A traverse is taken through a local watershed, pro-gressing downdip through the regional gradient, even-tually ending at the Wabash River, the local watertable (Stop 3 on Figure 2). As the traverse progressestowards the river, students are asked to identify siteswhere water is actively migrating or being stored atthe surface (for example, streams, lakes, and marshes)and to hypothesize how it might be migrating in thesubsurface in response to the regional gradient. Thestudents also identify and discuss potential sourcesof ground-water contamination observed during thetraverse, which include an industrial chemical plant,a power plant, agricultural lands, and gasoline stor-age tanks (I, P, A, and S on Figure 2).

As a related side project, at the end of the traverse,students study modern fluvial depositional systemsnear the confluence of a small stream with the WabashRiver (Stop 3 on Figure 2). Students compare the ar-rangement of grain sizes and sedimentary structuresin the modern fluvial depositional environment withthose of the Pleistocene proglacial outwash depositsthat they described at the aquifer (Stop 2). This exer-cise introduces the general concept that study of mod-ern depositional systems may provide insight intoancient depositional processes and environments.

LABORATORY EXERCISESUpon returning from the field trip, the students

integrate their field observations with laboratory ex-ercises by constructing a small-scale model of the aq-uifer that they observed in the field (Figure 3C). Theyare provided with a hydrologic-model kit (Figure 3C)and pre-sieved pebbles, coarse-grained sand, medium-grained sand, fine-grained sand, silt, and clay. Afterassembling the kit, students use their field sketches,measured stratigraphic sections, descriptions, andquantitative grain-size data to arrange sediment in

the laboratory model in a manner similar to the outcropthat they studied in detail at the aquifer (Figure 3B, C).

The students then conduct a series of experimentsthat verify or refute their field-based hypotheses con-cerning the physical controls on ground-water trans-portation (for example, ground water migrates morerapidly through gravel than sand; clay interbeds actas vertical flow barriers in an aquifer). Students con-duct experiments to evaluate the role of porosity andpermeability on infiltration rates, examine aquiferrecharge and discharge, and study the influence thatregional dip has on ground-water transportation. Themodel has monitoring wells and an outlet that canbe used to test flow rates through different litholo-gies and clear walls that permit visual inspection offluid-migration pathways (fluids are mixed with abright-colored dye). Detailed descriptions and step-by-step instructions of the laboratory experimentsthat were used with the hydrology model can be ob-tained from the Denver Earth Science Project (http://www.mines.edu/Outreach/Cont_Ed/esrc.shtml/pgwm).The students then compare the results of their simu-lations with those of other groups who observed andmodeled different parts of the aquifer in the field. Bycomparing results, they are able to evaluate how lithol-ogy, bed thickness, and bed geometry may controlthe way fluids are transported and stored in an aquifer.

A second laboratory exercise involves compilationand interpretation of the gravel-clast composition datathat the students collected from the aquifer duringthe field trip. The gravels include metamorphic andigneous clasts that were most likely derived from Pre-cambrian source terranes exposed in Canada, northernMinnesota, and Wisconsin, in addition to clastic andcarbonate rocks derived from local Paleozoic sourcesin Indiana and Illinois. By comparing data sets ob-tained from different lateral and vertical positions inthe quarry, students document compositional varia-tions in gravels within the aquifer. In consideringthe possible implications of ground water interactingwith different rock types, students address the follow-ing questions: “What potential water-quality prob-lems could result from aquifers comprised mainly ofcarbonate gravel clasts,” “from igneous clasts rich inheavy minerals,” “from poorly consolidated shaleclasts”; “What gravels in the quarry might yield thehighest quality ground water on the basis of its gravel-clast composition,” “Why.” The students discuss hy-potheses relevant to these questions among themselvesand are encouraged to seek additional information sothey can understand these important concepts. Aftercompletion of the field trip and laboratory experiments,the students synthesize fundamental concepts by com-pleting a series of worksheets and a final examination.

ASSESSMENT, REVISION,AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

To test the educational effectiveness of integratingfield observations with laboratory modeling, we in-vestigated the following question: “Are students ableto understand ground-water migration in an aquiferif they participate in a minicourse that integrates field-trip and laboratory experiences?” Our investigation of


this question included two main assessment strate-gies: (1) pre- and post-testing through oral and writ-ten questions answered during formal interviews and(2) post-testing through essay, short answer, andmultiple-choice questions answered as part of a finalwritten examination. Our analysis is based on assess-ment of 80 students from four classes taught in fourconsecutive semesters. In pre- and post-interviews, thestudents were asked questions concerning fundamen-tal hydrologic concepts relevant to the minicourse andasked to demonstrate connectedness among these con-cepts (Table 1; Figure 1B). The key point from ouranalysis is that, after completing the course, theywere more capable of effectively describing, both orallyand with sketches, the connectedness between naturalphenomena observed in nature (for example, aquifers,watersheds, lithologies, ground water) and abstractconcepts that are difficult to observe directly but canbe modeled in the laboratory (for example, regionalfluid flow). In contrast to sketches drawn in pre-minicourse interviews, post-minicourse sketches il-lustrate aquifer heterogeneity, fluids migrating fasterthrough more porous and permeable parts of anaquifer, and fluids migrating downdip in response toa regional gradient (Figure 1B). Analysis of students’written responses to final-exam questions suggeststhat they gained more knowledge from field and labo-ratory experiences than from worksheets or class-room lectures. The most frequently missed examquestions concerned concepts not experienced duringthe field trip or laboratory components of the course.Importantly, analyses of essay responses indicate thatstudents understood what they were modeling in thelaboratory and why the modeling was necessary totest their working hypotheses. Although our researchmethodology did not include rigorous statistical analy-ses, randomized field trials, or control groups that wouldbetter substantiate the effectiveness of our approach(Shea, 1999), we contend that the pre- and post-testingresults clearly demonstrate that student learning oc-curred. Recent research indicates that despite the in-tensity or effectiveness of the teaching experience,learning is influenced by the amount of time stu-dents are exposed to the studied material (Gabel,1994). To address the issue of the length of time ofstudent involvement with this topic, the two-weekminicourse has been infused into a five-week mini-course that builds upon the role of the field trip andits modeling via laboratory experiences. Future re-search will be conducted to assess the impact of a longerminicourse on student learning of the geosciences.

We also documented student opinions of the tech-niques used and monitored student attitudes towardslearning during the minicourse (Table 1). Analysis ofstudent e-mail journals, student-opinion surveys, andcourse evaluations reveals positive responses to theteaching techniques used in the hydrology minicourse.In response to student suggestions for improving theminicourse, we have increased the amount of timeallowed to make observations in the field, reduced thecomplexity of some of the laboratory experiments, andadded “wrap-up” sessions to both the laboratory andfield experiments. Future minicourse modifications

that we are planning include: (1) providing subsur-face data (for example, well logs) from additionalfield sites in the study area on a web site so that stu-dents can make more regional observations, interpre-tations, and predictions, (2) retooling the laboratorycomponent of the minicourse to include collection andanalysis of more quantitative data sets to stress theinterrelatedness of science and mathematics (for ex-ample, in addition to calculating porosity, permeability,and flow rates, students will determine the probabilitythat one part of an aquifer will recharge faster thananother), and (3) viewing of a videotape during thepreparatory unit that shows each component of theminicourse from previous semesters to help students



Technique Results

Assessment by instructors

Pre- andpost-minicourseexamination(formal interviewswith sketches)

After the minicourse, students wereable to better communicate orallyand with sketches the origin ofground water, how ground watermigrates in the subsurface, and howthe physical characteristics of thesubsurface influence transportationand storage of ground water.Post-minicourse sketches providedirect evidence that students madefundamental connections betweenfield observations and laboratorymodeling exercises.

Post-minicoursefinal examination(written multiple-choice, short-answer,and essay questions)

The most frequently missed examquestions concerned topics thatwere not covered in the field orlaboratory. Answers to essayquestions strongly suggest that moststudents understood what they weremodeling in the laboratory and whythe modeling was necessary.

Assessment by students

Student survey

A large majority of studentsstated that they learned the mostby making field observations inassociation with “real” geoscientistsand/or participating in groupdiscussions while in the field. Asmaller proportion indicated thatthey learned the most from thelaboratory modeling experiences.

Course evaluation

Analysis of course evaluationssuggest that students were inter-ested in learning hydrology becausethey thought the minicourse wasexciting and worthwhile. Pre-serviceteachers stated that they felt a senseof accomplishment and had moreconfidence in their scientificabilities.

E-mail journals

Although students were encouragedto document what they had learnedduring the minicourse in weeklyjournals, most students simply wrotethat the minicourse was “interesting,exciting, fun, or cool.”

Table 1. Assessment techniques used to evaluate stu-dent understanding of hydrology and attitude toward thehydrology minicourse.

better understand the expectations of the course andhow each component is interrelated.

IMPACT OF ACTION RESEARCHIn outlining the curriculum for a two-week (10

classroom hours) hydrology minicourse, we faced thecommon dilemma of choosing from more availablematerial than could be reasonably assimilated by stu-dents during the allotted time frame. We omittedmaterial that could be easily obtained by studentsoutside of the classroom and placed emphasis on“hands-on” experiences and inquiry-based learningactivities. We tried to break down any instructor-student barriers by promoting active learning anddiscussion while minimizing formal lectures on coursecontent. Instructors assisted student exploration anddiscovery in an attempt to dispel preconceived notionsthat science presents an absolute true/false duality(for example, see Perry, 1970).

In this study, our use of action research helped to(1) document the educational effectiveness of the hy-drology minicourse, (2) determine the weaknesses ofour approach, and (3) provide feedback for future im-provement of the curriculum. By determining studentpre- and post-minicourse understanding of fundamen-tal concepts through multiple assessment strategiescarried out by a diverse team, a thorough under-standing of the strengths and weaknesses of the mini-course was gained. Students apparently benefittedfrom the involvement of a diverse instructional teamthat included scientists, educators, and students. Stu-dents regularly stated in e-mail journals, course evalua-tions, and informal conversations that having multipleperspectives during field and laboratory experienceswas useful. They were also more comfortable dis-cussing weaknesses of the minicourse with some in-structors than with other instructors. Consequently,improvements of the minicourse were made basednot only on our assessment strategies but from infor-mal student-instructor conversations as well.

CONCLUSIONIntegration of field-trip and laboratory experiences

was an effective learning mechanism that allowedstudents to make connections between field observa-tions and more abstract hydrologic concepts. We stressthat the determinant of student understanding ofhydrology gained during this minicourse was not bythe volume or variety of course content but by howthe content was actively discovered by students inmultiple learning environments. The results of thisstudy are consistent with previous research that dem-onstrates field experiences attract students to sci-ence (Karabinos and others, 1992) and make sciencelearning more meaningful (Manner, 1995). This studyalso adds to a growing list of studies that indicatestudents are more likely to understand hydrologicconcepts through “real-world” experiences (Harbor andMcClintock, 1993; deWet, 1994; Fletcher, 1994).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis study would not have been possible without

the patience and constructive feedback provided by

undergraduate students who participated in the course.We thank A. Rizzo, A. Pinkerton, M.B. Allison, S.Kennedy, and A. Trop for assistance in the collectionand analysis of data and for useful discussions onimproving the course curriculum. Primary fundingfor this research was provided by the National Sci-ence Foundation (#9653980-DUE). Opinions expressedare those of the authors and not necessarily those ofthe National Science Foundation.

REFERENCESAAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Sci-

ence), 1993, Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (Pro-ject 2061): New York, New York, Oxford UniversityPress, 418 p.

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in theResearch University, 1998, Reinventing undergraduateeducation: A blueprint for America’s research universities:Available at: http://notes.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf

de Wet, A.P., 1994, Integrating field observations withphysical and computer models in an introductoryenvironmental-geology course: Journal of GeologicalEducation, v. 42, p. 264-271.

Fletcher, F.W., 1994, A hydrologic field laboratory for un-dergraduate instruction and research: Journal of Geo-logical Education, v. 42, p. 491-493.

Gabel, D.L., 1994, Handbook of research on science teach-ing and learning: New York, Macmillan, 598 p.

Hamilton, M.L., 1995, Relevant readings in action research:Actions in Teacher Education, v. 16, p. 79-81.

Harbor, J.M., and McClintock, K.A., 1993, Teaching appliedgeomorphology with an exercise in urban storm-watermanagement and erosion control: Journal of GeologicalEducation, v. 41, p. 38-42.

Karabinos, P., Stoll, H.M., and Fox, W.T., 1992, Attractingstudents to science through field exercises in introduc-tory geology courses: Journal of Geological Education,v. 40, p. 302-305.

Keating, J., Diaz-Greenverg, R., Baldwin, M., and Thousand,J., 1998, A collaborative action research model for teacherpreparation programs: Journal of Teacher Education,v. 49, p. 381-390.

Manner, B.M., 1995, Field studies benefit students andteachers: Journal of Geological Education, v. 43, p. 128-131.

Manner, B.M., 1998, Academic preparation and confidencelevel of elementary-school science teachers: Journal ofGeological Education v. 46, p. 28-29.

Mason, J.L., 1980, Annotated bibliography of field trip re-search: School Science and Mathematics, v. 80, p. 155-166.

NRC (National Research Council), 1997, National scienceeducation standards: Fundamental understandings forearth and space sciences: A working paper of the na-tional committee on science education standards andassessment, National Research Council, 15 p.

NSF (National Science Foundation), 1996, Shaping the fu-ture: New expectations for undergraduate education inscience, mathematics, engineering, and technology,Washington, D.C., NSF Division of Undergraduate Edu-cation, 76 p.

Novak, J.D., 1976, Understanding the learning process andeffectiveness of teaching methods in the classroom, labo-ratory, and field: Science Education, v. 60, n. 4, p. 493-512.

Orion, N., 1989, Development of a high-school geology coursebased on field trips: Journal of Geological Education, v.37, p. 13-17.


Orion, N., 1993, A model for the development and imple-mentation of field trips as an integral part of the sci-ence curriculum: School Science and Mathematics, v.93, n. 6, p. 325-331.

Perry, W.G., Jr., 1970, Forms of intellectual and ethicaldevelopment in the college years: A scheme: New York,Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 256 p.

Shea, J.H., 1999, Education “Research” at the annual meet-ing: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 47, p. 110.

Wayne, W.J., Johnson, G.H., and Keller, S.J., 1966, Geo-logic map of the 1°x2° Danville Quadrangle, Indianaand Illinois, showing bedrock and unconsolidated de-posits: Indiana Geological Survey Regional Geologic MapNo. 2, 1:250,000 scale, 3 sheets.


Miscellaneous Announcements

Miscellaneous AnnouncementsA Proposal to Science Educatorsfor Advanced Placement Geology

Geology is a science that is both fascinating andrelevant to the lives of our students. Unfortunately,it is rarely offered at the high-school level. The exis-tence of an advanced placement geology exam wouldencourage high schools to include geology in theircurricula. Advanced placement courses are magnetsthat draw the best students around the country. Topscience students enroll in AP Biology, AP Chemistry,and AP Physics classes. Colleges recognize the rigorof an AP course and will give preferential treatmentto students enrolling in AP classes. Even if a rigorousgeology course is offered in high school, the top stu-dents often avoid it because it does not carry theprestigious AP name. As a result, few college-boundstudents are exposed to the science of geology, andfew will consider it in college. This affects both thequality and the quantity of students enrolling in col-lege geology courses.

At this time, there is no advanced placement examfor geology. The people at the College Board believethat there is not enough interest in the exam to makeit worthwhile to create the test. I am making thisannouncement to find out if that is the case. If youwould like to teach an AP Geology course or youknow someone who would, please contact me by e-mailor any other means convenient. If you or your institu-tion would like to support this proposal, contact meas well.

Please forward this to other science educators whomay be interested.

Wendy Van Norden,Harvard-Westlake School

3700 Coldwater Canyon, No. Hollywood, CA, 91604Tel: (818) 980-6692 x 273

[email protected]@aol.com

37th Forum on theGeology of Industrial Minerals 2001Victoria, British Columbia, CanadaMay 23-25

The conference will cover:! Industrial Mineral Deposits of Western North

America! World-class Industrial Minerals Discoveries! Evaluation of Industrial Mineral Deposits! Natural Stone! Synthetic and Energy-Intensive Minerals! Value-added Industrial Minerals! Diamonds in Canada

Field trips:! Cordilleran geological transect with emphasis

on industrial mineral deposits and operations! Industrial mineral processing plants of the

Vancouver area! Limestone deposits of the Texada Island! Crystar synthetic sapphire plant! Diamond deposits of Northwest Territories! Quaternary geology of the Victoria area and

aggregate resources! Dimension stone in Victoria

For information on the technical program contact:George Simandl,

BC Geological Survey,Tel 250-952-0413, Fax 250-952-0381,[email protected].

For Information on registration contact:Susan Dunlop

CEOR, University of VictoriaTel: 250-472-4347, Fax: 250-472-4100

[email protected].

About the AuthorsJeffrey M. Trop received a BS (Geology-Biology) from

the University of Rochester and an MS (Geology) fromPurdue University. Presently a PhD candidate at PurdueUniversity, Jeff will join the Department of Geology fac-ulty at Bucknell University in August, 2000. His researchinterests center on the sedimentologic and tectonic evolu-tion of sedimentary basins and the role that terrane accre-tion plays in generating continental crust.

Gerald H. Krockover, professor of earth and atmosphericscience education holds a joint appointment between theDepartment of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences in theSchool of Science and the Department of Curriculum andInstruction in the School of Education.

Kenneth D. Ridgway is an associate professor of geologyat Purdue University. His research focuses on the forma-tion and evolution of sedimentary basins.

Date post:	17-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	7 times
Download:	0 times

Integration of Field Observations with Laboratory Modeling ... · Integration of Field Observations...

Documents