Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches (GSA Special Paper 461)

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 22. Geological field experiences in Mexico: An effective and efficient model for enabling middle and high school science teachers to connect with their burgeoning Hispanic populations . . . . 275 K. Kitts, Eugene Perry Jr., Rosa Maria Leal-Bautista, and Guadalupe Velazquez-Oliman Field Education Pedagogy and Assessment 23. The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience: Influencing factors and implications for learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Alison Stokes and Alan P. Boyle 24. External drivers for changing fieldwork practices and provision in the UK and Ireland . . . . . . 313 Alan P. Boyle, Paul Ryan, and Alison Stokes 25. Effectiveness in problem solving during geologic field examinations: Insights from analysis of GPS tracks at variable time scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 Eric M. Riggs, Russell Balliet, and Christopher C. Lieder 26. The evaluation of field course experiences: A framework for development, improvement, and reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Eric J. Pyle

v

The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009

An introduction to historical perspectives on and modern approaches to field geology education Steven J. Whitmeyer Department of Geology & Environmental Science, James Madison University, 800 S. Main Street, MSC 6903, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, USA David W. Mogk Department of Earth Sciences, 200 Traphagen Hall, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA Eric J. Pyle Department of Geology and Environmental Science, James Madison University, 800 S. Main Street, MSC 6903, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, USA 15% of geoscience departments listed in the current Directory of Geoscience Departments (Keane and Martinez, 2008) offer a summer field camp, whereas 35% of geoscience departments offered a field course in 1995. In contrast, a 2008 survey of active field courses showed a steady increase in the number of students attending summer field camps (Fig. 1; AGI, 2009). Given the decrease in schools offering such courses, one can only conclude that field course enrollment must be increasing. This is supported by the American Geological Institute (AGI) data, though enrollment trends are not quite as striking as one would suspect after field camps are filtered to include only those that ran summer courses for at least five of the past ten years (Fig. 2). Nevertheless, if field course enrollments have been stable to modestly rising over the past ten years, one must question the outlook of some academic administrators and others within the geoscience community who proclaim the decreasing relevance of field education as an important element of the undergraduate curriculum. Recent trends within geoscience disciplines that may have bearing on this perception include: (1) the decline of the petroleum and mining industries in the 1980s and 1990s, although this has reversed somewhat since the start of the twenty-first century; (2) a significant decrease in professional jobs that incorporate substantial time mapping geology in the field; (3) the continuing transition in academics from observation-driven research to equipment-intensive experimental, modeling, and theoretical research; and

Field education has historically occupied a central role in undergraduate geoscience curricula, often starting with classspecific weekend field trips and progressing to a capstone summer field course or “camp” at the conclusion of undergraduate coursework. Over the past century, countless geoscience students have honed their field credentials through immersion in the techniques of geologic field mapping as part of a sixto eight-week summer field course. Traditionally, field camp has been required for graduation by many college geoscience departments, and nearly 100 field camps are currently offered by accredited American universities and colleges (King, 2009). However, many geoscience programs in the past few decades have moved away from traditional geologic fieldwork (e.g., bedrock mapping and stratigraphic analysis) and toward applied geology (geophysical remote sensing, laboratorybased geochemical analyses, and environmental assessment, to highlight a few examples). As a result, many geoscience programs have questioned the importance of field instruction in the undergraduate curriculum (Drummond, 2001; AGI, 2006). This volume resulted from a cascade of meetings, field forums, and conference sessions that focused on the supposed decline of the importance of field geology, and the apparent erosion of field experience in recently graduated geoscience students, as perceived by many professionals. The data supporting an apparent shift in curricular emphasis away from fieldwork are convincing. The number of geoscience departments offering summer field courses has declined by 60% since 1995 (AGI, 2009). As a result, only

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 [email protected]. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

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 Minnesota–Duluth (AGI Geoscience Workforce Program; AGI, 2009).

Figure 2. Graph of data from 1999–2008 showing the total number of students enrolled in summer field camp each year (in blue), the average number of students per camp each year (red), and the number of camps included in the survey (green), which changes each year. Note that though the total number of students shows a strong upward trend through time, this is partly due to the increasing sample size of camps that participated in the survey. However, the average number of students per camp does show a general upward trend over the past few years. Raw data compiled were in a survey by Penny Morton, University of Minnesota–Duluth in fall 2008.

(4) a decline in the number of geoscience majors nationwide (AGI, 2009). There can be no doubt that geology as a discipline has widened its focus dramatically to include a range of subdisciplines. These include geophysics, surficial geology, oceanography, climatology, and geohydrology, as well as emerging disciplines such as geomicrobiology, and applied geoscience such

as engineering geology and environmental geology. In the face of these trends, it is not surprising that many established field courses have felt the need to substantially modify traditional curricula away from the previously ubiquitous bedrock geology mapping projects. New field courses have been initiated that focus on subdisciplines within the geosciences. Examples include camps oriented toward geophysics (SAGE, the Summer of Applied Geophysical Experience), oceanography (Urbino Summer School for Paleoceanography), and coastal geomorphology (University of South Florida summer field school), to cite but a few. Field-based research programs (e.g., National Science Foundation–Research Experiences for Undergraduates sites) have been used as a proxy for a traditional field camp in some programs. In other settings, field-based research is being reintegrated into the “core” geoscience curriculum, or used as a follow-up to more traditional field instruction. The audience for field-based immersion experiences has also expanded to include geoscience teachers seeking professional development to better serve precollege students in their charge. Another important driver for curricular changes in field courses has been the advent of new technologies, such as global positioning system (GPS) and geographic information systems (GIS), that have revolutionized modern methods of fieldwork and mapping. Industry professionals have embraced these new technologies, and many field programs have recognized and included digital mapping and fieldwork components within their camp curricula. Though many geoscientists have been vocal in questioning the relevance of field courses and whether field camps can or should survive (Drummond, 2001; AGI, 2006), academic and industry professionals frequently maintain that field competence is an essential skill that should be a prominent component of an undergraduate curriculum. A common thread in conversations with industry professionals, whether in mining and petroleum exploration, hydrologic and environmental consulting, or hazard assessment, is the need for students entering the workforce to be comfortable with equating remote, indirect, or restricted data sets with the appropriate real-world outcrop geology and/or environment. The old adage that “the person that sees the most rocks wins” can be translated to the importance of seeing as much geology in person on the outcrop, especially when asked to extrapolate large-scale geology from limited data. This volume developed out of topical sessions at the 2007 national Geological Society of American (GSA) and American Geophysical Union (AGU) conferences (GSA session T139: The Future of Geoscience Field Courses, and AGU session ED11: Information Technology in Field Science Education), which focused on historical and modern approaches to fieldbased education. The papers herein highlight the historical perspectives and continued importance of field education in the geosciences, propose future directions of geoscience field education, and document the value of this education. We have organized the volume into five sections, as follows.

Introduction I. Historical to Modern Perspectives of Geoscience Field Education This group of papers begins with overviews of wellestablished field camps and how they have evolved through the years (Douglas et al., Sisson et al., Puckette and Suneson, Geissman and Meyer). The latter papers in the section broadly address changes to traditional field course curricula in light of modern developments in our discipline (De Paor and Whitmeyer, Kelso and Brown, Thomas and Roberts, Marshall et al., Ham and Flood). II. Modern Field Equipment and Use of New Technologies in the Field This section includes papers that highlight new equipment and technologies that have revolutionized data collection and mapping in the field (Whitmeyer et al., Swanson and Bampton, Bauer et al.) and suggest ways in which these technologies have supplemented as well as supplanted traditional field geology skills (Vance et al.). III. Original Research in Field Education A welcome recent trend in field education is the inclusion of projects where students collect and interpret data as part of a longterm original research project. These papers illustrate approaches to immersing students in active field research (deWet et al., Connor, Potter et al., May et al.) and suggest an alternative approach that more fully empowers students to use the information learned in a field course experience (Gonzales and Semken). IV. Field Experiences for Teachers Several field courses have been designed to target audiences beyond the undergraduate geoscience population. This section highlights a broad range of field experiences for precollege teachers though college instructors (Bishop et al., Lee et al., St. John et al., Kitts et al.), which strongly support the transformation of field course experiences into pedagogical content knowledge experiences that can be adapted in original ways to different audiences. V. Field Education Pedagogy and Assessment A common thread throughout all of the papers in this volume is a need for in-depth assessment of field-based learning and educational approaches. This final section includes papers that document and/or present assessment and evaluation vehicles for field-based education (Stokes and Boyle, Boyle et al., Riggs et al., Pyle), underscoring the value of such information, not just internally to students, but also externally to policy-makers and financial decision-makers at institutions that offer field course experiences.

ix

With this volume, we hope to foster discussion among geoscientists on the continuing relevance of field-based education while highlighting new initiatives that address the needs of the modern, diverse geoscience community. The papers that follow document the past importance of field courses in providing a solid foundation of experience and knowledge to up-and-coming geoscientists, and they also stress the fact that field education has expanded beyond traditional mapping to include modern subdisciplines, methods, and techniques. Finally, we hope this volume will serve as a strong voice to emphasize the need for qualitative and, particularly, quantitative evaluation and assessment of field-based learning and education. We as a discipline need compelling and abundant data on the importance of field education to our profession if we have any hope of convincing skeptical administrators and other members of the academic and professional geoscience community. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The editors of this volume would like to thank the following reviewers who helped improve the quality of this volume: Alan Boyle, Brendan Bream, Phil Brown, Ilya Buynevich, Chris Condit, Cathy Connor, Peter Crowley, Steve Custer, Don Duggan-Haas, L. Scott Eaton, Joseph Elkins, John Field, Bob Giegengack, Allen Glazner, David Gonzales, Frank Granshaw, Laura Guertin, Ed Hanson, John Haynes, Debra Hemler, Darrell Henry, Steve Hovan, Jackie Huntoon, Tom Kalakay, Kim Kastens, Cindy Kearns, Kathleen Kitts, Mark Leckie, Stephen Leslie, Adam Lewis, William Locke III, Michael May, Beth McMillan, Nathan Niemi, Mark Noll, Heather Petcovic, Mike Piburn, Noel Potter, Federica Raia, Tom Repine, David Rodgers, Jim Schmitt, Joshua Schwartz, Steve Semken, Colin Shaw, Jeff Snyder, Allison Stokes, Neil Suneson, Mark Swanson, Mike Taber, Rob Thomas, Kelly Vance, Fred Webb, and Lorraine Wolf. Cathy Manduca (Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College) provided technical support in the form of a project Web site and listserv that greatly facilitated communications between and among the editors, authors, and reviewers. REFERENCES CITED American Geological Institute (AGI), 2006, Status Report on Geoscience Summer Field Camps: http://www.agiweb.org/workforce/fieldcamps_report _final.pdf (accessed 17 July 2009). American Geological Institute (AGI), 2009, Status of the Geoscience Workforce 2009: http://www.agiweb.org/workforce/reports/2009 -StatusReportSummary.pdf (accessed 17 July 2009). Drummond, C.N., 2001, Can field camps survive?: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, p. 336. Keane, C.M., and Martinez, C.M., eds., 2008, Directory of Geoscience Departments (46th ed.): Alexandria, Virginia, American Geological Institute (AGI), 415 p. King, H.M., 2009, Geology field camps—Comprehensive listing: http://geology .com/field-camp.shtml (accessed 17 July 2009). MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009

Printed in the USA

The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009

Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana: G429 and other field courses, a balance of traditions and innovations B.J. Douglas L.J. Suttner E. Ripley Department of Geological Sciences, Indiana University, 1001 East 10th Street, Bloomington, Indiana 47405-1405, USA

ABSTRACT The uniqueness of the Indiana University geologic field programs is a consequence of the remarkable diversity in the geologic setting of the Judson Mead Geologic Field Station, and programmatic decisions that emphasize a fully integrated curriculum and individual student work. A simple summary of the attributes developed by the courses includes the following key components: sense of scale, self-confidence, independence, integration, and problem solving. These core principles have resulted in a program that prepares students for any of the challenges that they might encounter as professionals. Over time, courses offered through the field station have evolved to reflect the needs of the students and available technologies. The present array includes courses that address environmental geology, applied economic geology, and introductory environmental science; additional courses include those designed for both high school students and teachers and others that provide professional development enhancement. tained. This mixture of the old with the new reflects the general debate taking place within the geosciences community in general as to the necessary and appropriate types of courses and field experiences for the present generation of students (Day-Lewis, 2003; Drummond, 2001).

INTRODUCTION The success of the Indiana University geologic field programs, offered at the Judson Mead Geologic Field Station, stems from the physical setting and a number of critical early decisions about the teaching philosophy used in the courses. Over the years, the collective efforts by the directors and faculty members who have been involved in these field courses over the years have built upon these two underpinnings. The combination of a physical setting that offers a range in teaching sites and programmatic decisions that emphasize a fully integrated curriculum and individual student work has resulted in a program that prepares students for any of the challenges that they might encounter as professionals. Over time, courses offered through the field station have evolved to reflect the needs of the students and have been updated to include new technologies, while methods and exercises that have been proven to be successful have been main-

BACKGROUND The Judson Mead Geologic Field Station of Indiana University was established at its present location in the Tobacco Root Mountains, Montana, in 1949. During the ensuing 60 yr, well over 3500 undergraduate and graduate geology students have received their geologic field training through this field station, making it the largest program of its kind in the country. The list of field station alumni includes persons of distinction in the oil and gas industry, in mineral exploration, in academia, and in government agencies at all levels.

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 traditions and innovations, 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. 1–14, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(01). For permission to copy, contact [email protected]. ©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 support of Herman B. Wells, the president of Indiana University at this time, whose vision and energies proved to be instrumental for the development of Indiana University in general and its geologic field programs in particular. The geologic diversity available within a 100 km radius of the field station is of primary importance to the success of the program. Three other components are critical for the success of our programs: first and foremost, the faculty members who commit to teach for the entire duration of the courses; second, a

fully integrated curriculum that builds on previous study in both the field and the classroom; and third, a philosophy that all work done by students is done individually, but with constant supervision and feedback from faculty members. We will address each of these components in turn. Teaching Location Perhaps the most significant aspect of the field programs offered through the Judson Mead Geologic Field Station of Indiana University is the location (Fig. 1). The field station is located within the Tobacco Root Mountains in a relatively remote valley.

112°W North Bou lder Basin

113°W

Butte

46°N

Whitehall

Three Forks

Boulder Batholith

n

M

ar

Basi

cC

Fa u

lt

ee F ork

sB

Zo

asin

Jeffe

ey

Thr

Willow Creek fault zone

rson

tn

JMGFS

ne

Melrose

Bi

sm

Pioneer Batholith

Tobacco Root Batholith k fa ul t

ar

Ha

rris

on

Norris

Ba

sin

Be

av erh

ea

dB

asi

n

Twin Bridges

Sp

an

Ennis

ish

Virginia City

ak

sf au

lt

Madison Basin

Badger Pass fault zone

Pe

Dillon

N

Bl

ac

kt

ail

fa u

lt

Tertiary deposits

0

10

20

30

40

50 km

45°N

zo

ne

0

10

20

30 miles

Thrust fault, teeth are on upthrown side Normal fault, ball on the downthrown side

Cretaceous intrusives Archean, Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks

Thrust fault, teeth are on upthrown side; faulting involves crystalline basement rock Left-lateral strike-slip fault

Figure 1. Geologic map showing the location of the Judson Mead Geologic Field Station (JMGFS). Inset photograph is the view of the main lodge, which has served as the heart of the Indiana University field programs since the inception of the field station. The location of the map is shown in the inset of the state of Montana (top right).

Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana The physical setting in the South Boulder River Valley is aesthetically pleasing and ensures that the students are isolated from modern distractions; the setting effectively ensures that the students become immersed in their courses. Even more important, well-exposed, complex geology is present in areas that are readily accessible (Fig. 2). For example, the field site setting offers: (1) a virtually complete stratigraphic column, ranging in age from the Archean to the Quaternary, with key Paleozoic and Mesozoic stratigraphic intervals well exposed and accessible for field observations; (2) regional- and basin-scale variations in stratigraphy, reflecting both varied depositional settings and varied tectonic influences; (3) convergence of three main structural styles of western North America: Sevier-style fold and thrust, Laramide-style thick-skinned tectonics, and Basin and Range–style extensional tectonics; (4) mapping areas characterized by excellent exposure and advantageous topographic relief and resulting field areas that have remarkable three-dimensional (3-D) exposure and expression of stratigraphy, as well as dramatic structural style and relief; (5) regional and contact metamorphism including results of Archean, Proterozoic, and Cretaceous events; (6) extrusive and intrusive igneous rocks including flows, volcaniclastics, dikes, sills, and plutons of various sizes; (7) Pleistocence glacial geomorphology; and (8) both pristine sites and sites that have been environmentally degraded. In subsequent discussions of the material being taught in our programs, we will provide examples of how the particular physical setting of a selected geologic site is critical for the instructional success of the subject matter or techniques being presented to the students.

Figure 2. Low-level aerial photograph of a portion of the Tobacco Root Mountains showing the Pole Canyon anticline as viewed looking toward the north. The Judson Mead Geologic Field Station is located just to the south of a major break in topography created by the change in the units making up the bedrock and the location of the Carmichael fault. View is to the NNW and the width of the field of view is approximately 1.6 km (1 mile).

3

Faculty Involvement Until about 10 yr ago, all faculty members involved in the courses offered through the field station committed to teach for the entire course. With recent expansion of the breadth of subject matter being offered, we have modified this policy slightly; in a few cases, we have brought in faculty members for part of a course, but they still interact with all of the students and are expected to participate in all activities for the time they are present. These short-term faculty members typically are present for ~2 wk, and they bring critical specialties to supplement the skills of the full-time faculty members. Faculty involvement for an entire course ensures that the faculty know exactly what has been taught and where and how it has been presented, so they can reinforce the concepts and tie new projects and learning to what has been covered previously. The students know that the faculty members, in addition to hiking up and down every ridge, have been involved in every phase of the course with them. This understanding creates a sense of shared responsibility and commitment to the learning process that is clear to all those involved. In addition to senior faculty members, a staff of associate instructors, often former students selected to return to serve in these positions, provides additional contact for the students with a perspective closer to their own. A student to staff ratio of 6:1 is maintained for all courses. At any given time, the students are all working on the same project; each small field group of students is led by a faculty member and an associate instructor. As the course progresses, the students are assigned to different faculty members so that by the end of the course, all of the students have been exposed to all of the faculty as well as the associate instructors and to the other students. This gives the students opportunities to interact with faculty members with diverse backgrounds, training, and research interests. For a particular project, a single faculty member, typically with expertise in the topic, serves as the lead instructor. This lead instructor ensures coherency of the materials and large group presentations, while all of the individual faculty members are responsible for leading small field groups where hourly teaching and interaction is taking place. This practice ensures that students are exposed to a variety of teaching styles and expertise so they can learn in ways that complement their own abilities and interests. Faculty members from more than 25 academic institutions and government agencies have been involved in teaching at the field station. In some cases, these faculty members have been permanent members of the field station faculty. In other cases, faculty members have come both to observe and to provide additional expertise. By having these external faculty members participate in the courses, the program has been able to effectively implement a continuous review of the materials and teaching procedures being employed in our courses. Curriculum and Teaching Philosophy Currently, six formal courses, as well as graduate seminars, professional-development courses, and programs for high school

4

Douglas et al.

students, are taught at the field station (Table 1). Some of these courses are taught on an annual basis, and others are taught when student enrollment is sufficient to meet minimum enrollment criteria. The G103/S103/G111 and G104/S104/G112 introductory course sequence has been offered for more than 25 yr, and it has been highly successful in recruitment of geology majors. The flagship course, G429, has been offered every year since Indiana University first offered field courses in 1947. In general, all of the courses offered (Table 1) are organized around a common format that is designed to require students to address field problems of a steadily increasing level of complexity as the courses progress. Initial work is kept simple and general to ensure that all of the students start with a basic level of geologic knowledge and field techniques. In a typical summer, 20 or 30 universities and colleges from across the country have students attending these courses. In order to accommodate such a diverse student population, we have developed a curriculum that rapidly builds a base level of both information and field experience. In the case of G429, this portion of the teaching is conducted while traveling from the Black Hills to the field station. The 6 d caravan route has been designed to utilize key localities in the Archean-cored ranges and intervening basins of Wyoming and particularly well-exposed examples of stratigraphic sections or structural styles. The caravan trip also provides a regional foundation for later work at the field station. A second caravan trip to northwest Montana is added toward the end of the course to broaden this regional perspective. Like most courses at the field station, G429 is organized around a weekly schedule. This weekly schedule builds toward an all-day independent exercise on the last day of the work week. The students are required to work alone and independently for the entire field-based evaluation exercise, putting into practice the skills and knowledge that they learned during the week. This experience builds over the summer, so that by the end of the course, the students are working at a high skill level with a broad information base that is the accumulation of all previous

Introductory courses

experiences. This succession of instructional weeks culminates in the Final Study Area project, seven field days and one office day dedicated to a single project. Faculty members are present throughout the Final Study Area and offer guidance and a general framework for the students to work within. The faculty members and associate instructors are available for regular consultation, but they play less of a direct instructional role. The motivation, time management, and integration of field and evening work is entirely student driven; they are encouraged to use the faculty as a resource, but they are responsible for their efforts for the entire project. The following is a description of a typical G429 week, the daily procedures, and student-faculty and student-student interactions during this week. In successive weeks, the level of geologic problem solving escalates in both stratigraphic and structural complexity, as does the number of parameters that must be considered in any decision-making step. While the actual number of decisions and problem-solving tasks being considered at any one point in time is quite large, these may be generalized into two main types: (1) those requiring acquisition of specific data related to characterization of the geologic material or phenomenon being studied (e.g., the composition, texture, and architecture of rock units), and (2) those data requiring spatial and geometric information (e.g., the 3-D distribution of a geologic formation within a certain region). The first one or two days of the week primarily address the procedures and decision making required to collect the primary outcrop-level geologic data. The physical traverse is simple and dictated by the distribution of G429 type localities that best demonstrate the key characteristics of each map unit or formation so that spatial and geometrical issues do not come into play. This sequencing of instruction permits the students to concentrate primarily on one central problem. As they move from locality to locality, the traverse pace and amount of outcrop observation time are dictated by the pace of the small group rather than by individuals. This ensures that the students learn how to efficiently budget their time in the field. Typically, an

TABLE 1. COURSES OFFERED THROUGH THE JUDSON MEAD GEOLOGIC FIELD STATION G103/S103 Earth Science: Materials and Processes (G111 Physical Geology) (3 cr) G104/S104 Evolution of the Earth (G112 Historical Geology) (3 cr) G321 Field Geology for Business Students (3 cr)

Advanced courses

G329 Introductory Field Experience in Environmental Science (5 cr) G426 Basin Analysis (3 cr) G429 Field Geology in the Rocky Mountains (6 cr) G429e Field Geology in the Rocky Mountains with Environmental Applications (6 cr)

Graduate courses and research seminars

G690 Topical Research (3–6 cr)

Professional courses

US Forest Service: Influence of Geological Settings on Forest Management

High school cou r ses

Introdu ction to Geology

Local outreach

Topical sessions for local interest groups (e.g., Boy Scouts, high school science clubs, summer courses)

Note: cr—credit hours.

Emphasis on independent data gathering and traverse route selection with minimal instructor input within an unbounded region Final Study Areas (London Hills; North Boulder; Pole Canyon; Sacry’s Ranch) 5

Problem definition and plan for data gathering and traverse route optimization; integrated synthesis of the geologic history of the region

Time spent on student-driven tasks with limited instructor control Carmichael Watershed; Willow Creek Watershed 4b

Problem definition and data gathering using instrumentation with computational and analytical solutions

Emphasis on independent data gathering and traverse route selection with minimal instructor input while in a welldefined region Carmichael and N. Doherty Map Areas 4a

Problem definition and plan for data gathering and traverse route optimization; integration of field data with analytical chemistry and petrographic images

Emphasis on independent data gathering and traverse route selection with judicial instructor input S. and N. Boulder Sections; Sandy Hollow; Highway 2 Map Area 3

Data gathering at the outcrop scale; selection of traverse routes; Mesozoic stratigraphic section; siliciclastic depositional environments with tectonic influences

Emphasis on data gathering; traverse routes dictated by instructors and terrain S. Boulder Section; Mt. Doherty Map Area 2

Data gathering at the outcrop scale; selection of traverse routes; Paleozoic stratigraphic section; carbonate depositional environments

Location Black Hills, South Dakota, to Judson Mead Field Station via Wyoming

TABLE 2. WEEKLY SCHEDULE FOR G429 Theme General field techniques and navigation; regional geology including stratigraphy and structural styles

5

Week 1

anomaly will be encountered during the later part of these days that challenges the students to individually construct hypotheses and work through solutions, which are then tested by further field data collection. Evenings are used to tabulate and summarize field data more completely than is possible in the field. As the week progresses, students participate in a mapping exercise at a different locality that includes new spatial and geometric components. This additional location is selected to reinforce data, approaches, and skills developed earlier in the week. This approach works equally well for such subject areas as surface and groundwater hydrology or seismic-hazard assessment. The daily schedule is similar to that employed in the first two days, i.e., guided traverses and group discussions at various times during the day focusing on material to consider when making structural and stratigraphic interpretations and deciding what traverse to follow. Discussions often focus on the structural or stratigraphic observations that might be optimized by the selection of a particular traverse route (e.g., working perpendicular to strike versus following a single unit along strike). The final day of the week is an independent exercise, conducted in an area not previously visited by the student. The areas used for these independent exercises are selected from within the same general setting the students have been working in, so that the challenges faced during the exercise are commensurate with their recent experiences and abilities. Each week is designed to address a selected focus from the range of subdisciplines within the geological sciences. A listing of the main concepts and goals for each week is given in Table 2. Careful consideration has been given to the selection of the physical setting for each part of the week’s activities so as to provide optimal learning experiences. For example, the lower Paleozoic stratigraphic section studied in the first week is exposed in a uniformly dipping limb of a major anticline with over 80% exposure. The combination of a uniform dip of around 40° and a stratigraphic section composed of primarily interbedded limestone- and shale-dominated packages creates linear ridges and valleys, and the traverse route readily conveys the concepts of stratigraphic succession. During the middle of the week, as the students are working on a mapping exercise, the selected map area is characterized by extreme topographic relief, which reflects the variable susceptibility to erosion existing in this portion of the stratigraphic column. The students are aided in their first geologic mapping by the terrain itself, which closely correlates not only with the stratigraphy, but with the structural geometries as well (Fig. 3); decision making by the students is therefore relatively straightforward and provides positive reinforcement of good field techniques. G429 students are always given an introduction to an exercise the evening before the field work is undertaken. The materials used in the exercise are distributed at these meetings, and the students are given time to become familiar with the tools they will be using (e.g., finding traverse routes on both the topographic map and stereophotos for the following day). Field logistics are given at the start of any field day, along with specific information about the daily schedule and

Comments Designed to provide mental and physical acclimation and remedial instruction

Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana

6

A

Douglas et al.

Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana

B Figure 3. (A) Topographic map of the Mt. Doherty teaching exercise area (45° 53.903′N, 111° 53.403′W). (B) Stereographic photo pair for the Mt. Doherty area. The extreme topographic relief readily visible in the photos expresses both the interbedded carbonateshale stratigraphy of the lower Paleozoic and the overturned plunging folds that have been developed. The identification numbers on the air photos indicate the north direction and the east–west dimension is approximately 5.6 km (3.5 miles).

7

8

Douglas et al.

logistical concerns such as dangerous terrain to be avoided. Additional personal considerations such as traverse pacing (when the big hills will be encountered), rest-break options, and the expectations for individual versus group activities are also given to the students, as appropriate. During subsequent weeks, there is an increase in the level of sophistication in the nature of the problems and approaches introduced to and implemented by the students. At the same time, the amount of closely supervised teaching is reduced, and time intervals between group and individual check points are longer. Intervals of 1 to 3 h of independent work by the students are concluded with a group rendezvous. This provides a safety check and permits a group discussion of the problems and discoveries made by the students. During this same time interval, the faculty will visit with each of the students individually to provide opportunity for one-on-one instruction. This allows for greater independence and also permits individualized teaching for those students needing more instruction, thus ensuring that the range of abilities and prior experience is not a determining factor for a student’s long-term learning. The final portion of the course consists of student selfdirected work. During the Final Study Area project, the students are expected to put into practice what they have learned to date. The Final Study Areas have been selected to provide a range of challenges for the students so that they can gain confidence and a sense of being in control of their path throughout the project, in both a physical and literal sense. Decades of accumulated geological and logistical experience influence the teaching and learning process that is at the heart of the field instruction at the Judson Mead Geologic Field Station of Indiana University. The decision to use the same areas year after year is based on the fact that the concepts being presented to the students are difficult to master; by having the students work in a physical setting that is advantageous for the learning process, chaotic and frustrating experiences that could impede the advancement of the student are avoided. Arriving at a new locality for the first time with students can be a wonderful exercise in exploration and discovery, or it can be one of frustration and chaos, should the access or the quality of the exposures prove to be less than anticipated. Several recent studies of introductory-level students involved in field-based learning have demonstrated that learning is more effective when the students are comfortable in their learning environment (Elkins and Elkins, 2007; Orion, 1993; Orion and Hofstein, 1994). Repeated use of a particular area also makes it possible to evaluate the students’ work with a minimal amount of corrections for those uncontrollable parameters involved in field teaching, such as inclement weather, flat tires, locked gates, etc. This is not intended to imply that the curriculum is fixed and unchanging, but to reinforce the notion that a substantial amount of thought and planning is part of every field experience the students encounter. The curriculum itself is constantly being revised and updated to include new information, techniques, and teaching and/or research methods. The issues of

course improvement and new course offerings are addressed in a later section. Academic Instructional Materials An extensive collection of academic materials relevant to the teaching and research mission of the field station has been developed over the years. These materials are listed in Table 3. An integral part of the field experience involves the use of topographic maps and aerial photographs. The latter are typically stereographic pairs that allow for an exceptional perspective

TABLE 3. INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS, FACILITIES, AND LOGISTICAL SUPPORT I. Instructional and Evaluation (Independent) Materials A. More than 250 individual teaching or evaluation modules for use in courses offered through the Judson Mean Geologic Field Station (JMGFS). These materials would include all written materials for students and instructors as well as logistical notes, hourly schedules, and supporting materials and equipment (see lists below for relevant details). B. Complete set of matched (scale and level of coverage) topographic maps and stereophotographic pairs for region. C. Regional stratigraphic studies and facies distributions for key stratigraphic units (e.g., Jurassic Ellis formation). D. Regional geological maps and other significant geologic and geophysical case studies (e.g., gravity surveys). E. An instrumented watershed for hydrogeologic studies including over 10 yr of weather, surface-water, and groundwater data. II. The Willow Creek Demonstration Watershed A. South Willow Creek gauging station. B. North Willow Creek gauging station. C. Jackson Ranch groundwater wells (alluvial channel; 2 well nest [4.6 m (15 ft) and 22.9 m (75 ft)]. D. Fink House groundwater well (pediment surface; 1 well [18.3 m (60 ft)]. E. Windy Ridge weather station. F. Harrison Lake weather station. G. NRCS SNOTEL site (Albro Lake). H. U.S. Geological Survey stream gauging station (Willow Creek, Montana). (Items A–F are installations of the JMGFS; items G and H are installations of federal governmental agencies who are part of the watershed cooperative agreement.) III. Student Equipment All of the students are provided with individual equipment to complete the tasks associated with the academic exercises. Typically there is sufficient equipment such that all students can make individual use of a particular piece of equipment. IV. Supporting Logistics A. Working agreement with the Indiana University Center for Geospatial Data Analysis for maps, images, and geographic information systems (GIS) coverage for areas used by the field station. B. Access to over 50 private land holdings, ensuring access to key geologic mapping areas. C. Equipment and instrument maintenance and repair by Indiana University Department of Geological Sciences staff.

Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana on the terrain and outcrop distribution. The Indiana University field programs took advantage of these innovations during the late 1950s and 1960s with the evolution of the G429 stereoboard (Fig. 4). The distinctive clank of stereoboards being opened or set down on an outcrop is a sound that is familiar to many of the geologists working across the world today who have been through G429. Many of the organizational and instructional formats presently in use were established under the directorship of Judson Mead. This includes the overall organization of courses, weekly format, and use of newly available resources. The use of CB radios during caravan travel greatly increased the ability to communicate to everyone geologic as well as safety information while traveling. Another example of an innovation used in G429, G429e, and G329, developed by the in-house faculty exclusively

Figure 4. (A) Students using stereoboards in the field. The design allows students to be able to plot station and contact information on both a topographic map and aerial photograph in the field, even while on steep slopes or under windy conditions. Use of plastic bags as a cover permits the stereoboards to be used in the rain. (B) Close-up view of a stereoboard designed by Judson Mead for use with topographic maps and stereophotographic pairs while mapping in the field. The components are nonmagnetic, so the stereoboard will not affect measurements made with a Brunton compass. The dimensions of a closed stereoboard are 37 cm × 23.5 cm × 3 cm (14.5 in. × 9.25 in. × 1.25 in.).

9

for our programs, is the concept and design of a stratigraphic notebook for recording a wide variety of stratigraphic information in a single compact format (Fig. 5). These pages allow for rapid stratigraphic section description and results that are organized and complete for even a student just learning to make these types of observations. These types of pages have been expanded upon over time to include sheets for soil profiles, relative age assignment, biologic indexing, and weather observations, reflecting the changing needs of students in new courses, such as G329 (a course addressing environmental science with more diverse data collection needs). NEW DIRECTIONS Over the last 15 yr, several new courses have been added to the field station curriculum. These include environmental courses for both students and professionals, applied courses targeted for business majors, and courses for high school students and teachers. Ongoing efforts are aimed at developing cooperative, multidisciplinary courses combining surface geologic mapping and techniques developed for subsurface, geophysical, and remotesensing applications (e.g., satellite images, seismic, gravity, magnetic, borehole). Efforts to expand our curriculum resulted in the integration of new projects and data sets, such as the addition of thin-section petrography and whole-rock and isotope chemical analyses, which augment and complement field mapping and more traditional data sources. A decision to incorporate a new technique or technology within one of our courses is based on an evaluation of the extent to which the new adaptation will increase students’ selfconfidence and ability to work independently. At the same time, there remains the question of whether this same innovation will make the student dependent on technology and whether such dependency will limit dynamic flexibility. As mentioned earlier, our programs have evolved from the use in the 1940s of plane tables to construct topographic maps as a critical part of the learning process to the use of high-quality topographic maps, aerial photographs, and satellite images. There is a balance as to when incorporation of a new technology becomes a crutch that may facilitate data collection in the short run, but limit the ability to perform in less than ideal conditions where such technology is not available or has failed. Everyone has had the experience of having the batteries run out while using some device. Teaching students to be able to carry on despite such logistical setbacks is one of the critical aspects of our teaching philosophy. Without a fundamental understanding of the basis for the data generated by a new technology, such as GPS locations coupled with a digital map, the student cannot be in control of the quality of the information being collected nor understand the inherent limitations. A second, related problem stems from the time required to master the new technology. Given the high cost and limited amount of field instructional time, having a student learn a new software package translates to time not spent being active in the field. We decided not to include GPS and GIS mapping within G429;

10

Douglas et al.

Figure 5. Examples of pages from a student’s stratigraphic notebook. The creation of a standardized page format, along with an extensive key and legend, allows students without any formal training in stratigraphic section measurement to effectively observe and record appropriate information with little prior training. The information shown was recorded by a student while traversing a portion of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sections for the first time. The page size is 15.3 × 23 cm (6 × 9 in.) and is bound in a stiff covered binder that can be opened to change the relative position of these pages as well as summary pages and legend pages.

initial work has been completed with the goal of incorporating this technology into G329. The reason for this is that for G329, the technology is critical to reach the appropriate level of scientific sophistication, whereas in G429, it is not critical. A concerted effort to expand the curriculum was undertaken in 1996 (Douglas et al., 1996, 1997, 2002). The goal was to incorporate environmental geology within the context of the G429 program, creating G429e (Table 4), and to create a new course in environmental science, G329. The latter was a major expansion of subject areas and approaches, but one that was readily accomplished given the setting of the field station. The range of ecological systems within a short distance of the field station, as well as wide variation in the conditions of these systems, from pristine wilderness to physically altered and chemically contaminated landscapes, provided an ideal range of field sites for teaching environmental concepts. G329 is a requirement of a new B.S. degree program offered by Indiana University in environmental science; like all courses offered by the Jud-

son Mead Geologic Field Station, G329 is open to all students, regardless of the school they are attending. The creation of this new environmental field curriculum was linked to the development of an instrumented watershed (Fig. 6) formally referred to as the Willow Creek Demonstration Watershed (WCDW). The WCDW was created as a demonstration of the benefits of cooperation among governmental agencies, universities, and individual citizens in understanding and managing natural resources. The instrumented watershed is the centerpiece of a cooperative venture for long-term research and outreach among the Judson Mead Geologic Field Station of Indiana University, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Madison Conservation District (the local water board for ranchers in the region). Nine permanently instrumented sites (two meteorological stations, three stream-gauging stations, three groundwater-monitoring wells [one site being a nested pair composed of both a deep well and a shallow well] and one Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL)

Surface-water chemistry signatures; spring chemistry signatures; watershed boundaries; groundwater recharge and discharge zones; groundwater residence time; stratigraphic and structural controls on surface and groundwater pathways pH, SpC, T probes; Brunton compass; topographic map; stereophoto pairs Final Study Area

Water budget for the reservoir; relationship between surface waters in wetland and lake and groundwater; vertical and horizontal groundwater gradients pH, SpC, T probes; Brunton compass; autolevel (with tripod and stadia rod); electric tape for water-depth determination; miniature piezometer tubes; seepage meters; evaporation trays; soil augers; topographic map Willow Creek Reservoir

Groundwater chemical signatures; evaluation of seasonal groundwater level records; slug test evaluation for K; pump test evaluation for K; vertical and horizontal gradients; groundwater surface contouring and flow-direction determination; aquifer and aquiclude determination pH, SpC, T probes; Brunton compass; autolevel (with tripod and stadia rod); driller’s log; electric tape for water-depth determination; Bailer pump; fixed instrumentation associated with installed monitoring wells; topographic map Groundwater—WCDW

Stream slopes; stream discharges; vertical velocity profiles; lateral velocity profiles; stream channel profile evaluation; evaluation of stream-gauging station calibration and seasonal discharge records; stream load and bed form evaluation; Manning’s n analysis pH, SpC, T probes; Brunton campass; autolevel (with tripod and stadia rod); March McBirney flow meter; fixed instrumentation associated with installed monitoring wells; topographic map Surface water, Willow Creek Demonstration Watershed (WCDW)

·

Project Carmichael Watershed

TABLE 4. G429E TEACHING EXERCISES Equipment A n a ly s e s pH, Specific Conductance (SpC), temperature (T) probes; Brunton Surface-water chemistry signatures; spring chemistry signatures; watershed compass; topographic map; stereophoto pairs boundaries; groundwater recharge and discharge zones; groundwater residence time; two-component mixing model calculations for stream-stream and stream-groundwater exchanges

Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana

11

site form the primary data collection points for the watershed (Table 3; Fig. 6). Data sets derived from the portable equipment, collected by the students during the course (Fig. 7), are building a database for future students to use in their interpretations. An ever-expanding library of data (e.g., local meteorological measurements, vegetation surveys, aquatic indices, stream indexing, soil and water chemistry) along with surficial and bedrock geological mapping has been compiled. Both G429e and G329 make extensive use of the WCDW instrumented sites and data sets; a number of undergraduate research projects and graduate M.S. theses have been completed that provide additional information that has been incorporated into the teaching exercises (Elliott, 1998a, 1998b; Elliott et al., 1998, 2003; Krothe, 1999; Letsinger, 2001; Letsinger and Olyphant, 2001; Osterloo, 2002). A complete list of the permanent instrumentation and a general overview of the materials and data generated within the WCDW may be found at http://www.indiana.edu/~iugfs/newgeneral.html. Other teaching exercises initially developed for use in the environmental courses were deemed of such high value for all students that they were incorporated into the general curriculum. Examples of these sorts of projects are related to mining and mine waste and neotectonics and earthquake-hazard assessment. In both examples, projects developed in these teaching exercises include a range of activities and skill development (Table 5) that are new and outside the scope of traditional field geology education. We have been fortunate to be able to establish a good working relationship with Montana Resources, Inc., the private company presently operating the Continental Pit in Butte. Montana Resources has provided G429 and G429e students with access to their mine and milling operations, and it has provided staff to work with the students. An abandoned gold mine, the Bullion Mine, located near Basin, Montana, which was operational from the early 1900s to the 1950s, serves as the teaching site for the counterpart to the modern ongoing mining operation. At the Bullion Mine, aspects of mine reclamation and the treatment of acid mine drainage are explored. G329 represents an entirely new direction in curriculum development. This course fully integrates all of the scientific disciplines that are part of environmental science (e.g., atmospheric science, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics, as well as instrumentation and technology). The field sites and teaching exercises are designed to provide physical and intellectual overlap, so that the students can begin to appreciate the multidisciplinary nature of many scientific investigations (Douglas et al., 2002). The same stepwise development of skill sets and complexity of intellectual activity used in the traditional field station courses is employed in these new courses. G329 makes extensive use of equipment (Fig. 8) and requires the use of computers for handling the large and complex data sets obtained during the course. The WCDW instrumentation and data sets are used extensively by this course. Special opportunities, such as sampling the hydrothermal systems in Yellowstone National Park, provide unique experiences for these G329 students. Data collected by G329 students documented a shift in one hydrothermal

*

9000

8000

Cataract Creek

7000

SG Potosi Pk (USFS)

JMGFS

Watershed boundary

7000 6000

S. Willow Creek

South Fork Willow Creek

SG

Pony

Willow Creek

SG North Fork

N. Willow Creek

Alluvial

Harrison

0

0

MM

*

5 km

Meteorological station

SNOTEL site

5 miles

Groundwater-monitoring site GW

5000

Stream-gauging station

SG

Harrison Lake

SG

Norwegian Creek

Dry Hollow Creek

GW Pediment

GW GW

Harrison Lake SG Weather Station MM

USGS

T3S

Willow Creek

N

Figure 6. Map of the Willow Creek Demonstration Watershed, associated with Judson Mead Geologic Field Station (JMGFS), showing the location of the permanent instrumentation sites. Insets provide a sense of the site settings and instruments deployed within the watershed. One meteorological station is located in an alpine zone, while the other is located in an agricultural field. A pump test of the deep well of the nested well pair at the Jackson Ranch set is being carried out by students in G329. Water levels in both wells are being monitored by electric tapes. USGS—U.S. Geological Survey.

10000

Hollowtop

8000

MM

Ridgetop Weather Station

S. Boulder River

12

Indiana University geologic field programs based in Montana

13

Figure 7. (A) View of the South Willow Creek gauging station looking downstream. The catwalk allows the gauging station to be used during high flow intervals and also provides safe access to the far side of the stream for local fisherman, a small thing that helps maintain goodwill between the field station and the local land owners. (B) Students from G429e using a Marsh-McBirney flow meter to measure the discharge of South Willow Creek just downstream from the South Willow Creek gauging station. The students can compare their calculated discharge with that from the rating curve for the gauging station. The boulders on the shore behind the students may be seen looking beneath the catwalk in Figure 7A.

TABLE 5. CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO G429 TEACHING EXERCISES Project

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 pressure for alpine and high-plains settings (lower) within the Willow Creek Demonstration Watershed (WCDW) for 2000 from the two permanent weather stations. Right two panels show the topographic control on the diurnal cycle of net allowave radiation (solid lines) and ground heat flux (dashed lines) at four locations in Carmichael Valley, 21–22 June 2001. The role of south- versus north-facing controls on the surface radiation budget and ground heat flux is clearly evident.

14

Douglas et al.

system; the National Park Service used similar observations to close a popular boardwalk within the park. Future plans include the development of a geophysical option, G429g, and a 2 wk course designed to serve as an extension of G429, G429e, or G429g. This course will use GPS, GIS, and remote-sensing technologies to investigate areas previously studied. The addition and use of new technologies common in the professional workplace can be useful after the students have established a sufficient level of professional knowledge and experience to be able to evaluate critically the benefits and limitations of the technology being used. As the number of courses and the breadth of the subject matter being offered have expanded, the field station also has become a site for research on the best practices of teaching and learning in the field. This development has resulted in collaboration with a number of researchers investigating the concepts of novelty space and field decision making and problem solving (see Riggs et al., this volume). As we move into the next phase of geoscience education in the field, we are looking to continue to improve what and how we teach. CONCLUSIONS The instructional practices that have been developed over the 60 yr that field education has been conducted through courses taught at the Judson Mead Geologic Field Station have resulted in a highly effective method of field instruction. Recent and ongoing research into student learning is defining the essential elements behind many of the practices and procedures employed in the field courses taught at the field station. At the same time, the incorporation of new materials and technologies is providing a necessary level of modernization that is critical to enable the students who matriculate from these courses to be successful in research and professional employment. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Curriculum development for G429e and G329 was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) along with support from Indiana University (Curriculum Development for Interdisciplinary Field Courses in Environmental Geosciences, to Douglas, Olyphant, Suttner, and Boone, NSF grant DUE9651204, and Field and Laboratory Equipment for Student Training in Environmental Geosciences, to Douglas, Olyphant, Brophy, and Suttner, NSF grant DUE-9751645 [including 50% match from Indiana University Research and University Graduate School]). This manuscript benefited from reviews by Neil Suneson, Adam Maltese, and two anonymous reviewers.

REFERENCES CITED Day-Lewis, F.D., 2003, Editor’s Message: The role of field camp in an evolving geoscience curriculum in the United States: Hydrogeology Journal, v. 11, p. 203–204. Douglas, B.J., Olyphant, G.A., Suttner, L.J., Boone, W., and Carlson, C., 1996, Integrating skills and techniques of environmental geoscience into an existing field geology program: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 28, no. 7, p. A-267. Douglas, B.J., Olyphant, G.A., Elliott, W., Letsinger, S.L., and Suttner, L.J., 1997, Importance of bedrock geology to the geoecology of a northern Rocky Mountain watershed: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 29, no. 6, p. A-22. Douglas, B.J., Brabson, B., Brophy, J., Cotton, C., Dahlstrom, D., Elswick, E., Gibson, D., Letsinger, S., Oliphant, A., Olyphant, G., Person, M., and Suttner, L., 2002, Using data today: Data in a field classroom, in Using Data in Undergraduate Science Classrooms, Final Report on an Interdisciplinary Workshop at Carleton College, April 2002: Northfield, Minnesota, Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College, 16 p. Drummond, C.N., 2001, Can field camps survive?: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, no. 4, p. 336. Elkins, J.T., and Elkins, N.M.L., 2007, Teaching geology in the field: Significant geosciences concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geology courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, no. 2, p. 126–132. Elliott, W.S., Jr., 1998a, Tectono-Stratigraphic Control of Quaternary and Tertiary Sediments and Structures along the Northeast Flank of the Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana [M.S. thesis]: Bloomington, Indiana, Indiana University, 121 p. Elliott, W.S., Jr., 1998b, Geologic Map of the Harrison 7.5′ Quadrangle, Madison County, Montana (Part 1): Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report MBMG 375, scale 1:24,000, 2 sheets. Elliott, W.S., Jr., Suttner, L.J., and Douglas, B.J., 1998, Structural control of Tertiary and Quaternary sediment dispersal along the northeast flank of the Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 30, no. 7, p. A-192. Elliott, W.S., Jr., Douglas, B.J., and Suttner, L.J., 2003, Structural control on Quaternary and Tertiary sedimentation in the Harrison Basin, Madison County, Montana: The Mountain Geologist, v. 40, no. 1, p. 1–18. Krothe, J., 1999, Groundwater Flow through Metamorphic Bedrock [B.S. thesis]: Bloomington, Indiana, Indiana University, 18 p. Letsinger, S.L., 2001, Simulating the Evolution of Seasonal Snowcover and Snowmelt Runoff Using a Distributed Energy Balance Model: Application to an Alpine Watershed in the Tobacco Root Mountains, Montana [Ph.D. diss.]: Bloomington, Indiana, Indiana University, 216 p. Letsinger, S.L., and Olyphant, G.A., 2001, Assessing the heterogeneity of snow-water equivalent during the snowmelt season: Spatial variability and its controlling factors in an alpine setting: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 82, no. 47, Fall Meeting supplement, abstract IP51A-0737. Orion, N., 1993, A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the science curriculum: School Science and Mathematics, v. 93, p. 325–331. Orion, N., and Hofstein, A., 1994, Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 31, p. 1097–1119, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660311005. Osterloo, M., 2002, The Growing Season Water Balance for a Watershed Located in Southwestern Montana [B.S. thesis]: Bloomington, Indiana, Indiana University, 23 p., http://www.indiana.edu/~bses/osterloo.html.

MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009

Printed in the USA

The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009

The Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association (YBRA): Maintaining a leadership role in field-course education for 79 years Virginia B. Sisson Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204, USA Marv Kauffman Department of Earth and Environment, Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17604-3003, USA Yvette Bordeaux Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6316, USA Robert C. Thomas Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Montana Western, Dillon, Montana 59725, USA Robert Giegengack Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6316, USA

ABSTRACT The Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association (YBRA) is a nonprofit research and teaching organization chartered in the state of Montana in 1936. YBRA maintains a field station south of Red Lodge, Montana, at the foot of the Beartooth Mountains at the NW corner of the Bighorn Basin. The YBRA Field Station has been host to a wide variety of primarily geological field courses and research exercises, including a YBRA-sponsored Summer Course in Geologic Field Methods, offered initially by Princeton University and subsequently by the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Houston. Enrollments in that course vary from year to year, an experience shared by other field-course programs. The YBRA field station does not depend exclusively on field-course enrollment; by diversifying its client base, YBRA has been able to operate effectively through high-amplitude variations in enrollment in traditional courses in field geology. INTRODUCTION

young geologists have passed on their way to productive professional careers in resource exploration, research, and teaching.

The Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association, universally abbreviated to YBRA, represents two distinct entities: (1) a selfsupporting, nonprofit educational organization with its own field station in Red Lodge, Montana, that has been host to a succession of field courses and research scientists, and (2) a precedent-setting undergraduate field course of the same name, through which ~2000

HISTORY OF YBRA The colorful history of YBRA was described by William Bonini et al. (1986) on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of YBRA. We summarize that description here:

Sisson, 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

Sisson et al. • Prof. Taylor Thom and Richard Field of Princeton’s Geology Department initiated the “Red Lodge Project” in 1930 for the “furthering of fundamental geological science and the training of students under exceptionally favorable conditions.” There were 19 active participants in the Red Lodge Project that first year. • Red Lodge, Montana, at the NW corner of the Bighorn Basin at the foot of the Beartooth Mountains, was chosen because of its superb immediate geologic setting and its proximity to a variety of geologic terrains. At that time, although the region was already established as a source of hydrocarbon fuels and had already yielded important vertebrate fossils, it had not been mapped in detail. • Dr. J.C. Fred Siegfriedt, a Red Lodge doctor who was mayor of Red Lodge in 1930, was also an active amateur paleontologist. Siegfriedt owned land near Piney Dell, about 8 km southwest of Red Lodge, which he rented as a field station to Taylor Thom in 1931. That year, 35 participants, and the following year, 42 participants, together with family members, occupied the one old house, small cabins, and tents at Piney Dell (see Fig. 1). • In 1931 and for the next 30 years, Roy Wadsworth, a giant of a coal miner–carpenter, served as caretaker and repairman, and his wife Florence served as the cook.

To Billings, 100 km

Red Lodge

YBRA Camp Senia

Elk Basin

10 km to Yellowstone National Park NE Entrance, 90 km

Figure 1. Regional map of the “Red Lodge corner” of the Beartooth Mountains and adjacent Bighorn Basin, showing locations of features mentioned in the text and the Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association (YBRA) Field Station. The blue line represents the leading edge of Beartooth Thrust; at most localities, near-vertical Mississippian Madison limestone overrides Paleocene Fort Union Formation. The thrust is offset by many faults; major faults are represented by the red lines. (Base map is from GoogleEarth.)

• Participation by many geologists and students from 17 colleges and universities during the first three years of the Red Lodge Project forced a search for new quarters. A dude ranch, Camp Senia, 20 km up the West Fork Valley, provided space for field seasons in the years 1933–1935 (see Fig. 1). • In searching for a permanent location closer to Red Lodge, Thom learned through the Northern Pacific Railway Company of a canceled grazing lease available on the slopes of Mount Maurice. The total price for the ~120 acres was $420. The newly formed Princeton Geological Association (PGA) raised enough money to purchase the site (although there is some question whether the funds were ever paid), and, in 1935, construction on the new camp was begun on the northeast slope of Mount Maurice overlooking Red Lodge, 6 km north and 400 m lower in altitude. By the summer of 1936, Roy Wadsworth and his helpers had finished the lodge, a shower house, and 14 other cabins. A domestic-water reservoir was built in the bed of Howell Gulch, named for Benjamin F. Howell of Princeton, who had assisted Thom in choosing this site. The total cost of the first stage of construction of the Red Lodge camp was just over $14,000, including lumber, labor, furnishings, and materials. To celebrate the opening, the 75 camp residents hosted 175 Red Lodge guests to a pig roast on 17 July 1936. • On 14 July 1936, the Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association (YBRA) was incorporated as a not-for-profit organization in the state of Montana. Although it has never exercised the option to do so, YBRA is authorized by the state of Montana to grant degrees. On 21 November 1936, PGA granted YBRA a five-year lease on the camp. • During the early years of YBRA, financial support came from Princeton University, the Carter Oil Company, the Northern Pacific Railway, other universities, and many private individuals. In June 1941, PGA offered YBRA an option to buy the camp for $4000. That option was accepted, and, on 24 April 1942, the camp property was transferred to YBRA. PGA passed a resolution to reduce the selling price to $1.00 because of efforts already made, and expenses already incurred, by participants and supporters of the program during prior years. The original mission of the YBRA field course was to introduce geology majors as early as possible in their undergraduate careers to the various methods of geologic mapping in the field. This included use of topographic maps, interpretation of air photos, and, early in the history of the course, the construction of field maps via plane table and alidade. During the first 50 years of the Red Lodge project and the YBRA field course, there were at least three dozen doctoral theses produced by students who operated out of the YBRA camp. These students were granted degrees from Cincinnati, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Minnesota, Princeton, Wisconsin, and Yale Universities, among other institutions. Undergraduate students

Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association: Maintaining a leadership role in field-course education participated as field assistants in most of those projects. Since the mid-1950s, undergraduate field courses have been conducted at YBRA by many schools. These programs have included the Princeton-YBRA field course, which became the Penn/YBRA field course in 1992 and the University of Houston/YBRA field course in 2008; Southern Illinois University geology and botany courses; the Penn State University geology program; the Harvard/ Yale geology program; and University of Pennsylvania graduate courses in geology and ecology, among others. Since the late 1970s, several universities have conducted alumni colleges for their graduates and friends at YBRA. These week-long programs have introduced many nongeologists to the geology and natural history of the northern Rocky Mountains. Begun by Princeton, alumni colleges have now been run by Amherst, Franklin and Marshall, Southern Illinois, and Johns Hopkins Universities. In addition to their academic and social value, these programs have made outstanding contributions to maintaining the financial integrity of YBRA. Although research has taken a secondary place to education during the last few decades, numerous faculty and graduatestudent research programs continue to use the YBRA facilities for parts of every field season. Summer institutes for teachers have been held at YBRA, conducted during the 1970s and 1980s primarily by Erling Dorf of Princeton, and by Will Parsons of Wayne State University. Other uses of the camp have included a writing conference by the American Geological Institute, and field conferences and symposium meetings of International Geological Congresses, the Billings and Montana Geological Societies, the Tobacco Root Geological Society, and the Arctic and Sub-Alpine International Mycological Society. Paleontological expeditions have been conducted at dinosaur sites in the Bighorn Basin by the University of Cincinnati Museum Center and by the New Jersey State Museum. A Women’s Health Conference has been held as a one-day session in each of the last six years. The field course sponsored by YBRA has been in continuous operation since 1930. Taylor Thom directed the course from 1930 to 1954. Bill Bonini, professor of geosciences at Princeton, operated a course in engineering geology at YBRA in 1955, the same year that John Maxwell (Princeton) and R.M. (Pete) Foose (Franklin and Marshall) offered a summer course in geology at YBRA. In 1956, the two were consolidated as a single course, directed by Bill Bonini, from 1956 until the course was transferred to the University of Pennsylvania in 1992. Robert Giegengack and Yvette Bordeaux at the University of Pennsylvania directed the course through the summer of 2007. In 2008, the course was transferred to the University of Houston, where it is now directed by Virginia Sisson. THE PROGRAM AT YBRA The primary mapping exercises that were developed in the 1930s have been refined as more field information has accumulated, and they have been modified with changes in access to private and public land. Additional exercises have been added, in

17

some cases replacing established exercises, as new priorities have been articulated by the international geologic community, and as realities of access and field logistics have impacted administration of the course. In most years, the YBRA Summer Course in Geologic Field Methods has consisted of two five-week courses, each taught by three teams of two faculty members each. Each team teaches the course for a two-week period; thus, the teams overlap for a few days during each transition to ensure continuity. The faculty have been drawn from many different universities, and have been effective in introducing undergraduates, primarily from eastern colleges, to a wide range of geologic perspectives, teaching philosophies, and opinions on graduate study in geology. Each team of two faculty members is selected for its expertise in one of the three principal components of the course: (1) the sedimentary stratigraphy and structure of Elk Basin, a doubly plunging anticline in Cretaceous rocks in the NW corner of the Bighorn Basin; (2) the stratigraphy and structure of the Beartooth overthrust, emplaced over Bighorn Basin sediments in the Laramide event; and (3) the mineralogy, petrology, stratigraphy, structure, and recent seismicity of Yellowstone National Park and selected crystalline terrains in SW Montana. For the final portion of the course, students are housed in dormitories at the University of Montana Western in Dillon. The Field Exercises 1. For many years, YBRA students have been introduced to the intellectual and physical challenges of rigorous fieldwork by studying the Cretaceous section of sedimentary rocks exposed in Elk Basin, in the NW corner of the Bighorn Basin (see Fig. 1), a doubly plunging anticline expressed at the surface in Cretaceous rocks. The surface and subsurface geology of Elk Basin is well constrained: since 1911, Elk Basin has been a major producer of oil from a faulted anticlinal trap, one of many around the margins of the Bighorn Basin. Elk Basin is a good starter exercise for beginning geologists: visibility is effectively 100%, allowing close faculty supervision of teams of students scattered across the structure, 10 km N-S × 5 E-W; the structure is classic and spectacular; and the students’ senses are bombarded with the sights, sounds, and characteristic odors of the industry that has been so important in generating demand for professional geologists. In recent years, the students have been introduced to Elk Basin and assigned to make a geologic map on a base topographic map without reference to air photos; since visibility is so good, we have used this exercise to help students develop the capacity to establish a position in the field with reference only to topography represented by contours on a base map. 2. YBRA is built directly on a major tear fault (the Mount Maurice tear fault) that represents a substantial offset of the overthrust front of the Beartooth Mountains (see Fig. 1). From the porch of the YBRA dining hall (Fanshawe Lodge), students can see dramatic outcrops of near-vertical Ordovician Bighorn dolomite and Mississippian Madison limestone abutting

18

Sisson et al.

near-horizontal Paleocene Fort Union sandstone, and even casual observation leads them to the conclusion that the overthrust margin is more or less continuous along the front of the Beartooth Mountains. By the time that the Mountain Front segment of the field course begins, students have become familiar with the Madison Palisades as a dominant feature in the local landscape. We introduce the students to the different styles of Laramide deformation by visiting different exposures of the Beartooth overthrust along the western margin of the Bighorn Basin, and we then assign them the task of mapping a section of the 16 km stretch of the mountain front north and south of the YBRA camp. The students enter their field data on aerial photograph overlays and locate themselves in the field by reference to a topographic base map and the aerial photos. Since handheld global positioning system (GPS) units became available at reasonable cost, we have issued a GPS unit to each field team for the mapping exercise along the front. (These units are withheld from mapping teams for the Elk Basin segment in order to help the students learn to locate themselves in the field by reference to topographic features more or less well represented on a topographic base map; in recent years, however, so many students arrive in camp with personal GPS units that this effort has been effectively defeated.) The mapping exercise along the Beartooth Front is followed by a trip through Yellowstone National Park, during which students review the Tertiary and Quaternary volcanic stratigraphy of the park, the geophysics of geothermal features in the park, the geologic record of recent seismicity in and near the park, and the changing resource-management challenges addressed by the evolution of National Park Service policies. Together, Elk Basin and the Beartooth Front offer our students a comprehensive exposure to a range of stratigraphic and structural styles that probably cannot be matched in such a restricted area in many parts of the United States; however, one deficit is that we do not have access to a large exposure of crystalline rocks in close proximity to YBRA in which we could develop a mapping exercise. The crest of the Beartooth Plateau offers many opportunities to reconstruct Precambrian geologic history, but the altitude and latitude of those exposures are so high that we cannot be guaranteed access to those rocks through a brief summer season in the northern Rocky Mountains. Even the one-day exercises that we undertake on the Beartooth Plateau are frequently defeated by summer snowstorms that briefly close the highway over the plateau. Thus, we have sought opportunities to enable our students to work in crystalline terrains at lower altitudes. 3. For many years, our students have traveled through Yellowstone National Park to the University of Montana Western in Dillon, where they stayed in college dormitories while they pursued a mapping exercise in high-grade Precambrian metamorphic rocks affected by large-scale refolded folds and thrusts, several generations of igneous rocks, and an overlying multigeneration sequence of Quaternary deposits. In this exercise, each team of students has been responsible for constructing a lithologic column during this mapping project. The rock units that make up

that column include banded iron formation, amphibolites, calcsilicates, marble, quartzite, schists, gneisses, diabase, pegmatite, serpentinite, and basalts. We have added exercises that include mapping and interpretation of a thin-skinned overthrust belt near Block Mountain, and a complex of Tertiary normal faults near Timber Hill (see following). In some years, we have included an exercise in assessment of hydrologic hazards. In addition to these three major mapping exercises, students at YBRA are assigned one-day exercises in section measurement, economic geology and mineralogy (via a visit to the Stillwater Complex), Cenozoic paleontology, glacial stratigraphy and geomorphology, high-mountain ecology, etc. FIELD INSTRUCTION IN GEOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON The Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences (formerly the Geosciences Department) at the University of Houston has offered a department-sponsored field course to its students for over 40 years. That course has been taught as a capstone course that most students have taken after all their required and elective courses have been fulfilled. Thus, the field course has served mostly senior geology majors who have received their undergraduate degrees after completion of that course. During most of those 40 years, the field course has been based at Western New Mexico State University in Silver City, New Mexico, in the midst of a primarily Paleozoic terrain, with side field trips through New Mexico, Arizona, and the Guadalupe Mountains of Texas. In some years, students in the course have also studied igneous rocks, glacial deposits, and Precambrian basement at Durango, Colorado. The faculty for the course has been drawn exclusively from University of Houston staff, including Max Carmen, Carl Norman, Hank Chafetz, Bill Dupre, Peter Copeland, Mike Murphy, Tom Lapen, and Janok Bhattacharya. Graduate students have also been engaged as teaching assistants. Typically, two faculty members have taught the entire five- to six-week course. This class has only included students enrolled at University of Houston; the entire group has driven to the field sites in rented vehicles driven in caravan from the University of Houston campus. Prior to field camp, all students in the field course have been required to take a semester-long on-campus field-methods course in preparation for the summer program. In recent years, the field-geology course has been used to fulfill electives for undergraduate majors in geophysics. The field camp moved to north-central New Mexico near Abiquiu in 2005. This move shifted the emphasis of the course to Rio Grande Rift geology and the geology of the Henry Mountains in south-central Utah. UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON–YBRA FIELD COURSE In December 2007, the University of Houston Department of Geosciences decided to assume responsibility for

Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association: Maintaining a leadership role in field-course education administering and directing the principal undergraduate fieldinstruction program of YBRA. The first year of the University of Houston–YBRA program, summer 2008, was a transitional year engaging staff members from the University of Houston without significant changes in the program that has been taught at YBRA for many years. University of Houston–YBRA offered a single five-week session to 40 students from early June to the first week in July. Three University of Houston instructors cotaught the course with long-time YBRA faculty. Several other University of Houston faculty joined the group for short periods of time to learn the local geology as well as to consider changes to the program. Many of the successful features of the YBRA course have been retained under University of Houston supervision. The course is taught by faculty from both University of Houston and other institutions. It is offered as either a three-credit or a sixcredit course, depending on the needs of individual students. The course will continue to serve a wide variety of students from many institutions. In addition, starting in summer 2009, the University of Houston offered a course in field geophysical methods. This 10-day course included introduction to magnetic, ground-penetrating radar, well-logging, and seismic techniques. TEACHING PHILOSOPHY OF THE YBRA PROGRAM Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania The years since the YBRA field course was introduced in 1930 have seen many different teaching philosophies rise and fall as American society has grappled with reported crises in K–12 education, in response to accounts of far superior outcomes in educational systems in western Europe and Asia, and with disquieting reports of effective exclusion of some cohorts of Americans from the benefits of responsible education. These reports, of course, long predate the organization of YBRA, and they have inspired the development of elaborate college curricula in teacher education. No modern university, whether it is a land-grant institution, a liberal-arts college, or a full-featured research university, can afford to be without an academic unit that undertakes to educate young people for a career in the noblest profession: teaching. Teaching as a profession is old, and the basic approaches to effective teaching have been debated since before the dawn of written human history. We are all familiar with the debate that swirls around the value of expository versus participatory education. As science teachers, we know that our lectures must be intermixed with both laboratory exercises and field trips, or the examples we offer of the rock relationships we study will lack the immediacy that cements them in a student’s memory. However, we also know that the educational model whereby students learn exclusively by doing supposes that the discoveries of many prior generations of human investigators can be repeated by each generation, who will learn thereby the complexity of the discipline

19

they address and the elegance of the solutions that prior generations have developed. On the other hand, we also know that life is short, that most of us will not have more than a few good ideas in our productive lifetimes, and that repeating the mistakes of prior generations, however graphic that experience may prove to be, is not an efficient way to learn about Earth, or anything else. The instructional model whereby a mature investigator, who has spent a piece of her/his life studying a specific process, region, or material, distills the essence of that experience into 40 one-hour lectures over the course of 14 weeks before an audience that may range from a handful to many hundreds of younger aspirants to the same understanding, has been shown to be both effective and efficient. Its practice long predates the establishment of formal schooling in classical human societies, and, no doubt, is a model employed by other animals to instruct their young in the business of life. In our earth science curricula, we concern ourselves more with experiential education than do many of our colleagues in other disciplines: our programs typically include exposure to geologic materials through laboratory study, collection of statistically rigorous data via empiric analysis, and collection of field data through vigorous transects of complex terrain. While we seek strategies to achieve our teaching objectives in ways that capture the interest and excitement of our students, we do not indulge that need for excitement at the expense of the rigor of the substance we present. In the earth sciences, in addition, we respond to a predisposition that brings many of our geology majors into our classrooms: the attraction of physical work outdoors, the appeal of wild and scenic places, and the satisfaction of solving complex four-dimensional problems that may not have been solved before. Each new piece of terrain is a story waiting to be deciphered, and it offers rewards not likely to be realized by those who undertake to solve an artificial problem manufactured by someone else (e.g., a crossword puzzle). So, our task of earth science education, and particularly our task of offering that instruction in the field, presents challenges different from those addressed by our colleagues in some other disciplines. We embrace the rare opportunity to develop a curricular approach that offers the most efficient way for young people, already strongly predisposed to learning what we have to offer, to learn both the principles and the practical skills that will enable them to spend productive careers reconstructing Earth history from the empiric data in which that history is written: the language of the rocks. In our experience, the most effective teachers at YBRA have been active professional geologists, across a range of ages, who use fieldwork as a means to collect data not available by other strategies, who revel in the task of solving vast four-dimensional puzzles with fragmentary evidence, who strive to share the excitement they feel with others, and have developed, or came fully equipped with, a natural predisposition to be effective storytellers. Given that particular combination of background and proclivity, it matters little how each teacher goes about communicating his/her conviction to the next generation. We seek excellent

20

Sisson et al.

field geologists who are also committed teachers, and we have found that the rest takes care of itself. Neither Princeton nor the University of Pennsylvania has imposed on its faculty any requirement to develop mechanisms to evaluate the efficacy of the teaching strategies that we employ, nor do those universities (and others like them) require of newly engaged members of those faculties either training in teaching techniques or expressed interest in effective teaching. The Graduate School of Education (GSE) of the University of Pennsylvania is a distinguished institution that produces large numbers of teachers and administrators who enter public school systems across the United States, but GSE exercises little, if any, influence on teaching practices in the other 11 schools of the university. The central administration of the University of Pennsylvania periodically suffers paroxysms of introspection and turns its attention (briefly) inward to examine the effectiveness of its teaching mission; when it does so, it rediscovers that the geology program sends its students to the Rocky Mountains every summer to learn to reconstruct Earth history by studying the record preserved in crustal rocks, and it points to that program as a fine example of educational innovation! The YBRA faculty is composed of a large number of teachers from many institutions, and we encourage each participant to bring to bear on the educational mission whatever principles she/ he has found most effective at the institution where he/she serves on the earth science faculty. Thus, we engage faculty from many different teaching cultures in our course, and we welcome the variety that such experience brings to our program. University of Montana Western The long-term association between YBRA and the earth science teaching program at the University of Montana Western has enabled us to benefit from the experience of faculty who enjoy daily exposure to the terrains on which we deploy our students. This association has enabled us to benefit from evolving field exercises used by that department to engage undergraduate geology students in meaningful applications of what they learn, both in the field and in the classroom. The established instructional goals of the YBRA fieldgeology program, like those of most field geology programs, have been centered on identifying rock types and learning the skill of mapping. In the last decade or so, changes have been implemented by the YBRA instructors to apply data gathered in the field to solving geologic problems beyond the construction of geologic maps and accompanying cross sections. A good example of this is the Timber Hill project, located in the Sweetwater Range near Dillon, Montana (Thomas and Roberts, this volume). This project was added to the YBRA curriculum in recent years as a result of the loss of access to a mapping project on Archean metamorphic rocks located on private land. The Timber Hill terrain consists of Archean metamorphic rocks overlain by Paleogene and Neogene terrestrial rocks of the Renova and Sixmile Creek Formations. The Neogene Six-

mile Creek Formation preserves a spectacular record of fluvial and debris-flow deposits, derived, in part, from the Yellowstone hot spot, including fluvially deposited tephras up to 15 m thick (Sears and Thomas, 2007). The paleodrainage was also filled with a distinctive basalt flow (the Timber Hill Basalt) that likely originated from the Heise volcanic field in Idaho and entered the drainage around 6.0 Ma. Since the basalt is more resistant to erosion than the rest of the Sixmile Creek Formation, it forms mesas and serves as a textbook example of inverted topography. The main attraction is a Neogene (ca. 5.0 Ma) listric normal fault, called the Sweetwater fault, that cuts these rocks with ~225 m of offset. The Timber Hill Basalt provides a very distinctive datum by which students can determine the fault’s offset and geometry (Fig. 2). The Sweetwater fault is part of an active system of northwest-trending normal faults that lie within the Intermountain seismic belt (Stickney, 2007). Since the fault is potentially active, the project provides an excellent opportunity for students to use their field data to predict the areas that are prone to geohazards such as surface rupture, liquefaction, and slope instability, and then to use those predictions to make landmanagement decisions. The project requires the students to map all rock units within an area of ~3 km2 and to draw two cross sections. The students are asked to identify and describe the various types of Archean metamorphic lithologies, but the emphasis is on the Paleogene, Neogene, and Quaternary units, with special emphasis on mapping the Sweetwater fault and surficial deposits and features like landslides, rock falls, sediments moved by soil creep, and alluvium. In addition, the students note the areas that are prone to surface rupture and liquefaction during an earthquake. The reason for gathering these data is to make decisions about the

Figure 2. Trace of the Sweetwater fault at Timber Hill. Tb—Tertiary basalt; Tsm—Tertiary Sixmile Creek Formation; PCu—Precambrian undifferentiated; U—upthrown block; D—downthrown block. Dashed line indicates approximate location of fault, dotted line indicates covered fault.

Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association: Maintaining a leadership role in field-course education placement of 20 homes, with water wells and septic tanks, within a proposed hypothetical subdivision on the property. In addition, the students gather structural data on the joints and foliation in the Archean metamorphic rocks for the purpose of predicting the regional groundwater-flow patterns and, hence, the best locations to place the water wells. Because of time constraints, the YBRA students have not yet been asked to construct a geohazards report like the University of Montana Western students have done (Thomas and Roberts, this volume). In lieu of such a report, the YBRA students turn in a subdivision map showing the placement of the houses, water wells, and septic tanks for each building lot. On the back of this map, they write a brief justification of each placement. Even without the report, this is a big step forward in metacognitive learning for the YBRA field camp students. They must think about what data they need to gather while they are mapping in order to safely place a home on a piece of land that has many geohazards. They then need to justify their land-management decisions by explaining their reasoning. This project serves as an important step forward for YBRA into a more project-based approach to field instruction in geology. University of Houston The University of Houston is an urban university, and, among major research universities in the United States, it is the second most ethnically diverse. Sixty-five percent of the ~27,000 undergraduate students at University of Houston are nonwhite. Most of the students are Texas residents, but students also come from across the United States and from more than 137 countries. Eighty percent of the students come from within 30 km of Houston. The ethnic diversity and urban background of the University of Houston student community will change the context of the University of Houston–YBRA program in future years. For many of the University of Houston students, a course in the Rocky Mountains will represent their first experience away from the Houston metropolitan area. In addition, many of the geoscience students are older, nontraditional students, and some are coming back for a second B.S. degree. Those students either work full time or are engaged already in petroleum careers and need a formal education in geology. Thus, the demands of their professional lives complicate their efforts to schedule attendance at a field camp far from Houston. However, they all are required to take a field course as a capstone for their undergraduate major. For the University of Houston students, the opportunity to mix with students from different universities is exciting as well as challenging. The University of Houston faculty who teach at YBRA are collaborating with the YBRA faculty previously engaged by Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania. The University of Houston faculty have embraced the traditions and teaching philosophy of the established YBRA field curriculum, but they also impart a University of Houston signature to the field camp. For example, the University of Houston faculty have added

21

exercises in sequence stratigraphy and delta architecture, and the field program is coordinated with the University of Houston geology curriculum. The field course is not a stand-alone course. Over the next few seasons, University of Houston faculty will assess the extent to which University of Houston students acquire essential technical skills through the field exercises in sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks already established at YBRA. For beginning majors in geology, the course will also test whether the intellectually challenging and physically demanding lifestyle of the field geologist is consistent with their personal career aspirations. As mentioned previously, in 2009 University of Houston offered a new field course in applied geophysics at YBRA, which provided practical exposure to many techniques of field geophysics. These include positional line surveying using GPS technologies, multicomponent seismic refraction, high-resolution seismic reflection, ground-penetrating radar (GPR), and gravity surveys, as well as well-log measurements (using gamma-ray, sonic, resistivity, and temperature tools) in a shallow nearby well. All participants in the course make all types of measurement. This course will probably become the capstone course for all University of Houston geophysics majors, and will provide other students a chance to apply their geophysical understanding to practical exploration problems. CHALLENGES OF THE YBRA PROGRAM The YBRA field course has persisted for 79 years, through many changes in undergraduate earth science curricula, through advances in the tools available to pursue field work effectively, through changes in the employment prospects for graduates of geology programs, through a general decline in the perception of the value of a field-mapping experience, and through growing development of the landscape across which our students work. While ownership of mineral rights in Elk Basin has passed from company to company within the petroleum industry, our students have always been welcome to work across that structure, as have students from many other field courses. However, the pace of development along the Beartooth Front and in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem in recent years has compromised our access to some of the sites at which crucial relationships among certain rock units are best exposed. As administrators of the field course, we have spent a lot of time and energy educating our students about appropriate field etiquette, and explaining to landowners what our students are doing and why that work is important. Given that the economy of the region has been closely attuned to the extractive industry, most of our neighbors have been receptive to the suggestion that their indulgence will help educate the next generation of resource-exploration geologists. Even in cases where a tract of land is owned by a large corporation, local caretakers have been amenable to student use of the land when formal corporate permission has been difficult to acquire. There have been occasional incidents of student carelessness or disregard of ranchland manners, but, with few exceptions, we have been able

22

Sisson et al.

to mend the fences, and we continue to find welcome on most of the land on which we hope to work. While both the National Parks and the National Forests have been set aside for public use, we encounter a spectrum of regulations that undertake to control access to the sites we study on public land. Thus, as an educational institution, we are granted no-cost access to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, but we must apply for a use permit (and pay an administrative fee) to deploy our students across land in the Shoshone and Custer National Forests. As the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) grapples with strategies to avoid budget shortfalls, and to present evenhanded policies to its many constituencies, administrators of the individual forests periodically introduce policies to extract user fees from organizations that use the forests for profit (e.g., hunting and fishing outfitters, ecotourism companies), a policy consistent with the grazing fees and mining royalties that the USFS has collected routinely for generations. We have thus far been successful in persuading the USFS administrators that YBRA is a not-for-profit enterprise, despite the fact that faculty in the course receive teaching stipends, but we still pay modest administrative fees to the USFS to process our annual permits. A principal cost of the program, and a continuing logistic problem, has been the need to maintain a fleet of vehicles in which students can travel to our various field sites safely and efficiently, if not necessarily comfortably. While the course has been administered by Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania, course vehicles have been owned by the sponsoring university, and they have been garaged and maintained in Red Lodge. From time to time, we have compared the ongoing costs of insuring, maintaining, and operating a fleet of aging university-owned vehicles to the cost of renting vehicles locally for the 10 wk field course. Efforts to use rental vehicles, which would always be relatively new, and maintained and insured by the rental agency, have been defeated by the unwillingness of those agencies to rent cars to young drivers, especially, by some agencies, to young male drivers. With the transfer of the field course to the University of Houston, that problem has become more manageable: the University of Houston has arranged with a Houston agency to rent vehicles that will be driven by drivers under 25 as long as those drivers are legal employees of the University of Houston. In 2008, we decided to sell the six vans previously owned by the University of Pennsylvania and donate the proceeds to YBRA. In the last few years, some of the interpretive challenges we have built into our mapping exercises have been compromised by universal access to Google Earth and similar programs that enable students to download high-resolution imagery from orbiting satellites (e.g., see Fig. 1), and by the use of cell-phone photography to share field decisions among widely separated mapping groups. We have not yet introduced laptop-based mapping technology to our field exercises, for two reasons: (1) We still share the conviction that students must learn to locate themselves in the field by reference to topographic features, and

(2) we recognize that the present cost of acquiring, maintaining, and replacing individual laptop units and differential GPS technology is so high that it will price our program well above our competition. We realize that several other undergraduate courses in field geology routinely train their students in modern electronic survey techniques; we may introduce aspects of that technology as costs decline. In the past 25 years, we have seen a steady growth in the number of female students who enroll in the YBRA field course; since the 1990s, the female:male ratio has often exceeded 1:1. This trend has not only changed the physical layout of the camp, but it has impacted the social environment of the program in a strongly positive way. In years in which the student body has been overwhelmingly male, our students have sought leisure-time recreation in the friendly bar culture in Red Lodge. With the recent change in gender ratio, our young males have learned that plenty of social stimulation is available right in camp, and they are better behaved as a consequence. The addition of a strong cohort of competent, highly motivated young women has improved the learning environment of the program and, perhaps only incidentally, reduced the incidence of cases of substance abuse. YBRA TODAY YBRA is operated by a 12-member, self-perpetuating Board of Trustees, known as the YBRA Council. The field station is run by a seasonal staff of three to five kitchen and maintenance employees. YBRA is supported by user charges, membership fees, publication sales, and individual and corporate contributions to its operating budget and endowment. The field station in 2008 consists of 32 buildings (see Fig. 3). The station can accommodate 90 people in dormitories and smaller cabins scattered across a wooded mountainside overlooking the town of Red Lodge, Montana. Five of the larger cabins include indoor plumbing; two strategically placed washhouses serve the dormitories and smaller cabins. The modern kitchen in Fanshawe Lodge can serve as many as 125 people. Classes and other meetings are held in two study halls and a library, which is well stocked with publications on the geology and natural history of the northern Rocky Mountains. Since 1936, YBRA has taken its drinking water from the headwaters of Howell Gulch, a first-order stream on the property; that water is now filtered and chlorinated to meet health requirements of the state of Montana. In an annual three-month season, YBRA is host to three to five field courses, a number of large field parties, traveling earth science field excursions, individual investigators, alumni/ae seminars and reunions, visiting alumni/ae of programs at YBRA, local topical seminars, and the occasional wedding or family reunion. Ashes of at least one former YBRA faculty member are sparsely distributed across the site. Although YBRA was acquired and constructed to accommodate courses in geologic field methods, it now serves such a

Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association: Maintaining a leadership role in field-course education

23

Figure 3. Map of the Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association (YBRA) Field Station.

diversified clientele that it can meet its operating expenses with revenue from other users. Thus, YBRA can remain financially secure through high-amplitude variations in enrollment in fieldgeology courses.

cal and intellectual challenges of the rigorous study of geology in the field. With its modern, if rustic, facilities, and its loyal base of supportive alumni/ae and corporate associates, YBRA is poised to maintain that leadership role through the education of future generations of field scientists.

CONCLUSION REFERENCES CITED YBRA is the oldest university-sponsored field-geology facility in continuous operation in the United States today. This facility, in an annual three-month season (June–August), accommodates undergraduate and graduate field courses in geology, ecology and botany; visits by geologic field trips passing through the Bighorn Basin; individual scientists and research teams conducting field research in proximity to YBRA; university alumni/ae colleges and reunions; various topical conferences; and visiting YBRA alumni/ae. This diversity of users enables YBRA to meet the costs of annual operation and maintenance without relying exclusively on patronage by undergraduate field courses. In its 79-year history, YBRA and the programs it hosts have made a major contribution to the study of geology in the United States, and have introduced ~2000 young geologists to the physi-

Bonini, W.E., Fox, S.K., and Judson, S., 1986, The Red Lodge Project and the YBRA: The early years, 1932–1942: Billings, Montana Geological Society, YBRA Field Conference, p. 1–9. Sears, J.W., and Thomas, R.C., 2007, Extraordinary middle Miocene crustal disturbance in southwest Montana: Birth record of the Yellowstone hot spot?: Northwest Geology, v. 36, p. 133–142. Stickney, M., 2007, Historic earthquakes and seismicity in southwestern Montana: Northwest Geology, v. 36, p. 167–186. Thomas, R.C., and Roberts, S., 2009, this volume, Experience one: Teaching geoscience curriculum in the field, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(07).

MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009

Printed in the USA

The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009

Field camp: Using traditional methods to train the next generation of petroleum geologists James O. Puckette Boone Pickens School of Geology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078-3031, USA Neil H. Suneson Oklahoma Geological Survey and ConocoPhillips School of Geology and Geophysics, Mewbourne College of Earth and Energy, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019-0628, USA

ABSTRACT The summer field camp experience provides many students with their best opportunity to learn the scientific process by making observations and collecting, recording, evaluating, and interpreting geologic data. Field school projects enhance student professional development by requiring cooperation and interpersonal interaction, report writing to communicate interpretations, and the development of project management 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 contact 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, Florissant/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. Concise 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 [email protected]. ©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 personalities. We continue to believe that traditional field methods, aided by (but not relying upon) new technologies, are the key to constructing and/or interpreting geologic maps. The requirement that students document field evidence using careful observations teaches skills that will be beneficial throughout their professional careers.

GEOLOGIC SETTING OF CAMP

HISTORY OF OSU FIELD CAMP

The Oklahoma Geology Camp (OGC) is located about 8 mi (13 km) east-northeast of Cañon City, Colorado, along the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains (Figs. 1 and 2). The Proterozoiccored Rampart Range is north of camp, and the mostly Proterozoic (locally Cambrian) Wet Mountains are to the southwest (Scott et al., 1978). Cañon City is on the northwest side of a large reentrant of Cretaceous strata known as the Cañon City Embayment, and the structural complexities associated with the embayment and a well-exposed and lithologically varied Phanerozoic section, which has many unconformities ranging in age from the Early Ordovician to the Late Cretaceous, make this area an ideal field laboratory. The present semiarid climate allows classical geologic structures such as faults, folds, and unconformities and depositional features to be easily observed in an environment devoid of (most) insect pests and free of covering vegetation (except cholla). As a result, a number of universities (including Kansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana State, and probably others) have their summer field camps and/or have field exercises near here. The Phanerozoic stratigraphy of the Cañon City Embayment is well known (Fig. 3), and several of the formations occur throughout the Rocky Mountains as well as in the Oklahoma Panhandle. In addition, many of the Paleozoic units the students study at camp temporally correlate with units in the Arbuckle Mountains that most of the Oklahoma State University (OSU) and University of Oklahoma (OU) students have seen on numerous class field trips. The ability to physically observe and relate Oklahoma units and/or units the students have read about in the literature (e.g., dinosaur bones in the Morrison Formation) gives the students a certain degree of “familiarity” with the stratigraphy. Students who have had summer or part-time jobs in the petroleum industry may recognize some of the units as reservoir or source strata; thus, they will see strata in the field that they may have only heard or read about or seen on electric logs. This aspect of the stratigraphy takes the students’ fieldwork out of the “theoretical” and into the “practical” or “relevant.” The structural geology of the Cañon City Embayment is dominated by a number of large, open, south-southeast–plunging anticlines and synclines on the south end of the Rampart Range and a steeply to moderately tilted section along the northeast side of the Wet Mountains. Steeply dipping faults and map-scale (1:6000 and 1:12,000) folds are common and well exposed. Most of the field exercises are within the more easily mapped Phanerozoic section in the embayment, but one exercise is in structurally complex (isoclinally folded) Late Proterozoic strata.

The OGC was established in 1949 when landowner Les Huston leased a 22-acre site along Eightmile Creek to OU, following a search by both universities (OSU was then known as Oklahoma A&M) for a permanent field camp site outside of Oklahoma. The evolution of this early “tent camp,” mostly for veterans attending college on the GI bill, into the current modern facility is outlined in Table 1. FIELD CAMP FACILITIES The OGC is located along Beaver Creek Road where Eightmile Creek has eroded through a high hogback of the Dakota Group (Fig. 2). Prior to and throughout the beginning of the 2008 camp, new facilities were being built; therefore, the following description is of the camp as of mid-June 2008. The largest (and oldest) building is the mess hall/study hall, which is connected to a serving area and kitchen. A small cinderblock office is next to the study hall, and a larger two-room study hall is a short distance away. A few desktop computers and printers are available for student use in the study halls; the internet is not available. (Most students bring their own laptops to camp and use them for writing reports as well as reading their e-mail via wireless access at internet cafes in Cañon City.) The seven new cabins are located immediately north of the study halls. One of the cabins is reserved for the cooks and guests. (Meals are provided on work days; a cook and cook’s helper who work at OSU sororities/fraternities during the school year are contracted to work at field camp.) In 2008, old cabins were used by choice to house some students, teaching assistants (TAs), and faculty. The capacity of the wastewater disposal systems of the new separate women’s/staff and men’s shower/toilet facilities limits enrollment to 60 students. All fieldwork travel is done using university vans. Most are rented from the OSU motor pool; two others are from the OSU and OU schools of geology. While most students drive their own cars to field camp, insurance and university restrictions disallow them from driving their cars to the field areas or on field trips without completing special waivers. PHILOSOPHY AND GOALS OF OSU SUMMER FIELD PROGRAM Summer field schools offer many students their first opportunity to act as geoscientists and apply the principles

Field camp: Using traditional methods to train future petroleum geologists

27

105°00′W

38°30′N

38°30′N

0 1 2 3 4 5 0

5

Figure 1. Generalized geologic map of the Cañon City Embayment area, showing the location of Oklahoma State University’s Les Huston Geology Field Camp (or Oklahoma Geology Camp, OGC). Symbols: –Ci—Cambrian intrusive; p–C—Idaho Springs Group and Boulder Creek Granodiorite; OmPl—Manitou Dolomite, Harding Sandstone, Fremont Dolomite, Williams Canyon Limestone, Lykins Formation; JrKd— Ralston Creek Formation, Morrison Formation, Dakota Group; KgKp— Graneros Shale, Greenhorn Limestone, Carlile Shale, Niobrara Formation, Pierre Shale; TKr—Vermejo Formation and younger strata. Abbreviations: GP—Gem Park intrusive center; MM—McClure Mountain intrusive center; CC—Cañon City (modified from Scott et al., 1978).

10 Miles 10 Kilometers

105°00′W

Figure 2. View looking north-northeast across part of the Cañon City Embayment. Cañon City is visible among the trees in the upper right, and the south-plunging Rampart Range forms the skyline in the background. The Oklahoma Geology Camp is located in a gap in the nearer tree-covered hogback in the upper right. The southeast-dipping Dakota Group forms a prominent hogback and overlies the slope-forming Morrison Formation and underlies a thick section of Cretaceous shales and limestones. This area (Grape Creek) is the students’ first major mapping project.

of scientific inquiry to interpreting the origin and relational context of strata. Field schools, or “field camps” as they are commonly known, provide a unique setting whereby students can make their own observations and measurements, propose explanations, and test these hypotheses by examining the evidence in the rock record. Today’s students are immersed in digital images of geologic features, but many students seldom have the opportunity to visit and examine the very features that intrigue them and fuel their personal interest in geology. The philosophy behind the curriculum of the OGC is to develop in the students an appreciation for the scientific method and what it means to be a scientist. To do this, we have three goals: (1) to teach students the fundamentals of classical field geology; (2) to show the students how to make and record observations, propose explanations, and interpret the origin of geologic features based on their evidence; and (3) to encourage students to work with their peers in teams to solve problems, complete projects, and communicate their findings in concise written reports. As part of this tripartite process, students are asked to integrate the conceptual material learned from prerequisite coursework and as a result, field camp becomes the capstone course for the undergraduate curriculum.

QUATERNARY

Puckette and Suneson CENOZOIC

28

TABLE 1. HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA GEOLOGY CAMP (OGC) Year

Terrace Gravels

PROTEROZOIC

PRECAMBRIAN

Niobrara Formation

Smoky Hill Marl Member Fort Hays Limestone Member

Carlile Shale

Codell Sandstone Member Blue Hill Shale Member

Greenhorn Limestone Graneros Shale Dakota Group

CRETACEOUS ORDOVICIAN

DEVONIAN

PENNSYLPERMIAN VANIAN

JURASSIC

MESOZOIC PALEOZOIC

PHANEROZOIC

Pierre Shale

Muddy Sandstone Glen Cairn Shale Plainview Sandstone

Morrison Formation Ralston Creek Formation

Lykins Formation

Fountain Formation

Williams Canyon Limestone

Fremont Dolomite Harding Sandstone Manitou Dolomite

Boulder Creek Granodiorite Idaho Springs Group

Figure 3. Stratigraphy of the Cañon City Embayment area.

About half the students who enroll in the OGC course are from Oklahoma State University (OSU) in Stillwater (Fig. 4). A significant number of students are from the University of Oklahoma (OU) in Norman. Universities that have regularly sent students to the OGC in the recent past include Texas Tech, Texas Christian, Midwestern State, Arkansas–Little Rock, and Arkansas Tech. Because most students come from southern mid-continent schools, and the overwhelming majority from OSU and OU, most will graduate and get jobs in the petroleum industry. This is particularly true during “boom” times. Not surprisingly, much of

Event

Source

1949 OGC established by University of Adleta (1985) Oklahoma (OU) and Oklahoma A&M (now OSU) by a 50 yr lease with landowner Les Huston First director: Keith Hussey (OU) Facilities: 18′ × 20′ (5.5 m × 6.1 m) kitchen tent, 16′ × 20′ (4.9 m × 6.1 m) classroom tent, and 16′ × 16′ (4.9 m × 4.9 m) squad tents for living quarters Three 4 wk courses are taught: Cost: $85 Ahern (1983) 1951 Five faculty members from OU, two from Huffman (1990) Oklahoma A&M 1952 First permanent buildings completed 1953 First women students: Kansas University (2), Southern Methodist University (1), and OU (8) 1957 Combined kitchen–mess hall and study hall completed Camp contains 23 individual cabins for living quarters 1967 Concrete-block drafting room and faculty office completed 1985 OU gives up lease on camp; OSU enters into a lease agreement with Ms. Tiny Striegel (daughter of Les Huston) 1986 OU stops using camp 1990 Tiny Striegel donates camp property to OSU; camp is officially named “Les Huston Geology Field Camp” 1991 Low enrollment forces cancellation of field camp 1999 Following several years of low enrollment, increasing OSU and out-of-state enrollment helps restore fiscal soundness 2006 OU rejoins OSU at OGC Suneson (2006) Summer flood destroys portion of camp Anonymous (2007) 2007 Study hall converted to temporary femalestudent dormitory until new construction is complete 2008 Seven new four-room cabins (housing eight individuals) and modern shower and toilet facilities are completed; reconstruction is funded completely by individual and corporate donors Six original cabins remain for faculty housing One 5 wk course is taught: Cost $2475 Enrollment capped at 60 students

the coursework at both the undergraduate and graduate levels at OSU and OU emphasizes sedimentary rocks and geophysics, and the curriculum at field camp reflects that emphasis. The OGC curriculum is built around two seemingly contradictory observations. We recognize that (1) most of our students will never map surface geology throughout their entire professional careers, yet we believe that (2) a course in field geology is important even for students who want a career in the petroleum industry. The importance of a course in field geology has not changed since 1985 when American Association of Petroleum

Field camp: Using traditional methods to train future petroleum geologists Field Camp Attendance 70

60

Total Number of students

50

40

30

Out of state

20

OSU

OU

10

0 1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Year

Figure 4. Graph showing recent student attendance at the Oklahoma Geology Camp. OSU—Oklahoma State University; OU—University of Oklahoma.

Geologists (AAPG) President William Fisher, concerned over the uncertainties in the industry, appointed a committee to determine what the future petroleum geologist should know. “The future will require the same background as today: the fundamentals of geology, including field geology, as well as the physical sciences and mathematics will still be required” (Berg, 1986, p. 1167). The importance of field geology and especially summer field camp is echoed in the AAPG Division of Professional Affairs book, Guiding Your Career as a Professional Geologist: “Summer field camp is particularly important because students are forced to use their powers of observation and deduction to complete practical projects and compile reports in a limited time frame, in addition to being exposed to ‘real geology’” (Gray, 2006, p. 5). The OGC course emphasizes finding, observing, recording, and interpreting “real” geologic features and accurately presenting those data and interpretations on maps, cross sections, measured sections, and in reports. An equally important concept involves keeping the data separate from the interpretations. Heath’s (2003) observations regarding the importance of field geology and mapping skills to the North American petroleum industry are particularly relevant to our philosophy and goals. He surveyed 62 American and Canadian oil companies and found it “intriguing … (that) the low rankings and scores given for field and mapping skills … (suggested they) are of only marginal importance to most companies” (p. 1399). However, these same companies preferred their new hires to have between 55 and 60 days of field experience. Heath (2003, p. 1408) suggested that “field and mapping training not only developed skills in collecting, evaluating, and interpreting geologic data, but also enhanced several other skills (including) … oral communication, report writing, teamwork, planning, and project management….” Geophysics ranked high as a needed skill, whereas simple geographic information systems (GIS) ranked 14 out of 15 as a needed computer skill.

29

In his “Advice for Students” column, 2003–2004 AAPG President Steve Sonnenberg listed his “top ten” suggestions for students, which elaborated on Heath’s (2003) study. Sonnenberg (2003) advised students to “learn teamwork skills, build your net, and learn leadership skills.” For these reasons, the OGC curriculum emphasizes traditional field methods. Accurate observations at the hand-lens, outcrop, and field-area scale are critical for the maps and reports that the students complete (Fig. 5). The faculty stress the difference between observations and interpretations. We believe that asking students to support their interpretations using carefully documented field evidence teaches a skill that will benefit them throughout their professional careers. Most of the fieldwork is done by small (three to four students) groups (Fig. 6); this ensures safety, mixes students with varying academic backgrounds and physical strengths, and introduces the students to the team concept, which is fundamental in most of the petroleum industry. Team leaders are assigned, and they have to manage the team’s time and efforts in order to complete the field projects. Like making good field observations, we believe that working with others is a skill that will serve our students well in the future. To demonstrate that a traditional field method such as measuring and describing a stratigraphic section is an applicable and necessary skill for the professional geoscientist, we ask students to describe sections of sediment and rock cores in the field camp

Figure 5. Students sketching outcrop along Phantom Canyon Road. Students first sketch this outcrop free-hand, and then they are given a photomosaic as a base. Well-foliated Proterozoic metamorphic rocks on the right are faulted against Ordovician Manitou Dolomite and Harding Sandstone on the left, and both are unconformably overlain by Pleistocene gravel. This exercise emphasizes the need for careful field observations at two scales (hand lens, outcrop) and requires the students to keep their observations (gravel overlies bedrock) and interpretations (the contact is an unconformity) separate. The exercise also shows the students that prior preparation and having the proper “equipment” (in this case, having a pre-prepared photomosaic) make the job easier and more accurate.

30

Puckette and Suneson tify faults, joints, unconformities, and a variety of depositional, diagenetic, and weathering features. Computers are provided for plotting GPS waypoints and report preparation, but students draft their measured sections and geologic maps and cross sections by hand (based on the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] geological quadrangle [GQ] model), rather than using a graphics program. Most of our students will never use these specific technologies after they leave field camp if, in fact, they are still available in 5 yr, and we would rather the students focus their time and energy (and frustrations) on field problems and not software problems. PRE–FIELD CAMP PREPARATION

Figure 6. Geology student team in Grape Creek mapping area. All of the major field projects and some of the short projects are completed by the students working in teams. In addition to safety, this introduces the students to the team concept and requires one of the students to accept a leadership role. We believe this experience will serve the students well in their professional careers.

teaching collection. At this point, students are reminded of the importance of cuttings and core data to the field of petroleum geology and other subdisciplines. Students are asked to document the internal features of cores and outcrops and interpret not only a single subunit within the section, but to extend their interpretations to adjacent beds, allowing for the reconstruction of depositional sequences. An additional field geology skill that is critical in petroleum geology is knowledge of one’s location; although the methods may differ, the importance of knowing where one is in the field when constructing a geologic map is similar to knowing where formation tops are located when drawing a subsurface structure-contour map. The OGC does not rely on the latest mapping software or field-ready laptops. While global positioning system (GPS) and georeferenced digital ortho quarter quads (DOQQs) are provided for student use, the emphasis in our curriculum is on accurate note taking, sketching, observing one’s position relative to landforms, and triangulation to topographic features with Brunton compasses to establish location. GPS units are provided, but their role is relegated to one of assistance in locating positions and not reliance. Our emphasis on field sketches is designed to encourage students to develop their skills at visualization to the point where students begin to see features as they are and not as they are perceived. We realize that the majority of our field students will not be engaged in fieldwork as professionals, but most will be charged with describing 3-D subsurface features in a 2-D format. A field experience that provides the opportunity to map faulted and folded strata creates an opportunity for students to determine the difference between apparent and true dip (and thickness); recognize repeated and faulted-out sections; and iden-

Most of the students who attend the OGC have relatively limited experience with field methods and mapping through the courses they take as undergraduates. Student experience varies, from the OU students, who have taken a required, full-semester, junior-level course titled “Introductory Field Geology,” to some students whose departments do not own Brunton compasses. The faculty attempt to address these imbalances and “level the playing field” the first few days of field camp. Most of the faculty meet with the students from OSU and OU once or twice during the spring semester prior to field camp. We introduce ourselves and review the curriculum and necessary equipment. Many of the students have heard rumors (both true and false) about field camp from their older colleagues, and these meetings are an attempt to allay any concerns the students might have. In addition to the meetings, the faculty stay in touch with the students via e-mail. The emphasis of our curriculum on sedimentary rocks and processes does not mean that we exclude igneous and metamorphic rocks. The exercise in the Late Proterozoic folded metamorphic terrane is likely the last time that many of our students will actively examine metamorphic and igneous rocks. When asked, we willingly share information concerning the curriculum with faculty and students of institutions that are considering sending students to the camp. We wish to ensure potential out-of-state attendees that our curriculum aligns with the expectations of their home institutions. FIELD CAMP CURRICULUM The field camp curriculum changes from year to year based partly on faculty availability and partly on student comments. Unlike some field camps, the mapping projects are not based on faculty research interests (except for the geophysics); most of the field areas have remained the same for decades and are ideally suited for undergraduate students. The curriculum can be divided into five broad categories: introduction to field techniques, short projects, major projects, field geophysics, and field trips. The following description is that of the 2008 field camp; future camps are not likely to be greatly different. About two days at the beginning of camp are spent reviewing and/or learning fundamental field techniques, including

Field camp: Using traditional methods to train future petroleum geologists determining one’s pace, using a Brunton compass to take strikes and dips and determine bearings and azimuths, using a Jacob’s staff to measure sections, completing an orienteering exercise, and properly locating and recording some simple geologic features on a topographic map. The students are required to turn in a number of small, individual exercises based on these techniques. They draft a closed polygon set up in camp using their pace and bearings; they determine the thickness of a “pseudo”-measured section that goes up a slope and in which the dip changes; they measure and correctly plot the strikes and dips on the flat surfaces of some boulders near camp; and they construct a simple geologic map. For some students who have learned these techniques in previous courses, the exercises are a review. Our experience is that, in general, the review is needed and that the exercises bring all students up to the same level of familiarity with the field techniques. Three short projects expose the students to some aspects of field geology not covered or emphasized elsewhere in the course. The first might properly be considered a fundamental field technique—sketching an outcrop. After the students learn the stratigraphy of the area, they are taken to a moderately complicated road cut (several units, major unconformity, open folds, faults) and are asked to sketch it, to scale, on graph paper (Fig. 5). After an hour or two, the sketches are collected, and the faculty review the road cut with the students. Next, photomosaics of the outcrop are distributed, and the students are asked to resketch it. The primary purpose of this exercise is to sharpen the students’ observation and recording skills and to emphasize the importance of drawings and not just words in their field notebooks. A secondary purpose is to show the students that, with forethought, a better “base” such as a photomosaic can be designed that will allow them to record their data more accurately. A second short project includes measuring and drafting three sections of the same formation (Ralston Creek Formation) that shows significant facies changes, from dominantly gypsum with subordinate siltstone to conglomerate and sandstone. (A fourth section is part of a larger measured section described under major projects.) This project, done in teams, is completed in one day, and time management is critical. In addition, the students are asked to try to correlate the sections based on lithologic markers. (There are none.) The professional skills that the students develop are the recognition of rapid lateral facies changes and definitive marker beds, both of which are important in the petroleum industry. The third short project involves individually mapping isoclinally folded Late Proterozoic interbedded schists and quartzites that are intruded by pegmatite dikes and a granodiorite pluton. One goal of this exercise is for students to identify some very subtle sedimentary structures in the quartzites that indicate facing direction and therefore establish the axes and types of folds. This exercise continues to sharpen students’ observational abilities. A second goal is to give the students a brief exposure to mapping metamorphic and plutonic rocks. There are four major team projects that have been part of the OGC for years and parts of other university field camps, as well.

31

The first takes two days and involves measuring and describing the entire stratigraphic section from the Fountain Formation (Pennsylvanian) through the Smoky Hill Marl (Late Cretaceous). Following the fieldwork, the section is drafted using a provided template and following some strict guidelines. The first major mapping project (Grape Creek) takes place in the same area as the measured section; thus, the students are relatively familiar with the geology. The area consists of monoclinally tilted and locally faulted strata and is the most simple of the three project areas to map (Fig. 2). The second major mapping project is known as the Mixing Bowl. It is more complex than Grape Creek, and the students have to recognize and map several major faults and unconformities. The final mapping project is on Twin Mountain, about 6 mi (9.5 km) northwest of Cañon City. The geology is complex, and the terrain is rugged. The final product for all the mapping projects consists of a neatly drafted and colored geologic map with cross section(s), explanation, correlation of units, and description of units; the students are supplied with templates (with decreasing amount of provided information) that generally follow the format used for USGS geologic maps. The major field projects have three principal goals. (1) They test and continue to develop the students’ observational skills, from accurately describing the strata to correctly determining thicknesses and locating themselves, and they develop interpretative abilities. The faculty emphasize that these skills are similar to describing and interpreting core and cuttings in dipping strata or in subhorizontal strata in a deviated well. (2) They require carefully completed written products (maps, measured sections, reports) done in a timely manner. (3) Perhaps most important, the major projects require working in the field and in the “office” as part of a team, and this requires good leadership, good planning, good time management, and good cooperation amongst the team members. Goals 2 and 3 are skills most geologists will recognize as key to their professional development and success. A hands-on experience with geophysical equipment as part of a real research project is a key component of the OGC. The goal of this exercise is to demonstrate that geophysics is a useful and understandable tool for geological studies, and many of our students who choose to pursue careers in the petroleum industry will work with geophysicists. In recent years, the emphasis has been on gravity and magnetic measurements, which have significantly complemented ongoing research on the structure and tectonics of the area. The students have responded very well to the fact that what they are doing has a significant scientific impact. This approach means that the exercise is not structured as one that would be repeated the same way each year, but this is offset by the message sent that the work they are doing is of professional quality, will be used in the M.S. thesis of the graduate assistant who is helping run the exercise, and will be presented at a Geological Society of America meeting. We have been able to gain access to three Worden gravimeters and one LaCoste-Romberg gravimeter each year, and together with three proton precession magnetometers and geodetic-grade GPS units, the value of this equipment is ~$200,000.

32

Puckette and Suneson

The University of Texas at El Paso, New Mexico Tech, and Missouri State University have each loaned us equipment to make this possible. The students are divided into two groups that spend three days on their geophysical project. We have enough equipment to form six teams within each group. Each team spends one day in the field making gravity measurements, another day making magnetic measurements, and a third day making traditional corrections to the raw data to produce useful anomaly values, and writing a report. The students also take a GPS reading with a handheld unit at each gravity and magnetic station and take notes about the rocks that crop out nearby (if present). The report must include a discussion of their survey results and a subjective interpretation of the anomalies that they observed. In order to make their interpretations, they must think through the density and magnetic susceptibility values appropriate for the rather exotic rock types that are present. Thus, they must think through the various permutations of positive and negative anomaly parings between gravity and magnetic observations to arrive at an interpretation. Only a handful of our students have taken a geophysics course, so this exercise is an eye-opening experience in which they learn that these measurements are straightforward to make, reduce to anomaly values, and subjectively interpret. In fact, each team must write its own spreadsheet program using reduction formulas that are provided. An additional lesson that is stressed is that high-precision elevations (± a few centimeters) can only be obtained with geodetic-grade instruments and postprocessing. This is demonstrated easily to doubting students as they reoccupy the base station and some of their gravity and magnetic stations in order to keep track of drift and earth tides. They are usually surprised when the GPS readings show a variation in elevation that is as much as 10 m, which is considerably more than the manufacturer’s claim. On the other hand, they learn that their gravity readings are very consistent and that Earth’s magnetic field is quite dynamic due to the diurnal variation. They also learn that the diurnal variations are “noise” that must be removed via the drift correction. We usually have some equipment problems that have never been permanent, so they also learn that most problems are due to factors such as dead batteries and loose connections. Thus, we are ultimately able to demonstrate that geophysics is not beyond their grasp and that the field procedures involve many of the same principles as geological observations. Field trips are an important part of the OGC and (sometimes) provide a welcome respite from the “grind” of mapping and measuring (Fig. 7). Some trips are to parts of Colorado that many of our students have never visited, and all (except the first) focus on aspects of geology that are not covered in the rest of the course. A final written exam tests the students’ understanding of the geology of the field-trip areas. Although most of our students will enter the petroleum industry, some will go into minerals exploration, environmental geology, or other fields, and the field trips broaden all the students’ exposure to a wide variety of subdisciplines. Depending on student interest, optional trips on the weekend to collect minerals are run by individual faculty mem-

Figure 7. Students looking for Eocene leaf and insect fossils at privately owned Florissant Fossil Quarry outside of Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument. The field trips not only are a welcome break from the normal routine of field camp, but they expose the students to geology they do not see at their home universities or during the course of project mapping.

Figure 8. Introductory field trip including Marsh-Felch dinosaur-bone quarry, Morrison Formation (Jurassic). The thick channel sandstone forming the upper part of the cliff is the same as that shown in the 1888 photograph by I.C. Russell (Henry et al., 2004, figure 54), and the large talus cone in the lower left consists of dump material from the quarry. In addition to some rest and relaxation, field trips are used to take students to famous historical sites and to outcrops that exhibit classic geological structures, such as the gently dipping bedsets at the top of the cliff (point-bar deposits).

bers. A key trip is held on the first day of camp, and it provides the students with an overview of the stratigraphy and structure of the Cañon City area (Figs. 1, 3, and 8). (Many of the stops on this first field trip, as well as some later trips, are described in an excellent guidebook by Henry et al., 2004.) In 2008, two field

Field camp: Using traditional methods to train future petroleum geologists trips went to current and historic mining districts. Geologists employed by the Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Mining Company took the camp on a tour of the Victor Mine and discussed with the students the geology of the Oligocene magmatism and mineralization and modern gold-mining techniques. After the mine tour, the students visited the historic Molly Kathleen Mine, which, despite the appearance of a tourist trap, is highly educational and worth the tour fee. The second “mine” trip was to the Leadville district. Here, the students visited the National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum, collected minerals on the old mine dumps, visited and discussed a stream with acid mine drainage (pH ~ 1–2), and had snowball fights. Another one-day field trip in 2008 was to the 1.1-Ga-old Pikes Peak batholith and to Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument. This trip exposed the students to some of the intrusive rocks that make up the basement of the Colorado Front Range and the geology of some of the Tertiary volcanic fields, including a lahar deposit similar to the one that formed Lake Florissant and the widespread late Eocene Wall Mountain Tuff. An experimental field trip went to the Denver Basin, where the students examined the synorogenic sediments eroded off the Laramide uplifts and an exposure of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary layer. For many of the field trips, we rely on local experts to either lead the field trip (e.g., Denver Basin), give us presentations (e.g., Florissant), or provide references to the literature and/or unpublished guidebooks (e.g., Pikes Peak). In the past, the OGC has taken trips to the Spanish Peaks, Calumet Iron Mine, Great Sand Dunes National Park, Garden of the Gods, and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. ASSESSMENTS Individual student mastery of learning objectives that address fundamental technical skills such as mapping and measuring sections is assessed using a grading rubric. Student development in observational skills and realistic field sketches is assessed for all projects by collecting and reviewing individual student field notebooks. Appropriate descriptions and/or sketches of specific features such as weathering profiles, faults, folds, contact geometry, and internal features are used as criteria for evaluating student mastery. Individual assessment culminates with a final consisting of an individual mapping exercise and a written exam on the field trips. Assessing student mastery of the ability to work in teams is problematic. After each team exercise, students are asked to confidentially report how effectively team members worked together and their perception of the distribution of workload. Student comments after projects completed toward the beginning of camp are overwhelmingly more generous than comments made later in the course. When negative student comments concerning a student’s contribution to the fieldwork and/or in-camp project report preparation corroborate observations made by faculty, the problem is discussed with the student. The success of building team skills is often reinforced by anecdotal comments by former

33

camp attendees who remark how valuable the team concept was in teaching them to work with others in the professional setting. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES At the end of field camp, the students complete evaluations of the course, faculty, and TAs as required by OSU and OU. In addition, the faculty ask students to rank and comment on the field trips. These evaluations are seriously considered when changes are made to the curriculum. An example of a recent change (and one made at the recommendation of the students) was the addition of a final individual mapping exam. Although the core field projects at camp have remained the same for many years, the faculty are constantly striving to improve the course. Despite these efforts, challenges remain, and the faculty are open to suggestions from colleagues, other field-camp faculty, and students. Some of our more salient issues and challenges include: 1. Separating students from the same schools and selecting team leaders. We strongly favor the team concept and assigning team leaders; we also believe in separating students from the same schools as much as possible. However, the physical abilities, academic backgrounds (including field experience), and work ethic of the team members can vary greatly, and how to account for this when grading the team’s final product is difficult. We ask individual team members to give us a written evaluation of the “team’s effectiveness”; this is an opportunity for the students to let us know who may not have contributed as much as the others. 2. Differing work ethic between students who take the course for a letter grade and those who receive a pass/fail grade. Most of the students take the course for a letter grade; some, however, take the course pass/fail. This can lead to significantly different work efforts among different team members, particularly toward the end of camp. We have tried to lessen this problem by not putting letter-grade and pass/fail students on the same teams for the final mapping project. 3. Differing biological clocks. Some students like going to bed early; others are “night owls.” The cabins at camp are relatively close to each other; none are sound-proofed; and so noise can be a problem, despite 10:00 p.m. weekday and 12:00 a.m. weekend “noise curfews.” Next year, we plan to ask students about their social habits (much like the freshmen-dormitory questionnaires many universities distribute) in an effort to house students with similar living styles together. 4. Student attitude toward a required field course. The 2008 camp presented the faculty with some unique issues. Many of the students planned to work for the petroleum industry following camp, either permanently, as full-time summer interns, and/ or part-time as graduate students in the fall. Most starting annual salaries exceeded $50,000 and, in some cases, exceeded $80,000. Some of these students carried an air of superiority into camp, some believed fieldwork was a waste of their time, and others simply had too much money to spend on diversions. As faculty, we continue to struggle with wanting to treat our students as adults, while realizing that they are, in fact, young adults.

34

Puckette and Suneson

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DEDICATION We are especially grateful to several faculty who have been part of the Oklahoma Geology Camp over the past several years and have given us many ideas for improving the curriculum, particularly Tom Stanley (University of Oklahoma [OU] and Oklahoma Geological Survey), Randy Keller (OU), George Bolling (University of Colorado, Colorado Springs), Charles Ferguson (Arizona Geological Survey), and Aaron Johnson (currently Northwest Missouri State University). We also thank the many teaching assistants who have so often enlightened us about the issues facing today’s students. Many of the field projects would not be possible without the permission of several local landowners; Dee Chess, Kit Kederich, and Dave Rooks have kindly allowed us to map and measure on their property. Carly Henry has, year after year, graciously shown us the exceptional trace fossils in the Harding Sandstone on her ranch. We are also grateful to the many geologists who have led our field trips, particularly those from the Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Mining Company and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, as well as those organizations that have graciously given us discounts to visit their sites, including Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, Pikes Peak America’s Mountain, the National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum, and the Mollie Kathleen Gold Mine. Dave Mogk, Peter Crowley, and an anonymous reviewer made many helpful comments that improved this manuscript. We would also like to thank the organizers of this volume on field camps, Steve Whitmeyer and Dave Mogk, for inviting us to think and write about our camp, our curriculum, and our students. Last, but very certainly not least, this manuscript would not have been possible without the enthusiasm and vast knowledge of the history of the Oklahoma Geology Camp provided by Tiny Striegel. Her concern for and interest in the students,

staff, and faculty underscore her devotion to the Les Huston Geology Field Camp. For these reasons and so many more, this paper is dedicated to her. REFERENCES CITED Adleta, S., 1985, New field camp strategy mapped out: The Oklahoma Daily, 5 July 1985, p. 11. Ahern, C., 1983, Field camp seen with a journalist’s eye: Earth Scientist (University of Oklahoma), Fall issue, p. 2–8. Anonymous, 2007, Geology enthusiasts revitalize field camp: State Magazine (Oklahoma State University), v. 3, no. 1, p. 74–87. Berg, R.R., 1986, The future petroleum geologist: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 70, p. 1166–1168. Gray, P.G., 2006, Educational foundation for a geological career, in Rose, P.R., and Sonnenberg, S.A., eds., Guiding Your Career as a Professional Geologist: Tulsa, Oklahoma, Division of Professional Affairs, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, p. 5–7; available at http://dpa.aapg.org/ career_guide.pdf (accessed 23 July 2009). Heath, C.P.M., 2003, Geological, geophysical, and other technical and soft skills needed by geoscientists in the North American petroleum industry: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 87, p. 1395– 1410. Henry, T.W., Evanoff, E., Grenard, D.A., Meyer, H.W., and Vardiman, D.M., 2004, Geologic Guidebook to the Gold Belt Byway, Colorado: Gold Belt Tour Scenic and Historic Byway Association, 112 p. Huffman, G.G., 1990, History of the School of Geology and Geophysics, The University of Oklahoma: Norman, Oklahoma, Alumni Advisory Council of the School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, 312 p. Scott, G.R., Taylor, R.B., Epis, R.C., and Wobus, R.A., 1978, Geologic Map of the Pueblo 1° × 2° Quadrangle, South-Central Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1022, scale 1:250,000, 2 sheets. Sonnenberg, S.A., 2003, Advice for Students Applies to All of Us: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Explorer, v. 24, no. 12, p. 3, 6: http://www.aapg.org/explorer/president/2003/12dec.cfm (accessed 28 July 2009). Suneson, N.H., 2006, 2006 SGS summer field camp, Cañon City, Colorado: Earth Scientist (University of Oklahoma), 2006 issue, p. 68–70.

MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009

Printed in the USA

The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009

Introductory field geology at the University of New Mexico, 1984 to today: What a “long, strange trip” it continues to be John W. Geissman Grant Meyer Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Northrop Hall MSC03 2040, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-0001, USA

ABSTRACT The Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences (EPS) at the University of New Mexico offers two field geology courses (EPS 319L, Introductory Field Geology, 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 fullblown 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 photograph 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 experience, 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 [email protected]. ©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 camping and mapping adventure after another, often with several students who have never put up a tent before, provides great stimulation and satisfaction. This version of a field geology course, which ours certainly resembles, may simply reflect a very barebones budget! For other departments, the approach is simple— all of their majors are told to simply take field geology courses administered by other institutions. Regardless of the approach, most, if not all, of the instructors involved in such courses have a strong conviction that field-based learning is a critical part of geoscience education. We share the opinion of Drummond (2001) concerning the need for field camps to survive and of Kastens et al. (2009) that “field-based learning helps students develop a feel for Earth processes, a sense of scale, an ability to integrate fragmentary information, to reason spatially, to visualize changes through time, and to analyze the quality and certainty of observational data.” The field geology program at the University of New Mexico underwent a major transition in the mid-1980s. For several decades and largely for convenience, the Department of Geology (since the mid-1990s, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences), had taught field geology on the weekends during the academic year. Nonetheless, the department, with considerable reluctance on the part of some of the faculty, agreed to move the field geology classes to full-fledged summer courses at a time when downturns in the hydrocarbon and minerals exploration industries as well as the economy of the State of New Mexico gave this educational initiative a limited chance of success. The way in which this initiative came about is narrated in a brief story in the Appendix, but it is important to emphasize that the motivators responsible for this change had strong pedagogical reasons for endorsing an extended, back-to-back, three week, “in-residence” field course as opposed to weekend-day outings. Briefly, the motivators, both of whom had considerable experience teaching summer field geology courses, argued that the experiences students gained while immersed, day in and day out, in field geologic investigation while interacting with a broad range of colleagues, were simply too valuable, and far more beneficial in terms of learning goals and outcomes, than single-day efforts when students were more concerned about, for example, an exam back on campus the following day.

The transition came with lots of major bumps, but that is not the principal subject of this contribution. The critical part of this history is the way in which these hurdles and/or decisions related to the transition were dealt with. Notably, during the phased process of initiating 319L and 420L as summer field courses, the first author and Professor Stephen G. Wells were confronted with the question of combining the courses into a single, eight-credit course with a duration of about seven weeks, or keeping them separate. At that time, the University of New Mexico (UNM) did not charge out of state tuition for classes of four credit hours or less. We concluded that this policy would facilitate attracting numerous non-UNM students to both courses, and indeed it has, over many years. For example, in summer 2008, EPS 319L had a total of 32 students enrolled, 18 of whom were from outside UNM. The issue of instructor support was, initially, quickly dealt with. There would be no additional compensation for teaching the classes, but a reduced teaching load during the academic year may be considered in the future. At present, each faculty instructor does receive extra compensation and the principal faculty instructor for each course receives a modest teaching load reduction. In addition, all of the graduate student teaching assistants receive compensation at a level that is consistent with their duties in each class, and that is comparable to the support that they would receive during the academic year for a nearly equal commitment. COURSE INFORMATION AND PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES Background Earth and Planetary Sciences 319L (still four credits) is presently required of all EPS geoscience bachelor of science (BS) majors. The follow-up course (EPS 420L, Advanced Field Geology, also four credits) is not required of EPS students for any undergraduate degree. EPS 319L begins on the day after UNM’s spring commencement, with a 3-h-long organizational meeting, and we hit the field the following day for the first of several field mapping projects. The total duration of the course is 3 wk. The number of students in 319L typically is between 16 and 32. The norm is often the exception in that the students have a diversity of backgrounds and academic training. Ideally, EPS 319L is taken after the junior year, so that students will have taken, minimally, mineralogy, petrology, sedimentology/ stratigraphy, and structural geology. In addition, many students will also have taken Earth History. Regardless of course background, our expectation is that all students have obtained a basic understanding of how rocks can be identified and described in the field and are able to understand why field predictions, based on previously made observations, are so critical to field geologic investigations. These expectations are fully consistent with department-established learning outcomes for UNM EPS BS majors. Our approach in teaching this course adheres to four important guidelines. The first is that we respect the diversity of

Introductory field geology at the University of New Mexico, 1984 to today knowledge, skills, interests, and abilities that the students bring to the class. The second is that we start slowly; this is described in greater detail in our discussion of the first project, and in the mechanics of the to-be-described postage stamp map exercises. The third is that quick, informative, and constructive instructor feedback is of critical importance. The fourth is our goal of giving the students, over the short period of time allowed for the course, a maximized opportunity to inspect, describe, map, and interpret clearly displayed field relations involving as diverse an array of geologic materials and features as possible. With few exceptions, all of the instructors in the course constantly roam around each mapping area, interacting with pairs of students. Other than during group-based introductions to each of the mapping projects and related exercises, students spend all of their time working with at least one partner on specific exercises. For the first two projects, the students are permitted to choose their own partners; for the final mapping project, the instructors choose their mapping partners. Finally, time simply does not allow for group field trips to other areas that are not directly pertinent to each of the exercises in the course. Mapping Projects In contrast to some field geology courses, EPS 319L has involved the same field mapping areas since 1992 (Fig. 1). At the start of each EPS 319L class, the students are informed that their mapping projects have been visited by several previous 319L classes. We explain that the geology of each of these areas is sufficiently well exposed to allow students, over the time allocated for each project, to observe and record all essential and critical field relations and interpret those relations in the context of the geologic history of the area. Furthermore, each of these areas has been chosen because the field relations illustrate several different and important geologic processes. Although we have visited these areas many times, every year students discover a new exposure or make a new observation (e.g., the discovery of Codellaster keepersae, a new genus and species of the asteroid family Goniasteridae by Ms. Kendra Keepers, a 319L student in 2001; Blake and Kues, 2002), and this reinforces our point to them that a complete understanding of any part of our planet may be out of our reach! Next, we briefly describe the geology of the three field areas. Despite the fact that each field area has its distinct characteristics and each field project has its distinct set of goals, the general processes that are exhibited by each area, and more specific field relations, all intertwine to provide students with an ability to decipher and describe in writing, the post-Triassic geologic history of the Southern Rocky Mountains. While in the field on the last day of the class, instructors talk with the students about current observations that can be directly related to those made on the first day of the class. Furthermore, the projects have been carefully selected to facilitate the sequential acquisition of knowledge about this geologic history and the development of specific skills in identifying, recording, and interpreting field geologic relations.

37

Huerfano Park P rk

Colorado do do

37°N

w Mexico New

San S Ysidro Y A buq Albuquerque

Bac ca Canyon Can Ca nyon Baca 100 km

107°W

Figure 1. Locations of EPS 319L mapping projects superimposed on shaded-relief digital elevation model of north-central New Mexico and south-central Colorado. The digital shaded relief map is from the U.S. Geological Survey nationalmap.gov database.

The first project (White Mesa) is completed over 3 days and is located in the San Ysidro area northwest of Albuquerque, which features outstanding exposures of mildly folded and faulted Upper Triassic to mid-Cretaceous strata at the southern end of the Sierra Nacimiento. The stratigraphic section records the regional transition from a shallow, nonmarine depositional environment characterized by the Triassic Chinle Group through the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation, to the inception of the Cretaceous Interior Seaway, along with the nearshore mid-Cretaceous Dakota Formation and laterally equivalent, time-transgressive deposits (Owen, 1982; Lucas et al., 1985; Condon and Peterson, 1986; Anderson and Lucas, 1996). The area lies along the western margin of the Albuquerque Basin part of the Rio Grande rift (Ingersoll, 2001; Connell, 2004), and several rift-related structures are superimposed on earlier features related to crustal shortening. The introduction to this project (day one) is approached very slowly. The complete group makes a total of only six stops during the entire day. Each stop focuses on a critical map unit and/or field relationship in the mapping area, and each spot is not left until all questions have been answered, and all comments have been made. Students map an area less than 1 km2, with excellent exposures of both bedrock geology and surficial deposits.

38

Geissman and Meyer

The second project (Baca Canyon–Spears Ranch) is located southwest of Riley, New Mexico, along the western margin of the Rio Grande rift, on the eastern flank of the Bear Mountains. The field project duration is also 3 days, and it is the first camping-based endeavor in the course. The stratigraphic section in the area includes mid-Cretaceous Interior Seaway deposits of the Crevasse Canyon Formation. These rocks are disconformably overlain by the Eocene Baca Formation, a classic hematitic sandstone-siltstone-mudstone sequence of continental affinity deposited during the waning stages of Laramide crustal shortening in the region. Disconformably overlying the Baca sequence, there is the Eocene Spears Formation, an intermediate-composition, volcaniclastic sequence representing the distal products of the initial phase of post-Laramide intermediatecomposition magmatism in the Mogollon-Datil volcanic field. Spears Formation strata are overlain by outflow facies of several regionally extensive, large-volume ash-flow tuffs, including the Hell’s Mesa, La Jencia, and Vick’s Peak ignimbrites. The post-Spears sequence of volcanic deposits also includes intermediate-composition lavas and domes of the La Jara Peak andesite (Osburn and Chapin, 1983; Cather and Chapin, 1989). The western part of the mapping area exposes a west-dipping normal fault zone that has accommodated at least 400 m of down-to-the-west throw; this fault zone and several comparable structures can be traced northward and define the westernmost margin of the Rio Grande rift (Lewis and Baldridge, 1994). The east-central part of the mapping area includes a narrow topographic high (“Nemo’s Ridge”) that is actually the geomorphic expression of an eroded graben, where more resistant Spears Formation strata have been down-dropped against less resistant Baca strata. Students are expected to provide a map of an area that is ~2 km2. They quickly realize, based on their accumulated skills, that although about half of the area is covered by Quaternary deposits, the bedrock is readily inferred. The third project area for the course, in Huerfano Park of south-central Colorado, provides the students with the opportunity for related investigations that run over the last half of the course period. The main mapping investigation (Point of Rocks, Fig. 2), which includes six full field mapping days, involves marine strata of the mid-Cretaceous Interior Seaway sequence (e.g., Dakota Sandstone, Graneros Shale, Greenhorn Limestone, into the Niobrara Group) (Kauffman, 1977; Laferriere et al., 1987; Obradovich, 1993; Sageman, 1996). These strata have been intensely folded and faulted (with east-northeast vergence during latest Cretaceous to early Tertiary crustal shortening associated with the Laramide orogeny) and are exceptionally well exposed along the eastern flank of the Sangre de Cristo Range, just north of Redwing, Colorado (Burbank and Goddard, 1937; Lindsey et al., 1983; Lindsey, 1998; Wawrzyniec et al., 2002). Prior to this mapping project, students are introduced to a very similar stratigraphic section to that exposed in the mapping area but in a nearly undeformed and nearly continuously exposed state. As a full group, the students inspect this section near Highway 69, at the southeast tip of the Wet

Mountains, ~50 km east of the mapping area, where the rocks dip uniformly to the southeast. They then spend the next day recording a detailed stratigraphic log of the entire sequence, using a Jacob’s staff for thickness measurements. The third project focuses on Quaternary landscape evolution in the Huerfano River valley, and it involves inspecting and mapping last glacial features near the headwaters of the Huerfano River as well as older well-preserved terraces and associated deposits that extend into the main Point of Rocks mapping area (Fig. 2). In fact, the terrace gravel deposits have acted as a resistant cap (e.g., Mackin, 1937) over relatively erodible parts of the Cretaceous section, such that the best bedrock exposures are found around the escarpments bordering the terrace treads. A Middle Pleistocene stream capture enhanced the preservation of the older terrace sequence. The terrace gravels also contain late Paleozoic and Proterozoic rock types not exposed in the Point of Rocks area that were eroded from the Sangre de Cristo range to the west, closer toward the core of the Laramide uplift. Thus, mapping and description of surficial geologic and geomorphic features in the Point of Rocks area helps students to understand a landscape evolution story, from the scale of the mapping area to that of the southern Colorado region (Dethier et al., 2003), as well as one that integrates well with the longer-term geologic history unraveled through bedrock geologic mapping. In the bedrock geologic mapping project, each student and her/ his mapping partner are assigned to a northern or southern map area, each of which is ~2 km2 in area. Each mapping group is required to meet up with a designated group from the other map area, to make certain that the geology of all their maps is consistent across the north-south boundary, and to make further observations to resolve any problems cooperatively. Several locations in each map area expose critical field relations at a scale that requires students to make numerous plan view and cross-section sketches in order to adequately understand and record these relations. In total, the four mapping projects represent our best efforts to provide students in EPS 319L with the broadest experience possible over a very short period of time, but also with serious attention to detail, as emphasized in the following section. This is enabled by a region in which several tectonic provinces occur in close proximity (Woodward, 1984) and where several geomorphic processes have been active. For each of the three main projects, the standard requirements include the original (field) map, a final map, cross section, legend for both the map and cross section, succinct map unit descriptions, and a project write up/summary of the geologic history. For the first project, students are based in Albuquerque and complete most of the project requirements during a long single day in Albuquerque. For the second project, at Baca Canyon, we camp out for three nights. Students cook for themselves, in small groups, and at least one large tent is set up with large tables to encourage student efforts in the evening. In addition, we use a high-efficiency generator with lowwattage lighting for work in the tent and surrounding areas. For the Huerfano projects, the students stay on private land and again

Introductory field geology at the University of New Mexico, 1984 to today

39

105°22′30″W

24 433 m 2433

37°45′N

A

B

0

2

4 km

437 43 4372 72 2m

B anca Peak Blanca Peak Figure 2. Digital elevation model (DEM) shaded-relief map of the Huerfano River area, Colorado, showing (A) the Point of Rocks mapping area, where folded and faulted Mesozoic rocks are exposed around the eastern and southern margins of Early to Middle Pleistocene fluvial terraces preserved by stream capture; and (B) last-glacial lateral moraines in the upper Huerfano River valley, part of the Quaternary and surficial geologic mapping focus in this project.

40

Geissman and Meyer

cook in small groups. We use a large, uninhabited dwelling as a base for students to work in. All requirements are completed while at the field camping site, and thus students must work in the evenings, upon return from the field. Feedback Considerable literature bearing on student assessment strongly supports the utility of immediate instructor assessment and feedback to students (e.g., Libarkin and Kurdziel, 2001; Englebrecht et al., 2005). For a fast-moving course with progressive development of understanding and skills such as EPS 319L, feedback must be provided in both a timely and sufficiently detailed fashion. Some forms of immediate feedback in field-oriented courses have been previously described (e.g., Field, 2003). After several years of teaching EPS 319L, we realized that we needed to develop some form of a quick, effective, group-oriented approach to providing student feedback. In each mapping exercise, even after spending nearly a full day introducing students to the specific map areas, and talking about specific strategies for approaching each mapping area, it was clear that it would be useful to bring the entire class back again, after a day or so, to make certain that the entire class was beginning to develop an understanding of the mapping area, observational skills were improving, and there was an opportunity for full group discussion. Over a decade ago, we initiated one specific approach that attempts to address these concerns. For each of the three multiday mapping projects, we involve the students in a focused, very fine-scale mapping effort. We refer to this as the “postage stamp” map exercise, which takes place in a key and illuminating part of each mapping area. The topography of each of these areas has been surveyed using a mapping-grade GPS unit and maps have been prepared as a base for these exercises with a scale of 1:1600–1:2500 and contour intervals of 8 or 10 ft (2.44 m or 3.05 m) (for comparability with the U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps that form the base for the complete map area) (Fig. 3). The postage stamp exercise takes place after at least a full day of introduction to the entire mapping project, including at least some time for students to begin to conduct mapping on their own. Each student concentrates her or his observations and mapping, for a morning, in the small area. All of the instructors roam around with the students, ensuring considerable interaction. At the end of the morning effort, all of the students are brought together to discuss their observations over lunch, and one of the instructors, based on student input, makes a whiteboard sketch of the geology of the postage stamp map (Fig. 4). The discussion is typically very lively, and it is organized to foster as much student input and interaction with the instructors as possible, based in large part on the sketch map of the postage stamp map area (Johnson and Reynolds, 2005). We have found that these group discussions serve several valuable purposes. First, by bringing the class together and having the class discuss their observations together, the confidence of most students

grows considerably. Second, students have the opportunity to plan the next phase of independent mapping with their partner. Third, it ultimately provides the instructors a better foundation for further interaction with the students and a very objective opportunity for “grading” their final field maps, as each postage stamp area lies within the map, and we expect to have at least the highlights of the postage stamp area accurately recorded on their final map. The postage stamp maps are turned in after the lunch “break,” and, although these maps are not part of a student’s final grade, detailed feedback is provided to all students by the end of the day (Fig. 5). The senior instructor is responsible for providing this feedback. Although no rigidly defined scoring rubric (e.g., C.A. Kearns and L.E. Kearns, 2009, personal commun.) is actually used in the inspection of the postage stamp map, rigorous inspection of the maps includes the following features: adequate coverage of the area in terms of showing salient map relations over as much of the area as possible, accuracy of contacts and traces of structures, reasonable number of accurate orientation measurements (strikes and dips of bedding, fault planes, etc.), and neatness. In field geology courses, where time is typically at a premium, and the goal is to maximize student field experience, we view this effort as another useful example of an excellent means to provide beneficial and timely instructor input. The feedback we have received in student evaluations of the course indicates strong support of the use of the postage stamp exercises. Our feedback prior to summer 2008 was not ideal in that UNM formerly required a course evaluation system that was very inflexible and did not allow for specific questions to be posed for specific courses. We simply asked students to provide comments on the postage stamp exercises in the space for written comments. Starting in 2008, UNM switched to the IDEA system, which allows for course-specific questions to be posed to the students. All student responses ranked the postage stamp exercises as excellent. Furthermore, in the context of our assessment of student outcomes for the course, which is the capstone experience in our BS Earth and Planetary Sciences curriculum, the postage stamp exercises play a major role. Because we review the geology of each of the postage stamp map areas as an entire group, and sketch a complete map of the postage stamp area for all students to see and fully understand (Fig. 4), we fully expect that this part of their final map should reflect the outcome of this exercise and be as accurate as possible. Our approach to grading final project maps includes defining several localities where key field relations are particularly well exposed and the mapping of them should present relatively few difficulties for all students. We also factor in the accuracy of locations of specific field relations on student maps but do not approach this with the level of specificity proposed in other approaches (e.g., C.A. Kearns and L.E. Kearns, 2009, personal commun.). In terms of the importance of the postage stamp map exercise, with few exceptions, a comparison of student postage stamp and full field project maps from the first project to the last exercise shows that mapping skills improve.

Introductory field geology at the University of New Mexico, 1984 to today

41

Figure 3. Example of topographic base for the postage stamp map for the Point of Rock mapping project, Huerfano Park, Colorado. Contour interval is 3.048 m (10 ft).

Financial Support Here, we provide a brief discussion of the current means by which support is provided to our Introductory Field Geology course, as well as other summer field courses offered by the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, given that we attempt to provide the highest quality level of instruction to our students with limited financial means. The summer field geology courses are “supported “ by the Summer Instructional Program at the University of New Mexico, through the Provost’s Office, not the College of Arts and Sciences. Each year the department submits a request for the support of our summer

courses and waits to hear if our request has been granted. For example, in summer 2008, the department received a total of $25,500 to support both EPS 319L and EPS 420L; all of these funds went to pay for instructors (1.5 faculty in EPS 319L and two graduate teaching assistants; 1.5 faculty in EPS 420L and two graduate teaching assistants). EPS 319L had a total of 32 students in the course in summer 2008; EPS 420L had a total of 15 students. The tuition charged by the institution (about $800/course) is not returned directly to the college or to the department. This level of support is insufficient to pay for all instructional costs and the operational expenses of each field course, which are in large part absorbed by students through

42

Geissman and Meyer field; understanding how surface field relations can be extrapolated to at least modest depth, in the context of drawing an interpretive cross section; and formulating logical predictions based on observations made. All of these are consistent with departmental learning outcomes established for our Earth and Planetary Sciences BS program. The use of the postage stamp exercises for each of our mapping projects provides a focused, deliberate opportunity for students to hone their observational skills in wellexposed, well-chosen areas where the geology screams that there is much to see, record, interpret, and learn! Our students are not “used” to gather any form of data/observations for our own personal goals; we do not “thrust” our students into a new area where we are unfamiliar with the geology, and have no well-founded basis for knowing how our students will benefit from inspecting and attempting to map such areas. Field geology instruction will continue to take many forms and evolve, but it must remain a critical, feedback-based component of geoscience education. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Figure 4. Senior author discussing an “interpretive” and approximate (i.e., not to scale) sketch geologic map of the postage stamp mapping area, Point of Rocks mapping project, Huerfano Park, Colorado.

fees for each course. For EPS 319L, the current student fees are $375.00. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS As two long-standing instructors for the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences Introductory Field Geology course, we annually look forward to the day in mid-May when we meet with a new group of EPS 319L students, many of whom come from different institutions and have never been to New Mexico, or even west of the Mississippi River, and many of whom have never slept outside. Our approach to teaching Introductory Field Geology is based on experiences over several decades, beginning with our own personal experiences as students in undergraduate field geology courses (University of Michigan and University of Idaho) to our interaction with numerous colleagues, notably our graduate student teaching assistants and those involved in field geology instruction at other institutions. Our approach to instruction of Introductory Field Geology at the University of New Mexico is firmly rooted in the importance of building the field observational and documentation skills of each and every one of our students (e.g., Kali and Orion, 1996; Kastens and Ishikawa, 2006; Liben et al., 2008; Kastens et al., 2009). In terms of learning goals, we expect that all students completing EPS 319L have obtained and have repetitively utilized basic field skills, including locating themselves on a topographic map, without and with the aid of a handheld GPS; identifying geologic materials in the

Several University of New Mexico (UNM) graduate student teaching assistants, over many years, have made outstanding commitments to molding and improving EPS 319L, these include Steve Hayden, Steve Harlan, Bruce Harrison, Tim Wawrzyniec, Harry Rowe, Mary Simmons, Joel Pederson, Carol Dehler, Mike Petronis, Scott Muggleton, Jenn Pierce, Lyman Persico, and Travis Naibert. The tremendous assistance from the current (Cindy Jaramillo, Mabel Chavez, Mary Bennett, and Paula Pascetti) and former staff of the main office of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at UNM is greatly appreciated. We appreciate permission from a 2008 EPS 319L student to use the student’s Point of Rocks postage stamp map in this paper and also the permission of a 2008 EPS 319L student to use the student’s photo of the first author and the evolving group postage stamp map for Point of Rocks mapping project. We thank the staff and owners of Wolf Springs Ranch for continued access to the Point of Rocks mapping project area and the Spears family for access to the Baca Canyon area. Finally, we thank Stephen G. Wells for initiating the much-needed change in UNM field geology instruction. APPENDIX. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE TRANSITION In August 1984, Professor Stephen G. Wells (past Geological Society of America president) walked into my office (Geissman). I was then a newly arrived, untenured member of the faculty and was engaged in unpacking into a new office setting. Steve, who had been on sabbatical the previous year and had not been involved in my hiring, introduced himself and quickly cut to the chase. He talked about his previous experiences teaching field geology courses at the University of New Mexico (UNM) and at Indiana University’s field station. He reminded me that the department “field courses” were taught on the weekends, during the academic year. Geology 319L was taught in the spring semester, for four credits, and Geology 420L, also four credits, was taught in the fall semester. I remembered this but was reluctant to dwell on the matter during my interview. To an untenured assistant professor with four summers of field course experience while at the

Introductory field geology at the University of New Mexico, 1984 to today

43

Figure 5. Example of instructor comments on one postage stamp map prepared by a summer 2008 student, Point of Rocks mapping project, Huerfano Park, Colorado.

Colorado School of Mines, a summer as a postdoctoral research scientist at the University of Toronto, and several summers as a graduate student teaching assistant at Michigan’s field geology station, the concept of teaching capstone field geology courses on the weekends during the academic year seemed a bit odd, if not just wrong. I expressed this feeling and emphasized that the current approach was especially odd for a location like Albuquerque, where nearby geology abounds (Fig. 1) and the weather is excellent. The end result of our first encounter was an agreement to cooperate to move UNM’s field courses to the summer and mold them into full-fledged field-camp–like field geology courses. As a postscript, one of our very loyal (and generous) alumni recently talked with me about his experience in the late 1970s taking Geology 420 on the weekends while trying to compete on the UNM rugby club team. When I explained how the department was now

teaching our field geology courses, he remarked, “That is a far better way of teaching field geology, isn’t it!”

REFERENCES CITED Anderson, O.J., and Lucas, S.G., 1996, Stratigraphy and depositional environments of Middle and Upper Jurassic rocks, southeastern San Juan Basin, New Mexico, in Goff, F., Kues, B.S., Rogers, M.A., McFadden, L.D., and Gardner, J.N., eds., 47th Field Conference Guidebook, Jemez Mountains Region: Socorro, New Mexico, New Mexico Geological Society, p. 205–211. Blake, D.B., and Kues, B.S., 2002, Homeomorphy in the Asteroidea (Echinodermata); a new Late Cretaceous genus and species from Colorado: Journal of Paleontology, v. 76, p. 1007–1013, doi: 10.1666/0022-3360 (2002)0762.0.CO;2.

44

Geissman and Meyer

Burbank, W.S., and Goddard, E.N., 1937, Thrusting in Huerfano Park, Colorado, and related problems of orogeny in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 48, p. 931–976. Cather, S.M., and Chapin, C.E., 1989, Day 2: Field guide to Upper Eocene and Lower Oligocene volcaniclastic rocks of the northern Mogollon-Datil volcanic field, in Chapin, C.E., and Zidek, J., eds., Field Excursions to Volcanic Terranes in the Western United States, Volume I: Southern Rocky Mountain Region: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Memoir 46, p. 60–87. Condon, S.M., and Peterson, F., 1986, Stratigraphy of Middle and Upper Jurassic rocks of the San Juan Basin; historical perspective, current ideas, remaining problems, in Turner-Peterson, C.E., Santos, E.S., and Fishman, N.S., eds., A Basin Analysis Case Study; the Morrison Formation, Grants Uranium Region, New Mexico: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology, v. 22, p. 7–26. Connell, S.D., 2004, Geology of the Albuquerque Basin and tectonic development of the Rio Grande rift in north-central New Mexico, in Mack, G.H., and Giles, K.A., eds., The Geology of New Mexico: A Geologic History: New Mexico Geological Society Special Publication 11, p. 359–388. Dethier, D.P., Birkeland, P., and Shroba, R.R., 2003, Quaternary stratigraphy, geomorphology, soils, and alpine archaeology in an alpine-to-plains transect, Colorado Front Range, in Easterbrook, D.J., ed., Quaternary Geology of the United States, International Union for Quaternary Research Field Guide Volume: Reno, Desert Research Institute, p. 81–104. Drummond, C.N., 2001, Can field camps survive?: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, p. 336–337. Englebrecht, A.C., Mintzes, J.J., Brown, L.M., and Kelso, P.R., 2005, Probing understanding in physical geology using concept maps and clinical interviews: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, p. 263–270. Field, J., 2003, A two-week guided inquiry project for an undergraduate geomorphology course: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 51, p. 255–261. Ingersoll, R.V., 2001, Structural and stratigraphic evolution of the Rio Grande rift, northern New Mexico and southern Colorado: International Geology Review, v. 43, p. 867–891, doi: 10.1080/00206810109465053. Johnson, J.K., and Reynolds, S.J., 2005, Concept sketches using studentand instructor-generated annotated sketches for learning, teaching, and assessment in geology courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, p. 85–95. Kali, Y., and Orion, N., 1996, Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geologic structures: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 33, p. 369–391, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199604)33:43.0.CO;2-Q. Kastens, K.A., and Ishikawa, T., 2006, Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences, in Manduca, C., and Mogk, D., eds., Earth and Mind: How Geoscientists Think and Learn about the Complex Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, p. 53–76. Kastens, K.A., Manduca, C.A., Cervato, C., Frodeman, R., Goodwin, C., Liben, L.S., Mogk, D.W., Spangler, T.C., Stilllings, T.C., and Titus, S., 2009, Geoscientists and cognitive scientists collaborate to improve thinking and learning about the Earth: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 90, no. 31, p. 265–266. Kauffman, E.G., 1977, Geological and biological overview: Western Interior Cretaceous Basin, in Kauffman, E.G., ed., Cretaceous Facies, Faunas, and Paleoenvironments across the Western Interior Basin: Mountain Geologist (Laramie), v. 14, p. 75–99.

Laferriere, A.P., Hattin, D.E., and Archer, A.W., 1987, Effects of climate, tectonics, and sea level changes on rhythmic bedding patterns in the Niobrara Formation (Upper Cretaceous), U.S. Western Interior: Geology, v. 15, p. 233–236, doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1987)152.0.CO;2. Lewis, C.J., and Baldridge, W.S., 1994, Crustal extension in the Rio Grande rift, New Mexico: Half-grabens, accommodation zones, and shoulder uplifts in the Ladron Peak–Sierra Lucero area, in Keller, G.R., and Cather, S.M., eds., Basins of the Rio Grande Rift: Structure, Stratigraphy, and Tectonic Setting: Geological Society of America Special Paper 291, p. 135–156. Libarkin, J.C., and Kurdziel, J.P., 2001, Research methodologies in science education: Strategies for productive assessment: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, p. 300–304. Liben, L.S., Myers, L.J., and Kastens, K.A., 2008, Locating oneself on a map: Relation to person qualities and map characteristics, in Freska, C., Newcombe, N.S., Gaerdenfors, P., and Wolfl, S., eds., Spatial Cognition VI: Learning, Reasoning, and Talking about Space, Proceedings from Spacial Cognition 2008, 15–19 September 2008: Freiburg, Germany, SpringerVerlag, p. 171–187. Lindsey, D.A., 1998, Laramide structure of the central Sangre de Cristo Mountains and adjacent Raton Basin, southern Colorado: The Mountain Geologist, v. 35, p. 55–70. Lindsey, D.A., Johnson, B.R., and Andriessen, P.A.M., 1983, Laramide and Neogene structure of the northern Sangre de Cristo Range, south-central Colorado, in Lowell, J.D., ed., Rocky Mountain Foreland Basins and Uplifts: Denver, Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 219–228. Lucas, S.G., Kietzke, K.K., and Hunt, A.P., 1985, The Jurassic System in east-central New Mexico, in Lucas, S.G., and Zidek, J., eds., Santa Rosa Tucumcari Region: New Mexico Geological Society, 36th Field Conference Guidebook, p. 213–242. Mackin, J.H., 1937, Erosional history of the Big Horn Basin, Wyoming: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 48, p. 813–894. Obradovich, J.D., 1993, A Cretaceous time scale, in Caldewell, W.G.E., and Kauffman, E.G., eds., Evolution of the Western Interior Basin: Geological Association of Canada Special Publication 39, p. 379–396. Osburn, G.R., and Chapin, C.E., 1983, Nomenclature for Cenozoic Rocks of Northeast Mogollon-Datil Volcanic Field, New Mexico: Socorro, New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, 10 p. Owen, D.E., 1982, Correlation and paleoenvironments of the Jackpile Sandstone (Upper Jurassic) and intertongued Dakota Sandstone–Lower Mancos Shale (Upper Cretaceous) in west-central New Mexico, in Grambling, J.A., and Wells, S.G., eds., Albuquerque Country II: Socorro, New Mexico Geological Society, 33rd Fall Field Conference Guidebook, p. 267–270. Sageman, B.B., 1996, Lowstand tempestites: Depositional model for Cretaceous skeletal limestones, Western Interior Basin: Geology, v. 24, p. 888– 892, doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1996)0242.3.CO;2. Wawrzyniec, T.F., Geissman, J.W., Melker, M.D., and Hubbard, M., 2002, Dextral shear along the eastern margin of the Colorado Plateau—A kinematic link between the Laramide orogeny and Rio Grande rifting (ca. 80 Ma to 13 Ma): The Journal of Geology, v. 110, p. 305–324, doi: 10.1086/339534. Woodward, L.A., comp., 1984, Tectonic Map of the Rocky Mountain Region of the United States: Boulder, in Sloss, L.L., ed., Sedimentary Cover—North American Craton: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Decade of North American Geology, v. D-2, plate 2, scale 1:2,500,000. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009

Printed in the USA

The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009

Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future Declan G. De Paor* Department of Physics, Old Dominion University, Room 306, 4600 Elkhorn Avenue, Norfolk, Virginia 23529, USA Steven J. Whitmeyer† Department of Geology and Environmental Science, James Madison University, Memorial Hall 7105B, 395 S. High Street, MSC 6903, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, USA

ABSTRACT Like many similar courses across the United States, traditional geology field camps run by Boston University (BU) and James Madison University (JMU) faced a crisis at the turn of the twenty-first century. Student enrollment was declining, and many geoscience professionals questioned the continued relevance of field camps to modern undergraduate geoscience programs. A reassessment of field course content, along with changes to management styles and attitudes, was required for survival. In our case, the combination of relocation, managerial improvements, curriculum innovations, and elimination of redundant exercises resulted in a vibrant course with a strong student demand. We believe that our reforms may serve as a guide to success for other courses that are facing similar difficulties. The current JMU field course in western Ireland is the product of reforms and modernizations to the previous BU and JMU traditional field camps. To create time for new course content, we had to consider whether long-established exercises were still essential. Caution is needed in both adding and deleting course content, as the curriculum may suffer from inclusion of new technologies that turn out to be short-lived and from discontinuation of exercises that develop students’ core field expertise. Nevertheless, we have implemented major changes in the ways students are taught to work in the field, and we question the continued relevance of some existing procedures. Our criteria include level of pedagogical engagement and transferability of skills to nongeoscience professions. A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO FIELD GEOLOGY

ers such as William Smith (1815) in England and Wales, Richard Griffith (1838) in Ireland, Archibald Geikie (1876) in Scotland, George Cuvier and Alexandre Brogniart in France, Bernhard Studer and Arnold Escher von der Linth in Switzerland, and Florence Bascom in the United States (see, for example, Winchester, 2001). Following the hit-or-miss approaches of the California Gold Rush (1848–1855), and of wildcat oil drilling after its initial invention in Titusville, Pennsylvania, by Edwin Drake in 1855, the need for professional field geologists grew steadily and state

Geological mapping dates back to the Turin Papyrus of 1150 B.C.E. (Harrell and Brown, 1992), but field surveying and publication of printed geological maps did not begin in earnest until the nineteenth century with the contributions of pioneering work*[email protected] † [email protected]

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 [email protected]. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

45

46

De Paor and Whitmeyer

geological surveys sprouted (Socolow, 1988). However, residential field geology courses did not enter college curricula until the early twentieth century (AGI, 1985). Given the absence of halls of residence in proximity to the best geological exposures, these courses soon became known as “field camps.” Founded in 1911, the University of Missouri’s Branson Field Laboratory is reputed to be the oldest continuously running geology field camp in the United States (Anonymous, 2007a). Boston University’s camp in Maine followed a generation later (1949), and James Madison University initiated their original Appalachian-based field camp around 1978, joining the growing movement. In the 1960s and 1970s, as a testament to the pedagogical success of the camp classroom model, field camp was required for graduation by many college geoscience departments (Lonergan and Andresen, 1988). Despite closures in recent years, there are still over 70 field camps offered by accredited American universities and colleges (Anonymous, 2007b). Field Camps in Crisis—The BU Perspective Less than a decade ago, Boston University’s (BU) Field Camp was in trouble and, like many others, it faced the real prospect of closure. The course had been held in northern Maine for over 50 years, during which generations of BU professors and graduate student instructors had dedicated six weeks of the summer session to training students in classical field methods. As with most field camps, students reported learning more effectively at the outcrop than they had done in the laboratory, and camaraderie around the campfire created a level of personal contact among faculty and students that was the envy of nonfield sciences. With the coming of the plate-tectonic revolution in the late 1960s, Appalachian tectonics was a vibrant academic research field, and the Maine field camp was appropriately located. However, while tectonic interpretations of the Appalachians had changed radically since the heyday of the plate-tectonic revolution, the field skills being taught to the Maine field camp students had barely evolved. An alumnus from the class of 1949 would have been familiar with almost all of the equipment and methods in use in 1998: finding one’s location by pace and compass; identifying minerals by hand lens, scratch plate, and acid bottle; classifying subtly different fine-grained gray rocks into laboriously named stratigraphic formations and members; measuring dip and strike or plunge and trend using the compass-clinometer; stereographic projection of structural data onto tracing paper overlays; and finally “inking-in” and compilation of a “fair copy” map using colored pencils. Students of BU’s last Maine camp in 1998 did not seem to mind that most of the skills they were learning were verging on obsolescence in the professional workplace—how would they have known? Their professors did not work for, or interact with, the exploration companies, environmental management consultants, geotechnical contractors, or geological surveys that employed most students. Longitudinal assessment studies were not carried out, so professors did not know how their course con-

tent matched the needs of employers or how it prepared students for any profession. The university was training students in skills that were useful only to the 1% who might become academics, not the skills required in the future extramural workplace, and even then, the academic content was dated. Some would justify this, citing the timeless benefits of academically oriented education, but the pure pedagogical value of many classical exercises was debatable. Although we may think of geological mapping mainly as an academic exercise, it is worth noting that many of the pioneers of mapping were applied scientists and engineers. The goal for William Smith was to find coal—the fuel of the Industrial Revolution—and bring it to market via canals (Winchester, 2001). Richard Griffith’s (1838) map was funded by the Irish Railway Commission. The Swiss were motivated by their country’s extreme engineering needs, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was initially tasked with classifying mineral-rich versus agricultural public lands (Thompson, 1988). Students at the Maine camp did complain, however, about some faculty attitudes that were perceived as indifferent to females and about boot-camp conditions that even macho males found unpleasant (e.g., the spring and early summer black fly season). Furthermore, trends nationwide were drifting away from compulsory geology field courses as geology departments, including BU’s, morphed into “geological science,” “geology and geography,” “earth science,” “earth and planetary science,” “earth and space science,” “earth and environmental science,” etc. With the relaxation of many colleges’ residential field camp requirements, competition from deep-sea drilling cruises, laboratory-based independent study projects, and externally funded research experiences for undergraduates (REUs) was high. These examples reflected a growing nationwide sentiment that questioned the continued importance of field camps in undergraduate geoscience curricula around the turn of the millennium. Clearly, if field courses were to survive and remain a vital component of an undergraduate education, major changes were needed. Our experience, detailed herein, suggests that these reforms need to encompass changes in management styles and attitude, as well as modernization of the traditional field course curriculum. RETHINKING FIELD COURSE MANAGEMENT AND LOGISTICS Relocation An exciting location is a strong draw for prospective field camp students and probably is necessary for long-term field camp survival. For BU, the transformation began in 1999 with the relocation of their field camp to the Connemara region of western Ireland—a geological, if not climatological, paradise. Comfortable, full-board accommodations were leased from Petersburg Outdoor Education Centre, a well-managed residential facility that normally offered year-round outdoor courses for at-risk children from inner city schools. The summer income from our six week field camp enabled the center to modernize its

Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future facilities significantly, so the relationship was (and continues to be) symbiotic. In 2006, career moves involving field camp faculty led to a transfer of administration from Boston University to James Madison University (JMU), where a summer field geology course had not been offered since 2003. Thanks to faculty continuity, the new philosophy and curriculum of the Ireland field course continues to develop at JMU. Despite the extra expenses involved with an overseas location, relocating the camp to western Ireland had several benefits. We were able to market potential financial savings to parents who could use one course to fulfill their children’s desire for a study-abroad experience in addition to learning modern geoscience field methods. The location was remote and decidedly foreign, but nevertheless very friendly toward the United States—a significant factor in the era of parental security concerns following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It was located on the edge of the Connemara Gaeltacht, one of the Irish-speaking regions of Ireland where the local accent is so strong that it can be difficult to understand the people even when they speak English. In addition to U.S. faculty and teaching assistants, Irish faculty were hired from the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the nearby campus of the National University of Ireland, Galway. Students appreciated the Irish faculty for their detailed knowledge of the local region (and liked their accents). Faculty Quality and Undergraduate Research Opportunities We believe that an important factor in the success of the new approach was faculty quality. All faculty—both U.S. and Irish— were active scholars with funded research programs and strong publication records, and many were keenly interested in pedagogical research (Johnston et al., 2005). The revitalized course attracted a diverse faculty (including several female instructors and one African American instructor) and an equally diverse student population from universities from across the United States. Students recognized the research opportunities available in conjunction with the course. Some field course alumni and alumnae were recruited by faculty for other National Science Foundation (NSF)–funded research opportunities in the United States, Ireland, and other locations (e.g., Antarctica), and many students went on to graduate programs in the geosciences in first-rank research universities. One key to our long-term success was the support of our departmental chairs and higher-level administrators, who recognized the importance of field camp service when evaluating untenured faculty. Our experience suggests that such support and recognition are more easily obtained if the field camp produces sustained scholarship and publication-worthy research for the faculty. A modern field course cannot flourish if administrators see it as a job for adjuncts or nonresearch faculty. Both authors were fortunate to have department chairs that not only supported faculty participation in the Ireland field camp, but actively taught at the camp.

47

Student Agility and Fitness The student applicant pool for our camp was highly varied in physical preparedness for fieldwork. Students qualified automatically if they were in good standing in the host department (BU Earth Science Department, or JMU Department of Geology and Environmental Science). Applicants from other colleges, who frequently made up half to two thirds of the class, were accepted on the basis of grades and their application’s statement of interest, without face-to-face interview. Hiking skills were often minimal, and some students’ field background consisted of only a few day trips as part of their coursework. Given the diverse enrollment, we attempted to make field conditions friendlier to less rugged or outdoors-inclined students. Ironically, the female faculty members were relatively disinclined to slow the pace or accommodate student requests. These professional women were self-selected successful products of traditional educational systems that had alienated the vast majority of their gender; they expected students to cope with their ablutions in hedges and ditches, and to keep up with the most alpine of trip leaders. The authors’ somewhat more accommodating managerial approach was influenced by previous anecdotal experiences such as (1) an embarrassing rebellion by irate students on a 13 hour day-trip in a windswept, barren, restroom-free landscape lead by a clueless male professor; and (2) the experience of discovering that a student with prosthetic legs was enrolled in a structural geology course after said student commented on soreness at the end of a field trip and took his legs off. The student in question performed as well as his classmates and subsequently went on to serve as a field assistant to another professor on an international expedition. These experiences engendered respect for both the needs and abilities of nontraditional students. On the other hand, some students had great difficulty completing assignments due to mobility and agility limitations (especially obesity), even though none of the exercises required technical climbing or particularly dangerous maneuvers. Accepting physically limited students into field programs is more or less mandated by nondiscrimination policies at most universities, so formulating successful approaches for dealing with these issues cannot be avoided (e.g., Butler, 2007). Allowing such students to complete alternative, less physically demanding, assignments was only a partial solution, as this created peer resentment. As obesity becomes more prevalent in the student population, this issue is likely to crop up more frequently in the future. Our current policy is to allow students with mobility issues extra time to complete assignments but to require that they get there in the end. Alternate exercises are restricted to those with predeclared disabilities or current injuries. This policy, though not foolproof, has been endorsed by many students. As an example of this approach, on a moderately difficult hike, one of the instructors would get to the top of the hill first, establishing his credentials among the most fit, while the other brought up the rear. Several students (mostly overweight) expressed deep appreciation for the fact that faculty were still waiting for them when they eventually got to the mountaintop.

48

De Paor and Whitmeyer

Their previous common field experience had been that of meeting their professor and the majority of their classmates on their way back from the outcrop to the bus, and thus missing out on any lecturing or instruction imparted at the outcrop.

Freeman (1999) can compete only if the subject matter of the field exercise is restricted to classical hard-rock mapping.

R and R

Working collaboratively over several years, American and Irish faculty overhauled the Ireland field course curriculum. The move from Maine meant that mapping exercises had to be redesigned from scratch, and we took the opportunity to rethink our teaching philosophy and pedagogical approach. We deemphasized professorial lecturing at the outcrop in favor of a student research approach (asking students to frame the key questions; see May et al., this volume), and we introduced small group (three to four students) mapping exercises in advance of the main independent mapping exercise. Students reported increased confidence following group exercises, and they wasted less time in the first days of their independent mapping. Recognizing the importance of the balance between an understanding of fundamental principals and knowledge of practical, transferable skills, we identified four areas of emphasis (see following) that could be developed in the Connemara region of western Ireland. Although Caledonian tectonics or Quaternary glacial geomorphology may not be accessible at other field camps, we believe that all camps can benefit by a reassessment of the ways in which their local geologic features can address the universal strengths of field-based pedagogy: cross-disciplinary knowledge integration, open-ended problem solving, etc.

A common issue with residential field courses is the provision of appropriate social activities, to ensure that R-and-R does not translate into rowdy and rambunctious rather than rest and relaxation. Our policies follow university guidelines banning binge drinking, and we have had only a few isolated incidents. The 6 km roundtrip walk to the local village presumably dampens (literally) the enthusiasm of potential revelers, but perhaps the more important factor is the availability of alternative leisuretime activities. Approved student drivers are permitted to take classmates to events such as horse-racing meets and nearby concerts in Galway City by visiting celebrities such as Bob Dylan and U2. Many students seem happier when they have opportunities to rejoin (nongeology) civilization on occasional evenings and at weekends. Those that prefer outdoor activities, such as leisure hiking/hill-walking, kayaking, or campfires under star-filled skies also have those options. One unanticipated problem was the desire on the part of some “helicopter” parents to take the opportunity to visit their offspring in the field. We allow visits only grudgingly and outside of class hours. We also receive visits from field camp alumnae and alumni who return to the region for vacation with their fiancées, spouses, and children. Undoubtedly, field camp in the west of Ireland is a positive memory and character-forming experience for many. When the international cell phone and iPod generation came to camp, our first reaction was to shun the intrusive gadgetry, following the lead of others that advocate a formal approach to the use of travel time (Elkins and Elkins, 2006). However, we soon recognized the benefits of accommodation and assimilation. Of course, we would prefer if students spent bus time between outcrops pondering regional tectonics, but, in truth, students in previous years mainly slept. If they opted to listen to music or call their parents at enormous expense on their cell phones in order to say “Hi, I’m on the bus,” then they might work more attentively at field stops. On the way home from the last outcrop, students would appoint a “DJ” to hook their music players up to the bus speakers and face their peers’ evaluation of their music taste. Of course, iPods and “smart” cell phones like the iPhone can also be used as mobile reference sources. Early on, we experimented with use of photo and video iPods as teaching devices by uploading sample images of rocks, minerals, and structures for use by students as a digital reference library on location. However, before this effort reached maturity, technological advances overtook it. The latest devices such as the iPod Touch and iPhone include a fully zoomable web browser, giving students access to vast resources of reference information without need for custom software. Traditional, pocket-sized paper field manuals such as

A CURRICULUM FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

Regional Tectonics as a “Big Picture” Unifying Theme Connemara is a classic area of Caledonian tectonics. It lies along strike from the Appalachian orogen of Maritime Canada and New England in a pre-Atlantic reconstruction (Fig. 1A). Given the Appalachian historical base of both BU’s and JMU’s original field courses, and the blossoming career opportunities for hard-rock geologists in industry and academia (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics: www.bls.gov/oco/ocos288. htm), it made sense to maintain a strong component of regional stratigraphy, tectonics, and paleogeography. However, we eliminated the “stand and deliver” approach to teaching regional geology at the outcrop, whereby the learned professor tells the story as it is, complete with much tectonic arm-waving. Information is no longer passed on only to those students lucky enough to be within hearing range of the field-trip leader. Instead, we employ scaffolded discovery-learning techniques by posing challenging questions to students, encouraging hypothesizing and constructive discourse, and surreptitiously guiding students to make observations that will provide critical hypothesis-discriminating evidence (McConnell et al., 2005). As an example, students are asked to explain the easterly dip of the Connemara peneplain, as seen in the local landscape (Fig. 1B). Initial efforts usually invoke local tilting, regional folding, or isostasy. With continued discussion and prompting, students learn to position local outcrop evidence within the

Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future

49

regional tectonic context and arrive at a more complete explanation of the uplift and exposure of Caledonian rocks in western Ireland resulting from regional extension associated with the opening of the Atlantic Ocean (Coxon, 2005a). Students also must relate their local mapping areas and outcrop-scale details, such as kinematic indicators, to regional tectonic problems, such as the position of Connemara in relation to other Dalradian terranes of Ireland and Scotland, mechanisms of terrane transport, and possible docking events. The key is that students must learn to view their individual projects in a larger framework that has relevance to the outside world. Like most field camps, our projects incorporate igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rock identifications, but these are now undertaken with tectonic synthesis in mind. We do not teach students to distinguish granodiorite from adamellite or paragneiss from orthogneiss for its own sake. Glacial Geomorphology The second area of emphasis focuses on the glacial geomorphology of western Ireland (e.g., Coxon, 2001, 2005b). Again, students are taught to map locally while thinking globally. Students usually notice without prompting that the western seaboard’s vegetation, including palm trees and Versaillesstyle formal gardens, differs from that of Maritime Canada or Moscow at the same 55°N latitude. Historic records of local climate document the rarity of freezing weather (data from the Irish National Meteorological Service: www.met.ie), with snow flurries no more than once or twice a year at sea level, yet the landscape is dramatically glaciated (Fig. 2). Students arrive at the field camp with a range of experience in glaciated terrains, from little to no previous exposure (Virginia) to fairly extensive knowledge of gradual terminal moraine retreat in New England, or direct experience with present-day glaciers in Alaska. In each

Figure 1. (A) Reconstruction of the Appalachian-Caledonian orogen prior to opening of the Atlantic Ocean (sketch by Martin Feely, National University of Ireland–Galway). 53.614878° N, 9.509725° E. (B) Photo looking north of the easterly dipping Carboniferous peneplain in the South Mayo region of western Ireland. The black line at the top of the peneplain is ~1 mile long.

Figure 2. Photo of the glaciated landscape of western Ireland: the lake occupies the location of an ancient valley glacier, and the close end of the lake is dammed by an end moraine. (Photo by Adam Lewis.)

50

De Paor and Whitmeyer

case, fieldwork that documents kame fields and other indicators of rapid down-wasting in Connemara is unfamiliar, despite coverage of the subject in common texts (e.g., Tarbuck and Lutgens, 2002). Our lesson plans highlight the differences in the history of climate change from Virginia to New England to western Ireland as a consequence of the off-and-on switching of the Gulf Stream and the process of North Atlantic Deep Water formation (Bond and Lotti, 1995; Coxon, 2001; Bowen et al., 2002). Students were brought to Iceland one year on an experimental basis for a four day expedition prior to commencing their western Ireland mapping. Witnessing first-hand the products of active, present-day glaciation and viewing the ubiquitous evidence for rapid climate change proved to be of great pedagogical value. Students completed a 1 day mapping exercise at the face of Vatnajökull Glacier, where recessional and lateral moraines, eskers, kame fields, kame deltas, and ground till were visible in 100% exposures. Irish landforms of Quaternary age have a subdued topographic expression and are generally covered in vegetation, yet students recognized equivalent features with ease. Students’ recognition of volcanic structures also benefited from the Icelandic experience. However, financial and logistical burdens prevented us from making this a permanent part of the course, and the unique combination of fire and ice that characterizes the Icelandic landscape is not a perfect analogy for the Tertiary volcanic rocks and later Quaternary glacial carving of western Ireland. Although it is not quite as immersive an experience, today’s students can “fly” over the Icelandic terrain using Google Earth or NASA World Wind, and thus gain some appreciation of neotectonics and neoglaciation. Environmental Geology and Hydrogeology Western Ireland has a history of mineral exploration and mining dating back to prehistoric times (Cole, 1998). The practice of agriculture stretches over 5000 years (Cooney, 2000; Anonymous, 2007c), and the pressure of population, both native and visitor, has impacted water quality and created waste disposal issues on a number of occasions, including the crowded times before the Great Famine and the present era of tourism. Given the high number of employment opportunities in environmental sciences, we emphasize field-based exercises with themes spanning resource exploitation and conservation. Subtopics included in this part of the course are: bulk country-rock geochemistry, exploitation of mineral resources, impact of mining and rock composition on mine-water geochemistry, surface-water capacity and sediment-transport rates, and impact of geotourism in the Burren, a region of karstic topography in County Clare. Students go underground in caves and Victorian mines that have been reopened as tourist attractions (Glengowla mine; Ailwee and Doolin caves), and they make observations and measurements on surface and subsurface water flow. The Burren area, in particular, is a fascinating karstic region that was previously glaciated. Students compare and contrast sediment-transport processes via surface glaciers with underground rivers and

other karstic features to determine the relative importance of each of these agents in landscape modification. In Connemara, intense rain events drench bogs and alter river morphologies in a matter of hours; therefore, we have expanded exercises in geohydrology and riverine processes (see May et al., this volume). Despite the competing dangers from hill-walking, bog-hopping, and quarry visits, our water-chemistry exercise brought us the closest to a serious injury in the five years in which it has been run. A student slipped in thigh-high water, became immersed for no more than a few seconds, and developed hypothermia within minutes. The first-response treatment—sharing a sleeping bag with fellow students—was great for team morale but the experience reminded instructors and management of the fine line between exciting learning experiences and potentially harmful consequences. Digital Mapping and Visualization On 1 May 2000, President Clinton turned off Selective Availability (i.e., civilian scrambling) of the Global Positioning System, and the accuracy of cheap, handheld global positioning system (GPS) devices such as those made by Magellan™ and Garmin™ increased enormously overnight, just in time for our digital mapping curriculum. At about the same time, National University of Ireland–Galway opened a state-of-the-art geographical information system (GIS) computer laboratory. GIS had already been in widespread use by the USGS and in industries such as environmental engineering (Longley et al., 2001), but rather trivial limitations—for example in plotting dips and strikes (Mies, 1996)—slowed its adoption by field geologists. Initially, we did not have the resources to invest in the newest technology. The sum of $4000 per person required to equip students with backpack-mounted GPS devices, such as those manufactured by Trimble™, and ruggedized tablet personal computers (PCs) was beyond our budget in 2001. This was not entirely a bad thing, as adopters of first-generation technology now find themselves encumbered with bulky equipment and heavy car-battery banks just as light, cheap, second- and third-generation technologies have become readily available. In 2001–2002, we concentrated on palmtop devices—initially personal digital assistant (PDA) devices such as Palm Pilots™ and handheld computers such as Hewlett-Packard iPAQs™— with somewhat cumbersome GPS attachments and waterproof cases. In successive years, we advanced to handheld Trimbles™ (GeoXM model) running the Windows Mobile operating system and ArcPad™ digital mapping software (see Whitmeyer et al., this volume). In the laboratory, we used ArcGIS™ and National Geographic Topo™ software and developed custom programs using Flash Actionscript™ to allow students to create visualizations of their own field data (Fig. 3). Although many others have adopted mobile GIS solutions (e.g., Knoop and van der Pluijm, 2004; Neumann and Kutis, 2006), our approach was, to our knowledge, unique in one respect: whereas most digital mapping courses aim to

Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future

Figure 3. High-end graphic workstations at Galway University help students see their own recent fieldwork in a regional context.

produce publication-quality cartography, we encouraged students to scan their rough field slips and penciled cross-sectional sketches into digital files for use with three-dimensional (3-D) modeling programs such as Bryce™, Carrara™, and our own block-diagram generator in order see their geological interpre-

51

tations draped over local digital terrain models or projected onto the sides of a solid block diagrams. Students responded enthusiastically to the experience of flying by a digital terrain that highlights the locations that they had visited on foot the previous week and seeing their own sketch maps draped onto the digital elevation model (DEM). Our digital mapping efforts have progressed to the stage where we now use these exercises as part of an ongoing research project (Whitmeyer et al., 2008a, 2008b, this volume), and one of our image-draping exercises sowed the seeds for a subsequent publication by camp instructors and colleagues (McCaffrey et al., 2008). Traditionally, after several days of field trips led by professors, students embark on their own map-making. While we retain five day individual mapping projects as the capstone exercise of our course, digital mapping technology has allowed us to incorporate collective mapping projects. Students gather digital field data and upload it to a base workstation each evening. They then create a collective map from that database using ArcGIS (Whitmeyer et al., this volume). The key innovation is that data are accumulated over several years and map interpretations are driven by group consensus, not individual interpretation. The feeling that their work is incorporated in ongoing geologic research and will survive beyond the grading exercise helps promote student engagement. Today, we are in the midst of a new phase in the digital mapping revolution as GES (Google Earth Science) is added to GPS and GIS. This is dramatically illustrated by the geo-mashup of Figure 4 (see wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup), in which the original

Figure 4. William Smith’s (1815) map of England and Wales, Richard Griffith’s (1838) map of Ireland, and Archibald Geikie’s (1876) map of Scotland draped onto the Google Earth terrain (from Simpson and De Paor, 2009). Geologic maps are courtesy British Geological Survey, Geological Survey of Ireland, and the Natural Environmental Research Council, UK.

52

De Paor and Whitmeyer

maps of Smith, Griffith, and Geikie are seen draped over the 3-D Google Earth digital terrain model (De Paor and Sharma, 2007; Simpson and De Paor, 2009; Whitmeyer et al., 2007). Hard-copy maps may be scanned and the resultant digital images draped over the virtual globe’s digital terrain (Fig. 5A). Digital maps superposed on the terrain may be rendered semitransparent for comparative purposes (Fig. 5B; see also Simpson and De Paor, 2009). The potential for removing the time-consuming step of hand-drawing a field map, while retaining the full fidelity of digital data with true outcrop evidence, suggests that digital field mapping is the method of the future for geologic map preparation. In addition, computer-based visualization of 3-D surfaces containing geologic map information introduces new prospects for constraining interpretations based on incomplete field data. In our field course, we advocate an iterative approach to geologic field mapping, whereby field interpretations on sketch maps are draped over the virtual 3-D terrain and continually evaluated throughout the mapping process. Obsolescence in the Traditional Curriculum As outlined herein, our students have to learn many new ways to collect, analyze, and present field information. They need to learn how to use GPS for location; ArcPad, and ArcGIS for data collection, analysis, and visualization; KML for interactive Google Earth maps; etc. Where traditionally they collected four-dimensional data regarding the geological evolution of a region and reduced that to the two dimensions of a paper or Mylar map, today they must create a link between the four dimensions of field evidence (latitude, longitude, altitude, time) and the four dimensions of the virtual globe (pan, tilt, zoom, play). However, the price to be paid for early adoption of technology is the certainty that much of it will be redundant in a matter of years, if not months. Palm Pilots are passé, and with the advent of virtual globe technologies such as Google Earth and NASA World Wind, the use of modeling programs such as Bryce and Carrara for DEM draping is now obsolete. Most recently, we have replaced our custom Flash Actionscript block diagrams with emergent block models created in Google SketchUp™ (De Paor et al., 2008). We need to avoid the pitfalls of teaching short-lived technological skills by emphasizing the importance of appreciating what current technology can do and being willing to experiment with it, rather than teaching rote-learning steps involved in a particular method (Fuller et al., 2002; Niemi et al., 2002; Brodaric, 2004). For financial and logistical reasons, it is not possible to lengthen the duration of most field courses, and new efficiencies in teaching and learning techniques can only save a limited amount of time. In order to make room for the new curriculum components, we need to remove obsolete material from the traditional syllabus. At the same time, we want to retain classical methods that have professional or pedagogical value. Inevitably, some readers will disagree with the cuts we propose, but like those faced with the task of balancing a budget, we encour-

age critics to present alternative solutions provided they “stay within budget.” We would argue that students do not need to know how to locate themselves on a map by taking bearings. It is a nice skill to have in case one’s GPS batteries fail, but if such logic were our way of selecting course content, there would be no end of useful fall-back skills in the curriculum, from the abacus to smoke signals. More controversially, given software such as Allmendinger’s StereoNet (2007), we question whether students need to know how to manually plot a great circle on a stereographic net. Rules about turning tracing paper in the opposite direction to the required strike are not of deep significance. It grieves us to say this because we love teaching this subject, and we witness instances of sudden insight in a significant minority of students. However, it is much more important for students to be able to interpret stereographic data in terms of tectonic models such as progressive pure or simple shear deformation than to be able to follow the geological equivalent of knitting instructions. Like many other traditional methods, the tedium of plotting data on stereonets these days is most efficiently accomplished by using a computer. Finally, construction of strike lines is a quintessential example of an exercise that professors love to give to their students but that is never used in professional practice. Even when those same professors are drawing maps, they almost never employ strike lines, as can be verified by examining published structural maps. The best way for students to learn about contour maps is to manipulate them on a virtual globe such as Google Earth or NASA World Wind. Students can use solid models (as created with programs like Google Sketchup™) to “slice” through the topography and see the cut effects of structures. LEARNING OUTCOMES AND EVALUATION During the early years of the Ireland field camp, we did not have research funding to support objective evaluation of learning outcomes by an external assessor, nor would it have been easy to compare in detail the outcomes from such different courses as BU’s and JMU’s North American–based camps versus the western Ireland camp. However, student evaluations and students’ subsequent, postcamp communication with the instructors suggest that our innovations were highly successful on the whole (see Pyle, this volume). Students felt empowered by their geomorphological group mapping project, attesting to the value of peer learning. They also reported great pride and joy in seeing their maps printed using GIS workstations (Fig. 6) and approved of the incorporation of new digital technologies and researchbased teaching methods in their evaluations (see Whitmeyer et al., this volume). Student evaluations are valuable course assessment tools, but field camp faculty need to be prepared for critical evaluations that at times can be quite off topic. After six weeks in the field, some students suffer serious homesickness, others develop

Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future

Figure 5. (A) Classical mapping of the Connemara region (Leake et al., 1981) viewed as a three-dimensional (3-D) Collada model in Google Earth (De Paor and Sharma, 2007). (B) Student mapping of the Knock Kilbride area, draped over the Google Earth virtual globe (see Whitmeyer et al., this volume). Note semitransparency and time slider. Downloads for Google Earth images and models are available from the Web site: http://www.lions.odu.edu/~ddepaor/Site/Google_Earth_Science.html.

53

54

De Paor and Whitmeyer

Figure 6. Students proudly display maps generated from their own field data and printed with geographic information system (GIS) workstations at Galway University.

personality clashes and petty jealousies, both with their professors and among their peers, and many let the stresses of independent mapping dominate their evaluation. In the end, a few cheery students spreading positive vibes through the group can be as important as project design in affecting learning outcomes. Similarly, a few malcontents can have a disproportionately negative effect on learning. In the case of western Ireland, the vagaries of the climate (ranging from only six wet days in one year to only six dry days in another) can be critical to a successful course. In this respect, when student evaluations are considered, an understanding department chair is essential. Not all new course elements that we introduced when we first moved to western Ireland stood the test of time. Irish faculty initially set unreasonably high standards based on their expectation of capstone course content in the British and Irish system, where undergraduates study geology in greater depth (especially in the field) and have few, if any, distribution courses. After consultation, they then erred in the other direction by devising projects that lacked sufficient challenge. It took a few iterations to reach a working curriculum, and indeed the process of reassessment and revision continues. Finally, the postcamp success of our Ireland field camp students suggests that dropping exercises that we identified as obsolete or redundant did not have a significant negative effect on the students’ final ability to map and “do” geology in the field. CONCLUSIONS In a sense, today’s students “know” everything. Equipped with their field computers and iPhones, they are walking digital encyclopedias. They do not need to memorize all the knowledge that previous generations had to store in their heads. As a corollary, professors should stop acting as incomplete, error-prone walking encyclopedias to their students. In contrast, professors

need to train students not to ask for information that their cell phone already contains. Instead, professors need to help students to evaluate, analyze, and pose the right questions. In short, we as educators should be teaching our students to think on their feet, as opposed to teaching the rote memorization of a field mapping methodology or detailed information about the Jack and Jill Formation or the Humpty Dumpty fault (names from C. Simpson, 1985, personal commun.). We all want future generations to benefit from the field experience, but if field courses are to survive (Drummond, 2001), let alone prosper, we have to convince deans and provosts that these courses are of value beyond the training in geologic mapping that a handful of students will benefit from in graduate studies or industry careers. Despite the increasing popularity of “hands-on projects,” university science courses are still dominated by lectures that students listen to passively and by laboratory courses that have little relationship to how science is practiced by professionals in academia or industry. Working scientists are not presented with apparatus and a set of instructions to follow in order to discover something that is already known to their supervisor. The greatest transferable skill that students learn in the field is how to handle open-ended problems where they must pose the right questions before trying to answer them. Perhaps because they developed this vital skill, students consistently report, both verbally and in course evaluations, that they learned more in a few hours at the outcrop than in weeks of lectures or laboratory assignments. At the Ireland field camp, students grasp and integrate several different fields, e.g., geology, geomorphology, and environmental geology. We are certainly not the first in any individual aspect of this endeavor (e.g., Brown, 1998; Manone et al., 2003), but we have assembled a unique blend of tradition and innovation, hard- and soft-rock, analog and digital, that others may find interesting for comparison. As pointed out by Day-Lewis in 2003, some more traditional geology programs required their stu-

Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future dents to attend pure, hard-rock mapping field courses. Six years later, we have virtually no students complaining that our multidimensional curriculum will not fulfill their departmental requirements. It may be that field camps that adapt to changing student needs have survived better than geology departments that stood by time-honored standards. We should all recognize that within our small discipline of geology, we have already achieved a level of interdisciplinary study that deans and provosts wish other sciences would adopt. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The BU field camp in western Ireland was inaugurated by Carol Simpson in 1996. De Paor served as director of field studies for BU from 2000 to 2005, and Whitmeyer served as director of the JMU field program from 2006 to the present. Faculty include or have included: Martin Feely, Ronan Hennessy, Tiernan Henry, Stephen Kelly, Kate Moore, and Mike Williams of National University of Ireland–Galway; Dave Marchant, Carol Simpson, and Sherilyn Williams-Stroud of BU; Scott Eaton, Mike Harris, Liz Johnson, Steve Leslie, Eric Pyle, and Shelley Whitmeyer of JMU; and Adam Lewis of North Dakota State University. We appreciate the years of logistical support from Trish Walsh, director of Petersburg Outdoor Education Center. Many thanks, as well, are due to many years of Ireland Field Course students who have contributed to our mapping projects and taught us so much. This manuscript was improved by reviews from Dave Mogk, Dave Rodgers, and an anonymous reviewer. This work was partially funded by National Science Foundation grants EAR-IF 0711092, NSF EAR 0711077, and NSF CCLI 0837040. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. REFERENCES CITED Allmendinger, R.W., 2007, StereoNet Software: http://www.geo.cornell.edu/ geology/faculty/RWA/programs.html (accessed 21 July 2009). American Geological Institute (AGI), 1985, A pioneer in Wyoming: Earth Science, v. 38, no. 2: http://fieldcamp.missouri.edu/Camp%20History.htm (accessed 21 July 2009). Anonymous, 2007a, Branson Field Laboratory—Lander, Wyoming. Geology field camp of the University of Missouri, Columbia: http://fieldcamp .missouri.edu (accessed 21 July 2009). Anonymous, 2007b, Geology Field Camp—Field Courses by 100+ Schools— GEOLOGY.COM: http://geology.com/field-camp.shtml (accessed 21 July 2009). Anonymous, 2007c, Céide Fields Visitor Centre Ballycastle, County Mayo, West of Ireland: http://www.museumsofmayo.com/ceide.htm (accessed 21 July 2009). Bond, G., and Lotti, R., 1995, Iceberg discharges into the North Atlantic on millennial timescales during the last deglaciation: Science, v. 267, p. 1005– 1010, doi: 10.1126/science.267.5200.1005. Bowen, D.Q., Phillips, F.M., McCabe, A.M., Knutz, P.C., and Sykes, G.A., 2002, New data for the Last Glacial Maximum in Great Britain and Ireland: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 21, p. 89–101, doi: 10.1016/S0277 -3791(01)00102-0. Brodaric, B., 2004, The design of GSC FieldLog: Ontology-based software for computer aided geological field mapping: Computers & Geosciences, v. 30, p. 5–20, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2003.08.009.

55

Brown, V.M., 1998, Computers at geology field camp: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 46, p. 128–131. Butler, R., 2007, Teaching Geoscience through Field Work: Plymouth, Geography, Earth, and Environmental Sciences (GEES) Subject Centre Learning and Teaching Guide: York, UK, The Higher Teacher Academy, 56 p. Cole, G.A.J., 1998, Memoir of Localities of Minerals of Economic Importance and Metalliferous Mines in Ireland (3rd edition): Mining Heritage Society of Ireland, Government Stationary Office, Dublin, Ireland, 155 p. Cooney, G., 2000, Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland: London, Routledge, 272 p. Coxon, P., 2001, Cenozoic, Tertiary and Quaternary (until 10,000 years before present), in Holland, C.H., ed., The Geology of Ireland: Edinburgh, Dunedin Academic Press, p. 387–428. Coxon, P., 2005a, The late Tertiary landscapes of western Ireland: Irish Geography, v. 38, p. 111–127. Coxon, P., 2005b, The Quaternary of Central Western Ireland: London, Quaternary Research Association, 220 p. Day-Lewis, F.D., 2003, The role of field camp in an evolving geoscience curriculum in the United States: Hydrogeology Journal, v. 11, p. 203–204. De Paor, D.G., and Sharma, A., 2007, Map inversion: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 1, p. 41. De Paor, D.G., Whitmeyer S.J., and Gobert, J., 2008, Emergent Models for Teaching Geology and Geophysics Using Google Earth, Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 89, no. 53, ED31A-0599. Drummond, C.N., 2001, Can field camps survive?: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, p. 336. Elkins, J.T., and Elkins, M.L.E., 2006, Improving student learning during travel time on field trips using an innovative, portable audio/video system: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 147–152. Freeman, T., 1999, Procedures in Field Geology: Malden, UK, Blackwell Science, 95 p. Fuller, E., Hutchinson, W.E., Nguyen, H.Q., Akciz, S.O., Carr, C., Hodges, K.V., and Burchfiel, B.C., 2002, Development of a wireless architecture for digital field geology tools: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, no. 6, p. 294–295. Geikie, A., 1876, Geological Map of Scotland: Edinburgh, W. & A.K. Johnston, 1 map: 85 × 56 cm, available at http://www.nls.uk/maps/scotland/detail .cfm?id=1348 (accessed 21 July 2009). Griffith, R.J., 1838, Outline of the Geology of Ireland: Report of Railway Commissioners: Dublin, map scale 1 in. to 4 m. Harrell, J.A., and Brown, V.M., 1992, The world’s oldest surviving geological map—The 1150 BC Turin Papyrus from Egypt: The Journal of Geology, v. 100, p. 3–18. Johnston, S., Whitmeyer, S.J., and De Paor, D.G., 2005, New developments in digital mapping and visualization as part of a capstone field geology course: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 7, p. 145. Knoop, P.A., and van der Pluijm, B., 2004, Field-based information technology in geology education: Geopads: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 85, no. 47, abstract ED13E-0751. Leake, B.E., Tanner, P.W.G., and Senior, A., 1981, The Geology of Connemara; Color Printed 1:63,360 Geological Map: Glasgow, University of Glasgow, scale 1:63,360. Lonergan, N., and Andresen, L.W., 1988, Field-based education: Some theoretical considerations: Higher Education Research & Development, v. 7, p. 63–77, doi: 10.1080/0729436880070106. Longley, P.A., Goodchild, M., Maguire, D.J., Rhind, D.W., and Lobley, J., 2001, Geographic Information Systems and Science: Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, 454 p. Manone, M.F., Umhoefer, P.J., and Hoisch, T.D., 2003, A digital field camp: Applying emerging technology to teach geologic field mapping: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35, no. 6, p. 411. May, C.L., Eaton, L.S., and Whitmeyer, S.J., 2009, this volume, Integrating student-led research in fluvial geomorphology into traditional field courses: A case study from James Madison University’s field course in Ireland, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(17). McCaffrey, K.J.W., Feely, M., Hennessey, R., and Thompson, J., 2008, Visualisation of folding in marble outcrops, Connemara, western Ireland: An application of virtual outcrop technology: Geosphere, v. 4, p. 588–599, doi: 10.1130/GES00147.1.

56

De Paor and Whitmeyer

McConnell, D.A., Steer, D.N., Owens, K.D., and Knight, C.C., 2005, How students think: Implications for learning in introductory geoscience courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, p. 462–470. Mies, J.W., 1996, Automated digital compilation of structural symbols: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 44, p. 539–548. Neumann, K., and Kutis, M., 2006, Mobile GIS in geologic mapping exercises: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 153–157. Niemi, N.A., Sheehan, D.D., Akciz, S.O., Hodges, K.V., Nguyen, H.Q., Carr, C.E., and Whipple, K.X., 2002, Incorporating handheld computers and pocket GIS into the undergraduate and graduate field geology curriculum: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, no. 6, p. 299. Pyle, E.J., 2009, this volume, The evaluation of field course experiences: A framework for development, improvement, and reporting, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(26). Simpson, C., and De Paor, D.G., 2009, Restoring Maps and Memoirs to FourDimensional Space Using Virtual Globe Technology: A Case Study from the Scottish Highlands: Geological Society of London Special Publication on Continental Tectonics & Mountain Building—The Legacy of Peach & Horne (in press). Smith, W., 1815, A Geological Map of England and Wales and Part of Scotland: London, British Geological Survey, 16 sheets. Socolow, A.A., 1988, The State Geological Surveys: A History: Lexington, Kentucky, American Association of State Geologists, 499 p. Tarbuck, E.J., and Lutgens, F.K., 2002, Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geography: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 351 p.

Thompson, M.M., 1988, Maps for America—Cartographic Products of the U.S. Geological Survey and Others: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 265 p. Whitmeyer, S.J., De Paor, D.G., and Sharma, A., 2007, Innovative Google Earth visualizations of the Appalachian–Caledonian orogeny in eastern North America and western Ireland: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 1, p. 42. Whitmeyer, S.J., De Paor, D.G., Nicoletti, J., Rivera, M., Santangelo, B., and Daniels, J., 2008a, Cross-disciplinary undergraduate research: A case study in digital mapping, western Ireland: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 89, no. 53, abstract ED52A-04. Whitmeyer, S.J., De Paor, D.G., Daniels, J., Nicoletti, J., Rivera, M., and Santangelo, B., 2008b, A pyramid scheme for constructing geologic maps on geobrowsers: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 89, no. 53, abstract IN41B-1140. Whitmeyer, S.J., Feely, M., De Paor, D., Hennessy, R., Whitmeyer, S., Nicoletti, J., Santangelo, B., Daniels, J., and Rivera, M., 2009, this volume, Visualization techniques in field geology education: A case study from western Ireland, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(10). Winchester, S., 2001, The Map That Changed the World: William Smith and the Birth of Modern Geology: New York, Harper Collins, 239 p.

MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009

Printed in the USA

The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009

Integration of field experiences in a project-based geoscience curriculum Paul R. Kelso* Lewis M. Brown† Department of Geology and Physics, Lake Superior State University, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 49783, USA

ABSTRACT The undergraduate geoscience curriculum at Lake Superior State University is field based and project centered. This format provides an active learning environment to enhance student development of a meaningful geoscience knowledge base and of complex reasoning skills in authentic contexts. Field experiences, including data acquisition, are integrated into both lower- and upper-division coursework. Students simulate the activities of practicing geoscientists by conducting all aspects of field projects, including planning, collecting data, analyzing and interpreting data, incorporating background and supplemental data, and completing oral and written reports of results. The projects stimulate interest, provide motivation for learning new concepts, and are structured to develop teamwork and communication skills.

present fundamental geoscience concepts in the context of sequentially ordered problems, many of them field based, that reflect increasing structural complexity and geophysical sophistication (Kelso and Brown, 2008; Brown et al., 2007), different depositional regimes (Brown et al., 2007, 2008), important igneous and metamorphic petrogenetic models (Gonzales and Semken, 2006), and instructive hydrological and geoenvironmental situations (Smith, 1995; Trop et al., 2000). Our revisions were motivated by a number of concerns we have with geology programs based on traditional curricular designs and pedagogy. A central desire was to create a curriculum that would improve student mastery of the core geologic concepts that we identified in a national survey of geoscience faculty administered by the American Geological Institute (Kelso et al., 2001). Along with core concept acquisition, we recognized the need to substantially increase our programmatic emphasis on student written and oral communication skills (Brown et al., 1993), computer and quantitative skills, and problem solving and critical thinking skills. A major goal in our curriculum development was to enhance students’ ability to solve real-world geologic problems

INTRODUCTION The geology faculty at Lake Superior State University (LSSU), a state-funded university in Michigan’s eastern Upper Peninsula, have designed and implemented a new undergraduate geology curriculum (Kelso et al., 2001; Kelso and Brown, 2004). Our curricular goals model those of other educators in promoting development of students’ intellectual and creative thinking skills by engaging them in team-oriented, field-based problems. Field activities are integrated with classroom activities to enhance development of students’ abilities to solve multidisciplinary, realworld geoscience problems (e.g., Smith, 1995; Ireton et al., 1996; National Research Council, 1996a; National Science Foundation Advisory Board, 1996; Trop et al., 2000; Noll, 2003; Gonzales and Semken, 2006; Knapp et al., 2006). The LSSU curriculum is based on constructivist teaching/ learning theories that emphasize active learning. Our courses *[email protected] † [email protected]

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 [email protected]. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

57

58

Kelso and Brown

by integrating concepts from multiple subdisciplines. We accomplished this by creating a set of courses integrating subdiscipline concepts to replace our existing discrete subdiscipline-centered courses. For example, we developed a carbonate systems class that integrates core concepts from carbonate sequence stratigraphy, carbonate depositional and diagenetic environments, and invertebrate paleontology to partially replace existing discrete courses in invertebrate paleontology, carbonate petrology, and stratigraphy (Brown et al., 2007.). We further created a course in clastic systems to address clastic depositional systems, clastic sedimentary petrology, and clastic sequence stratigraphy. The projects in both classes incorporate data from the field and from collected samples. The curricular changes we made in order to incorporate a field component into our sophomore-level structural geology course and the seven integrated upper-division courses are shown in Table 1. Field experiences by their very nature are ideal vehicles by which to deliver an active learning program. Field-based learning helps students construct a better knowledge framework (e.g., Loucks-Horsley et al., 1990; National Research Council, 1996b; Kirschner, 1997; Mintzes et al., 2005; Elkins and Elkins, 2007) by promoting students’ ability to visualize spatial relationships of rocks in three dimensions early in their academic preparation (Kali and Orion, 1996; National Research Council, 2006; Kastens and Ishikawa, 2006; Reynolds et al., 2006). Spatial visualization provides a context for theoretical concepts and direct observation of concrete examples of specific features and their in situ relationships; it is a traditional area of weakness and inhibits conceptual understandings throughout the undergraduate experience (Manduca and Mogk, 2006). Pedagogical focus on field experiences provides an active learning environment that enhances motivation, learning and retention, and problem solving, (McKenzie et al., 1986; National Science Foundation Advisory Board, 1996; Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, 1997) and further develops skills for critical analysis, inquiry, and communication (Gonzales and Semken, 2006). Active, cooperative learning strategies, for example, establishing teams of students working together to solve fieldbased problems, increase conceptual understanding and student achievement and help students overcome misconceptions (e.g., Basili and Sanford, 1991; Johnson et al., 1991; Cuseo, 1992; Cooper, 1995; Esiobu and Soyibo, 1995). We implemented this field-based approach throughout our curriculum (see Table 1) to enhance the learning process and to better prepare geoscientists for graduate programs and careers. Integrating fieldwork into discipline-oriented coursework provides a focus for subdiscipline content application (e.g., Kern and Carpenter, 1986; Gonzales and Semken, 2006) and provides student motivation for learning content (Edelson et al., 2006). These field projects require students to solve problems, think critically, and be involved in all aspects of a geological study from project design to data collection, to interpretation, to formal written and oral project presentations. Where a field component is embedded in a course, we increased scheduled laboratory hours from a more

traditional 2 or 3 h/wk to 6 h/wk. Although scheduled as two 3 h blocks, the allotted time can be used for day-long field trips. Thus, students have the opportunity for more in-depth experiences with less interruption and fewer distractions than might be available in a shorter time period. We typically decreased the “lecture” time by 1 h/wk, so there was no net effect on students’ credit load or associated tuition costs. This restructuring resulted in an increase in the amount of time that students work with a particular concept, student-faculty contact time, and opportunity for in-depth discussion of concepts. Thus, we find that students are better able to transfer conceptual information from text and lecture to field applications and are better able to interpret fieldbased observations. CURRICULUM AND COURSE DESIGN Lake Superior State University’s field-oriented curricular revision (Table 1) requires that students now complete approximately double the amount of fieldwork compared to our old curriculum. As part of our new curriculum, students spend ~13 wk working on projects in the field. These field experiences include two 3 wk summer field courses and numerous half-day to weeklong field excursions associated with individual academic-year courses (Table 1). Our field-based courses begin at the sophomore level with structural geology. This course meets for three lecture and six laboratory hours per week over 14 wk. The course incorporates a field component during which basic field geology skills are taught within the context of structural projects. The structural geology course is followed by a 3 wk sophomore-level summer field course that is the capstone of the geology minor and our students’ lower-division preparation. The goals of the sophomore field experience include student development of field and observational skills, for example, observing and working with rock relationships in space and time, and collecting samples and data that are used in upper-division class projects (Table 1). Thus, early in their undergraduate education, students gain first-hand experience that allows for more sophisticated upper-division fieldwork and enhances upper-division understandings of basic concepts and detailed regional geology. Additionally, the sophomore field experience promotes critical student-student interaction that serves as the basis for upper-division team projects. Further, the extended time for personal interaction in a traveling field-based course encourages meaningful student-instructor communication on professional as well as personal levels and serves to overcome student-instructor barriers that inhibit upper-division learning. The sophomore field course involves travel to a geologic setting that differs from the local area. It addresses field techniques, including cross-section and map preparation, measuring stratigraphic sections, and gathering basic geologic data such as mineral and rock identification in contrasting geological provinces. Students apply basic stratigraphic, sedimentologic, and structural principles to interpret their cross sections and maps and develop basic interpretations of depositional environments. Integration

TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF THE FIELD-BASED COURSES IN LAKE SUPERIOR STATE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE GEOLOGY PROGRAMS New geology curriculum Original geology curriculum Course title Pedagogy Fieldwork (field days) Course title Pedagogy Fieldwork (field days) Field objectives Lecture Some years (1) Project based Structural Structural Geology Day Trips Structural measurements Laboratory Geology and and Tectonics Quaternary and Precambrian (5) Introduction to geologic Geological field-mapping techniques Graphics N.A.* N.A.* N.A.* Introduction to Field Introductory Trip to Wisconsin and Black Hills, South Dakota Basic field mapping Geology mapping Igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic Basic stratigraphic and Geologic systems (19) structural analysis interpretation Lecture Mine field trip (1) Geochemical Systems Project based Igneous and Weekend and day trips Mapping and interpretation Metamorphic Laboratory Igneous/metamorphic systems of igneous, metamorphic, Petrography Economic mineralization (10) and mineralized systems Economic Geology Introduction to Lecture Bedrock geology (1) Geophysical Systems Project based Weekend and day trips Using geophysical Geophysics Problem sets Geophysical mapping field equipment Near-surface applications (10) Conducting geophysical surveys Geotectonics Lecture None Tectonic Systems Project based Spring break trip Terrane analysis Laboratory Appalachian Mountains transect (9) Integration of petrography, structure, and tectonics Stratigraphy Lecture None Clastic Systems Project based Presemester trip and day trips Advanced stratigraphy and Laboratory Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Quaternary (11) Depositional environment Sedimentation interpretations N.A.* N.A.* N.A.* Geoenvironmental Project based Weekend and day trips Environmental assessment Systems Surficial processes Mapping and interpretation Environmental studies (8) of surficial materials Invertebrate Lecture Fossil collection (2) Carbonate Systems Project based Data and samples collected during Introduction Observing and collecting Paleontology Laboratory to Field Geology course samples, fossils, and data from carbonate rocks Sedimentary Lecture None Geology Seminar: Project based Data and samples collected during Introduction Observing outcrops and Petrography Sequence Laboratory to Field Geology course collecting samples and Stratigraphy data Field Geology Mapping Igneous, sedimentary, Advanced Field Advanced mapping Trip to SW United States Advanced field mapping Geologic and metamorphic Geology Geologic Igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic Detailed geologic interpretation systems (40) interpretation systems (19) interpretation *N.A.—not applicable.

59

60

Kelso and Brown

of these field components into upper-division courses such as clastic systems, carbonate systems, and a geologic seminar on sequence stratigraphy (Table 1) is accomplished by requiring students to collect data, including rock suites, that are incorporated into upper-division course projects. Further, the techniques and skills that students develop in the sophomore experience are reinforced in upper-division courses in which students concentrate on solving sets of specific, realworld geologic problems that are drawn from a variety of geologic settings. Our upper-division fall offerings—geophysical systems, clastic systems, geochemical systems, and geoenvironmental systems—are field intensive and require half-day to week-long field excursions to promote in-depth understanding of geologic problems. In these courses, we integrate the key core concepts of a number of geoscience subdisciplines, such as geophysics, physical stratigraphy, petroleum geology, paleontology, geochemistry, economic geology, surficial processes, and surface and subsurface contamination. Similarly, one of our seasonally challenged winter/spring offerings, tectonic systems, incorporates a 1 wk field trip to study the tectonics of the southeastern Appalachians during our spring break. Our upper-division coursework also includes a second 3 wk summer field course that emphasizes mapping skills in structurally complex terrains with a wider range of sedimentologic and petrologic problems. The following discussion illustrates our field-intensive curriculum by describing in some detail the format of two of our upper-division, academic-year courses, clastic systems and geophysical systems. Clastic Systems Our new curriculum is structured so that key geologic concepts are integrated sequentially throughout the curriculum. Key concepts introduced at the sophomore level, for example, are revisited in the upper-division courses at progressive levels of sophistication. For example, the Clastic Systems course builds

sequentially upon a number of concepts and field-data collections from the sophomore-level Introduction to Field Geology course. These include basic field methods, rock classification, interpretation of sedimentary features, and production and interpretation of maps and cross sections (Table 1). The sophomore field course requires students to collect clastic rock suites and observe sedimentary features from formations of different ages in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming, including the Deadwood Formation, Minnelusa Formation, and four exposed members of the Sundance Formation. Fieldwork during the Clastic Systems course includes a 1 wk presemester field trip to Mississippian and Pennsylvanian clastic outcrops in the southern part of the Illinois Basin and six to eight one-half to full-day local field experiences during structured class times. Emphasis is placed on reinforcing good field technique, introducing more sophisticated classification systems, observing, describing, and interpreting the origin of primary sedimentary structures, and interpreting depositional environments. The rock suites from the Black Hills, along with material collected on the clastics field trips, form the basis of Clastic Systems course projects involving interpretation of processes that form clastic rocks, sedimentological principles, and depositional environments. For example, whereas students in the sophomore field course apply a simplified version of Pettijohn’s (1975) clastic classification in assigning rock names and in utilizing individual and group observations and measurements to create field-based cross sections and geologic maps, the clastics classroom work requires microscopic examination to more accurately identify minerals and determine mineral percentages and grain size and textural relationships. Students in the clastics class focus on developing detailed rock descriptions and graphic sedimentary logs (Nichols, 1999). They gather data for class projects that address transport, deposition, and deformation of detrital units including observation and measurement of primary clastic sedimentary structures to interpret fluid flow, current direction, and soft sediment deformation (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Teams of students studying sedimentary processes in Quaternary deposits during a laboratory session for the Clastic Systems class.

Integration of field experiences in a project-based geoscience curriculum Other Clastics Systems course projects require a comparison of sedimentary features that students initially observed in the Pennsylvanian Minnelusa Formation in the Black Hills to exposures of Precambrian primary features (ripple marks, mud cracks, etc.) and soft sediment deformation features in our local area and to features of Pennsylvanian rocks they observe in the southern part of the Illinois Basin during the required presemester weeklong field trip. Other local day-trip projects allow students to compare local exposures of Precambrian glacial deposits, ripple marks, mud cracks, and soft sediment deformation features to local Quaternary glacial and fluvial deposits and modern depositional environments. Thus, students study first hand the relationships between sedimentation processes and products over both geologic time and geographic distance. In the Clastic Systems class, students revise the cross sections and geologic maps that they constructed during the sophomore field geology course and construct new maps, such as facies maps, to meet specific project objectives. Collected data, along with Clastic Systems course readings and lecture material, allow students to interpret depositional environments for all of the rock units they have observed, both in the sophomore field class and during the clastics field excursions. Students produce sophisticated geological interpretations such as application of sequencestratigraphic principles and facies-model interpretations, including consideration of depositional environmental parameters such as climatic changes that vary through time. Other projects in the clastics systems course encourage students to develop an understanding of repetitive sedimentation patterns by examining evidence for multiple glaciation events from the local Proterozoic Canadian Shield and Pleistocene glacial deposits and by comparing/contrasting depositional paradigms associated with Pennsylvanian deposits in the Illinois Basin. Students in our upper-division Sequence Stratigraphy Seminar again use rock descriptions of the Minnelusa Formation and field maps and cross sections they generated in the sophomore field course in the Black Hills. Their field observations, in conjunction with subsurface maps that students generated based on borehole data that they retrieved from the Wyoming Geological Survey Web site, form the bases for a class project to generate a hydrocarbon play in the subsurface of the Powder River Basin. For this exercise, the students generate a base map, plot the boreholes, create cross sections and facies, paleogeographic and structure contour maps, interpret depositional environments, and summarize their results in a formally written “exploration report.” These activities enhance student facility with concepts and principles related to depositional processes. Their ability to interpret and reconstruct geological events is far advanced compared to students that completed our previous more traditional lecture/ laboratory course. We base this conclusion on personal observations, student comments on class evaluations, student’s comments upon engaging in graduate-level work, and comments from employers. For example, we find that student in-class questions are more sophisticated, their understanding of advanced

61

concepts is greater, and their ability to complete complex projects is improved over student overall performance in our previous traditional courses. Geophysical Systems Our Geophysical Systems course (Kelso and Brown, 2008) is another example of the way in which integration of fieldwork into an academic-year offering is developed in our curriculum. All Geophysical System course projects are field-based, requiring students to spend 1–3 d collecting field geologic and geophysical data and information on potential cultural anomaly sources. Thus, students improve their observational skills and recognize data limitations and potential sources of error through the collection of their own data in the field. This course, like many of our upper-division courses, is designed to model industry practices and promote student concept acquisition and problem-solving skills. We teach key geophysical concepts, theories, and techniques in the context of real geophysical projects. Solving the problems associated with each field project requires students to learn relevant geoscience concepts and then apply them immediately to a particular study. The projects include geologic mapping in poorly exposed regions, water table and buried bedrock topographic studies (Fig. 2A), and identification of buried objects in such places as military sites and old cemeteries. For these and other projects, students generate and interpret a variety of geophysical maps, cross sections, and surface and subsurface maps (Fig. 2B). The general format of the Geophysical Systems course is exemplified by the progression of activities incorporated into the Camp Lucas project, summarized in Figure 3. The goal of this project is to identify buried objects remaining at the abandon Camp Lucas military facility, which is now part of the Lake Superior State University campus. The project site is the proposed location for a future campus building. Thus, the project results, identifying remaining military materials, address a real geoscience issue that is of interest to the campus community, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. A variety of other geophysical field problems are addressed throughout the course, and critical background information for each project is gathered by student research and provided by instructor supplements. Projects progress from generally straightforward geophysical studies to more complex problems involving more sophisticated applications that require teams of students to integrate multiple types of field, geologic, and geophysical information (May and Gibbons, 2004). Following introduction of a project by the instructor, student teams each develop a written proposal for work to be completed. All project proposals must include justification for each geophysical instrument chosen; anticipated anomaly characteristics for each instrument, including a forward model of anticipated anomaly magnitude and width; survey design for each instrument including station and line location and spacing

62

Kelso and Brown

Figure 2. (A) A student team collecting 24-channel seismic refraction data as part of a geophysical study to determine the water table and bedrock depth and slope on a fall afternoon. (B) A student team’s final interpretation of the bedrock geology of a glacially covered region based on results from multiple geophysical data sets (magnetic data is included on this map).

Geophysical Systems: Camp Lucas Project Flowchart Outcomes

Project Objective Locate buried objects at an abandoned military site on the Lake Superior State University campus

Forward model of anticipated anomalies

Magnetic and electromagnetic background information

Field geophysics survey designs proposed

Project proposal: written and oral

Magnetic and electromagnetic theory Conduct electromagnetic field survey

Conduct magnetic field survey

Set up field survey lines

Process magnetic and electromagnetic data

Initial plotting and interpretation of magnetic and electromagnetic field data

Final model and interpretation of magnetic and electromagnetic field data based on theory and observation

Written report of processes and interpretation

Oral presentation of processes and interpretation

Class debates best survey design Initial modeling of magnetic and electromagnetic field data

Figure 3. Flowchart for the design of one project undertaken in the Geophysical Systems course. The flowchart outlines the Camp Lucas geophysical project to locate buried objects remaining at the abandoned military facility, which is now part of the Lake Superior State University Campus.

Student-driven independent, follow-up research: Students conduct field resistivity and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) surveys over modeled anomalies, interpret data, and present the results at a national meeting

Integration of field experiences in a project-based geoscience curriculum based in part on modeling; anticipated time and financial costs; and logistical considerations. Students present their project proposals orally, and they debate the merits of each. The class then decides the field survey characteristics they will use (Fig. 3). Through the series of projects, student teams collect data with a gravimeter, magnetometer (total field and vertical component), electromagnetic systems (horizontal loop and very long frequency receiver), seismic system (12 or 24 channel), groundpenetrating radar, resistivity/induced polarization system (28 electrode), and self potential system, so all students learn to operate all instruments and interpret the data from each. The size of the project area and the target influence the method of data collection. Due to time constraints, it is often necessary for each team to gather data with all the chosen instruments from a portion of a project area and then share data so that a project can be completed efficiently. Students, individually and in teams, process, plot, model, and interpret all field data sets collected. Students’ computer and quantitative skills are developed through data analysis that requires the use of a variety of software, from Excel and Surfer for data processing and presentation, to sophisticated forward and inverse geophysical modeling software packages (Fig. 2B). Students’ progress is assessed at intermediate stages during the project when students submit plots of data and engage in discussions of associated data processing and/or interpretations. Because students have multiple data sets available, they must develop a final interpretation that is consistent with all the data available (Fig. 2B). The multiple field data sets and the existing background information often provide critical constraints on the nonuniqueness of geophysical data and require students to evaluate alternative hypotheses. The final project evaluation includes both a written and an oral component and encourages constructive peer evaluation within a team and between teams. CONCLUSIONS Through a field-based, project-centered approach to teaching geoscience at Lake Superior State University, students’ ability to apply geoscience concepts to solving multidisciplinary problems has significantly improved, along with their self-confidence and their retention of material. We base this conclusion on a qualitative assessment of students’ class responses and project work, student evaluations, their success at graduate school, and the comments of employers. The results of program assessment involving implementation of concept maps, clinical student interviews, multidisciplinary problem-solving activities, and the geoscience concept inventory (Libarkin and Anderson, 2005) all record student growth (Englebrecht et al., 2005; Brown et al., 2008). We find that field studies and project-based activities build team work and communication skills and require students to solve open-ended problems by collecting the data necessary to critically evaluate multiple hypotheses and integrate and evaluate information from a number of subdisciplines. Through these activities, students simulate the practices of geoscience profes-

63

sionals and thus gain a strong background for geoscience careers in industry, academics, or public service. Curricular revision requires motivation, support, and the time necessary to devote to the requisite planning and implementation phases. Field-based learning can be implemented on a courseby-course basis or, as in our case, can prompt an entire programmatic revision. Our frustration with traditional course structures and lecture-based learning prompted us to experiment with alternatives. At first, we developed new laboratory exercises, but we quickly realized that there is no substitute for field-based experiential learning. We began by integrating course-required spring break and weekend trips into select courses. The results were immediately obvious. Student interest was greatly enhanced, and their active participation in on-site exercises resulted in muchimproved learning as shown by test results, problem-solving, and overall quality of written work. Our results motivated us to revise our entire curriculum. Our ability to plan and implement a substantially revised curriculum based on a fundamental pedagogical change was enhanced by the philosophical compatibility of the geology instructors and their commitment to allocate the necessary time to curriculum development often at the expense of other professional commitments, such as individual research and personal time. Additionally, the revisions would not have been possible without the support of university administration, including their commitment to support a revision in course and faculty schedules to accommodate the increased laboratory time. Clearly, faculty commitment and administrative support are prerequisites to the success of any substantial curriculum revision. Faculty commitment to field-based learning is time consuming. Class preparation includes time to visit field sites such as classic outcrops, quarries, aggregate pits, construction sites, and local geoenvironmental concerns. Field sites may vary from year to year depending upon access and opportunity, and this requires an ongoing time commitment to course preparation. Additionally, faculty must address logistical issues, such as site access, transportation, and availability and maintenance of necessary field equipment. Planning must also include consideration of variable weather, safety concerns, and scheduling of field activities to avoid student and faculty time conflicts. We advocate, however, that if a field-intensive curriculum can be successfully implemented at Lake Superior State University, with its weatherconstrained field season, field-intensive courses can be successful implemented at many other institutions. The unique educational opportunities that field-based activities provide and the enhanced student motivation are worth the extra effort required. There are significant challenges on the horizon. The cost and liability related to the travel, fieldwork, and equipment associated with field projects are rapidly becoming of major concern. We have instituted a course fee for all academic-year offerings to help offset field-excursion costs. To minimize travel expenses, we have variously used university cars, minivans, fifteen-passenger vans and fifteen-passenger buses, along with car rentals and air travel where appropriate, but these costs continue to increase. Also, safety concerns related to vehicular road travel are ongoing.

64

Kelso and Brown

Strategies must be developed and continuously revised in order to overcome these challenges so that students can continue to benefit from geoscience field experiences. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This curriculum revision was supported in part by National Science Foundation grant DUE-9952319 to Brown and Kelso. We thank Joel Mintzes for his assistance with course and curriculum assessment and Barb Tewksbury for her assistance with course and curriculum design. REFERENCES CITED Basili, P.A., and Sanford, P.J., 1991, Conceptual change strategies and cooperative group work in chemistry: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 28, p. 293–304, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660280403. Brown, L.M., Pingatore, D.R., Carson, C.K., and Rexroad, C.B., 1993, A comprehensive model for teaching writing skills: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 41, p. 151–154. Brown, L.M., Kelso, P.R., White, R.J., and Rexroad, C.B., 2007, A projectbased geoscience curriculum: Select examples: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 88, no. 52, abstract ED42A-02. Brown, L.M., Kelso, P.R., Nelkie, E., and Rexroad, C.B., 2008, Carbonate systems: A project-based undergraduate upper division course: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 4, p. 70. Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, 1997, Science Teaching Reconsidered: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 97 p. Cooper, J., 1995, You say cooperative, I say collaborative; let’s call the whole thing off: Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, v. 5, p. 1–2. Cuseo, J., 1992, Collaborative and cooperative learning in higher education: A proposed taxonomy: Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, v. 2, p. 2–5. Edelson, D.C., Pitts, V.M., Salierno, C.M., and Sherin, B.L., 2006, Engineering geosciences learning experiences using the Learning-for-Use design framework, in Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, p. 53–76. Elkins, J.T., and Elkins, N.M.L., 2007, Teaching geology in the field: Significant geoscience concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geology courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, p. 126–132. Englebrecht, A.C., Mintzes, J.J., Brown, L.M., and Kelso, P.R., 2005, Assessment strategies for a university-level physical geology course: Utilizing concept maps and interviews: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, p. 263–270. Esiobu, G.O., and Soyibo, K., 1995, Effects of concept and vee mappings under three learning modes on students’ cognitive achievement in ecology and genetics: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 32, p. 971–995, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660320908. Gonzales, D., and Semken, S., 2006, Integrating undergraduate education and scientific discovery through field research in igneous petrology: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 133–142. Ireton, M.F.W., Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., 1996, Shaping the Future of Undergraduate Earth Science Education: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union (also available at http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/ spheres/), 61 p. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A., 1991, Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom: Edina, Minnesota, Interaction Book Company, 270 p. Kali, Y., and Orion, N., 1996, Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geologic structures: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 33, p. 369–391, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199604)33 :43.0.CO;2-Q. Kastens, K.A., and Ishikawa, T., 2006, Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences: A cross-disciplinary look at the intersection of the

two fields, in Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, p. 53–76. Kelso, P.R., and Brown, L.M., 2004, Strengthening an undergraduate geoscience department through a new project-centered curriculum: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 5, p. 352. Kelso, P.R., and Brown, L.M., 2008, A geology curriculum for the 21st century: Leading Edge (Tulsa, Oklahoma), v. 27, p. 1334–1339, doi: 10.1190/1.2996544. Kelso, P.R., Brown, L.M., Mintzes, J.J., and Englebrecht, A.C., 2001, A geology program revised: Geotimes, v. 46, p. 19. Kern, E.L., and Carpenter, J.R., 1986, Effect of field activities on student learning: Journal of Geological Education, v. 34, p. 180–183. Kirschner, J.G., 1997, Traditional field camp: Still important: Geotimes, v. 42, p. 5. Knapp, E.P., Greer, L., Connors, C.D., and Harbor, D.J., 2006, Field-based instruction as part of a balanced geoscience curriculum at Washington and Lee University: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 93–102. Libarkin, J.C., and Anderson, S.W., 2005, Assessment of learning in entry-level geoscience courses: Results from the Geoscience Concept Inventory: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, no. 4, p. 394–401. Loucks-Horsley, S., Clark, R.C., Kuerbis, P.J., Kapitan, R., and Carlson, M.D., 1990, Elementary School Science for the ’90s: Alexandria, Virginia, Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development, 166 p. Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., 2006, Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, 188 p. May, M.T., and Gibbons, M.G., 2004, Introducing students to environmental geophysics in a field setting: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 52, p. 254–259. McKenzie, G.D., Utgard, R.O., and Lisowski, M., 1986, The importance of field trips: Journal of College Science Teaching, v. 16, p. 17–20. Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J., and Novak, J., eds., 2005, Teaching Science for Understanding: A Human Constructivist View: San Diego, California, Academic Press, 360 p. National Research Council, 1996a, From analysis to action: Undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering and technology: Report of a convocation: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, p. 13–36. National Research Council, 1996b, National Science Education Standards: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 272 p. National Research Council, 2006, Learning to think spatially: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 313 p. National Science Foundation Advisory Board, 1996, Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: Arlington, Virginia, National Science Foundation Publication 96-139, 76 p. Nichols, G., 1999, Sedimentology and Stratigraphy: Malden, Massachusetts, Blackwell Science, 355 p. Noll, M.R., 2003, Building bridges between field and laboratory studies in an undergraduate groundwater course: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 51, p. 231–236. Pettijohn, F.J., 1975, Sedimentary Rocks (3rd edition): New York, Harper and Row, 628 p. Reynolds, S.J., Piburn, M.D., Leedy, D.E., McAuliffe, C.M., Birk, J.P., and Johnson, J.K., 2006, The Hidden Earth—Interactive, computer-based modules for geoscience learning, in Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, p. 157–170. Smith, G.L., 1995, Using field and laboratory exercises on local water bodies to teach fundamental concepts in an introductory oceanography course: Journal of Geological Education, v. 43, p. 480–484. Trop, J.M., Krockover, G.H., and Ridgway, K.D., 2000, Integration of field observations with laboratory modeling for understanding hydrologic processes in an undergraduate earth-science course: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 48, p. 514–521.

MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009

Printed in the USA

The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009

Experience One: Teaching the geoscience curriculum in the field using experiential immersion learning Robert C. Thomas Sheila Roberts Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Montana Western, Dillon, Montana 59725, USA

ABSTRACT At the University of Montana Western (UMW), geoscience classes are taught primarily through immersion in field research projects. This paper briefly describes: (1) why and how we achieved a schedule that supports immersion learning, (2) examples of two geoscience classes taught in the field, (3) assessment, and (4) the challenges of this model of teaching and learning. The University of Montana Western is the first public four-year campus to adopt immersion learning based on one-class-at-a-time scheduling. We call it “Experience One” because classes emphasize experiential learning and students take only one class for 18 instructional days. The system was adopted campus wide in the fall of 2005 after a successful pilot program funded by the U.S. Department of Education. The geoscience curriculum has been altered to reduce lecture and focus on field projects that provide direct experience with the salient concepts in the discipline. Students use primary literature more than textbooks, and assessment emphasizes the quality of their projects and presentations. Many projects are collaborative with land-management agencies and private entities and require students to use their field data to make management decisions. Assessment shows that the immersion-learning model improves educational quality. For example, the 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) showed that UMW has high mean scores compared to other campuses participating in the survey. Of the many challenges, none is more important than the need for faculty to change the ways in which they interact with students. INTRODUCTION

accomplished primarily through lecture-based field trips, shortduration field exercises, and spring- or fall-break trips. In order to engage students in authentic experiential research projects in the field, more time is needed, and conflicts with other courses must be eliminated. A scheduling system that provides this kind of immersion opportunity was successfully developed and implemented in the late 1960s by Colorado College (i.e., their “block plan”) and is still in use on that campus today. This system immerses students in one class at a time for 18 instructional days, followed by a four day break. It provides scheduling flexibility and an opportunity to concentrate on the subject

Seeds of Change Authentic field experiences are at the heart of the study of Earth. However, it is difficult to incorporate extended fieldwork into geology classes in the traditional semester system due to time constraints and conflicts with other classes. This has long been recognized and resulted in the inclusion of a required summer immersion “field camp” in most undergraduate geology programs. During the regular school year, field geology is typically

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 [email protected]. ©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 modified version of it, and all of them are private. So, why is this the case? The answer is undoubtedly complex; certainly, the inertia inherent in long-established educational methods and the fact that the burden is on faculty to fundamentally change how they interact with students are major factors. The longer time blocks cannot be effectively filled with traditional lecture presentations. Faculty must engage students in experiential applications or the larger time blocks can become an impediment to learning. A Need for Change at the University of Montana Western The University of Montana Western (UMW) was founded in 1893 as the state normal school. By the early 1990s, most campuses in Montana were training K–12 teachers, and UMW faculty began searching for ways to distinguish the campus as unique and necessary in the Montana University system. Because of limited campus resources and external pressures from the state Board of Regents (BOR) to limit duplicative programs, the options for change at UMW were greatly limited. To solve the problem, the UMW faculty developed interdisciplinary, liberal arts degrees that maximized limited faculty resources. In the sciences, we organized an interdisciplinary Department of Environmental Sciences and focused on fieldbased projects (Thomas et al., 1996). Anecdotal evidence suggested that students showed improved cognition and metacognition, and we concluded that they appeared to be learning scientific concepts and skills more “deeply” in these courses. The very low number of students missing the field classes indicated that they were more engaged than they were in the lecture courses, which sometimes saw a 40% absentee rate after the second week of the semester. The success of the program did not go unnoticed, however, and within a few years, undergraduate programs in environmental sciences appeared at several other campuses in the Montana University system. Our realization that programs could be duplicated and our growing frustration with the standard scheduling combined to create a watershed moment in the history of UMW. A small number of faculty from several departments realized that it was time to act on an earlier desire to do something fundamentally unique in higher education. The pedagogical impetus for choosing Experience One began with a faculty conclusion that student cognition and metacognition improved when they were immersed in their subject and had time to apply their learning to discipline-related problem solving. A wealth of published educational research and assessment has documented that experiential learning, inquiry-based learning, and immersion learning all improve the depth of concept understanding, so we were confident that this was the right thing

to do (e.g., Dewey, 1991; Kolb, 1984; Rogers and Freiberg, 1994; Johnson et al., 1998; Kolb and Kolb, 2005; Beard and Wilson, 2006). The next step in this process involved a recognition that the academic schedule itself was the primary impediment to engaging students in “authentic practice in the discipline,” our working definition of experiential learning (Thomas and Roberts, 2003). For geologists, teaching experientially requires time to transport students to field locations and engage them in extended project work, and we were still delivering most classes via the traditional 50-minute lectures and two-hour laboratory sessions. Environmental sciences faculty needed a practical solution that would facilitate our growing dependency on field-based courses to deliver experiential learning. We made several experimental attempts to free our department of this restriction (see “Challenges” section). The campus discussion turned to adapting the scheduling system pioneered by Colorado College. Colorado College adopted this system primarily to eliminate the problem of students prioritizing classes (Loevy, 1999; Taylor, 1999). For UMW, it was a comprehensive solution that benefited experiential learning and, it was hoped, might prove attractive enough to improve campus enrollment. So, during the winter of 1997, we traveled to Colorado College with the UMW dean of faculty to investigate the feasibility of adopting block scheduling. The report that circulated soon after the visit sparked in-house debate on the merits of making UMW the first public university in the United States to fully adopt block scheduling. Faculty support for the transition to block scheduling was strong from the start, but there were many skeptics as well. To facilitate a change of this magnitude, a grant was obtained from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) to run a three-year pilot program (Roberts et al., 2001). The pilot program consisted of 75 first-year students who volunteered to take their general education requirements one class at a time. In total, 16 professors from all general education disciplines volunteered to teach the classes, and the grant paid for temporary replacements so they could devote an entire semester to the pilot program. By every measure, the pilot program was very successful (Mock, 2005). After 3 years of operating the program with freshmen only, rigorous assessment of the results, vigorous campus discussion, contentious and exhaustive approval processes at meetings of the Board of Regents, and a unanimous vote in favor of adopting the system by the UMW Faculty Senate, the transition was approved. In 2005, the University of Montana Western became the first public, four-year campus in the United States to adopt one-class-at-atime immersion scheduling for the majority of classes. HOW DOES EXPERIENCE ONE WORK? Experience One works across the curriculum. At UMW, students take the vast majority of their courses one at a time (i.e., a block) over 18 instructional days, four credits per class. Most classes attain their required hours by meeting five days per week

Experience One: Teaching the geoscience curriculum in the field using experiential immersion learning

67

for an average of three hours per day, but there is flexibility in the way class time is distributed. At the end of each class, there is a four-day break for students before the next class begins. Students typically take four classes per semester for a total of 16 credits. They register for all classes at the beginning of the semester, but they can drop or add classes up to the second day of each block without penalty. Block classes are typically not scheduled after 3:15 p.m. to allow students to participate in athletics and work afternoon and evening jobs. However, flexibility in the distribution of time during each block, particularly for upper-division courses, provides educational opportunities during class time that is not typically available in the semester system. For example, in project-based courses, students may be immersed in data gathering all day long for a week or more, possibly preceded by a few days of preparatory lectures and reading and usually followed by less-structured time to analyze data and process information. Some classes involve extensive national and international travel that can consume several weeks of time for total immersion. Although the majority of classes are “blocked” in this way, some are scheduled for the entire semester (“stringer classes”), and some are scheduled for short periods of time during the semester. These allow flexibility, particularly for classes that require skill development over more than 18 instructional days (e.g., some art, music, and language classes). Many of the continuing education courses are taught as stringer classes, since the students who take these classes are commonly off-campus (e.g., online students) and taking classes while working full time. Students in block classes can add various one- or two-credit classes to a semester. Professors at UMW meet their 24-credit annual teaching obligation by teaching three of the four blocks per semester, and the fourth block is utilized for research, grant writing, professional travel, and course development. Breaks between classes provide time for grading and class preparation, although it is not uncommon for faculty to work through the weekend of a break in order to submit grades before the next class begins. The schedule is intense but satisfying.

rocks, minerals, and resources class is primarily laboratory based, with several field trips (sometimes multiple days). The geoscience program at UMW was designed to provide specific content emphases within interdisciplinary baccalaureate degrees in Environmental Science and Environmental Interpretation. Although the geology class descriptions look familiar on paper (UMW Course Catalog, 2009), the majority of them are structured very differently from comparable geology classes taught elsewhere. Lectures tend to be short and are used to introduce foundational aspects of the discipline and the field projects, and to expand on issues that arise during the applied experiences. Students often use the research literature more than textbooks. The emphasis is on field projects that provide students with direct experience with the most salient concepts and tools of the discipline. Students are typically assessed using authentic assessment practices (Ames and Archer, 1988), including the quality of their project participation, reports, and presentations. Beyond the entry level, the importance of exams and quizzes is much reduced, or these assessment vehicles may not be used at all. Many projects require students to use their data to make land-management decisions, sometimes in collaboration with land-management agencies or private consulting firms. The professor/supervisor job is different with groups of undergraduate students on a tight timetable than it is with individual graduate students working on a project over several years. Nonetheless, undergraduate students can accomplish a tremendous amount of meaningful research with careful supervision (Roberts et al., 2007; Thomas and Roberts, 2007). In order to provide examples of the ways that traditional geology courses have been altered at UMW to take advantage of the Experience One system, we describe two classes in our curriculum that are taught primarily in the field through research and management projects: (1) structural geology and (2) surficial processes.

EXAMPLES FROM THE GEOSCIENCES

The Dillon area is ideal for teaching structural geology in the field. In fact, many universities from around the globe use the area each summer to teach field geology because of great access to a variety of rock types and structural environments. To take advantage of this natural laboratory, the structural geology class at UMW does two projects over the course of 18 days that are centered on two different structural settings: (1) a convergent tectonic environment (see Block Mountain), and (2) a divergent tectonic environment (see Timber Hill). The class concludes with a field final that is intended to challenge the students to work independently, test their skills, and most importantly, prove to themselves that they can synthesize and interpret the data they have collected without the need for help (see Dalys spur). The class does not include a traditional lecture, but a small dry-erase board is used in the field to provide sketches, terminology, and other pertinent information. The class has no

The geosciences are well suited for Experience One. The entry-level classes at UMW are typically capped at 20–25 students, and the rest of the geoscience classes typically range from 10 to 20 students. The small classes and large blocks of time allow for field- and project-based work that is difficult to achieve in most geology classes on the semester and trimester (quarter) systems. Although not every class is taught completely in the field, they all have a large field component. The geoscience classes that do not have major field research experiences are the entry-level courses and a few upper-level courses (e.g., rocks, minerals and resources, and geology seminar). However, all classes have field experiences, including weekly trips in the entry-level courses to expose students to in-class concepts and projects that require students to work independently in the field (Thomas, 2001). The

Structural Geology

68

Thomas and Roberts

traditional laboratory, yet the students have office days to construct structural cross sections, process field data, conduct analyses, and write reports. The class does not have a textbook, but several copies of a structural geology text (Davis and Reynolds, 1996) are made available in the laboratory for students to look up information as needed, and they use pertinent published literature and web resources. In addition, students have the option to purchase a copy of the Geological Society of London handbook series on mapping geological structures (McClay, 1995), which many students choose to do even though the book is relatively expensive. Block Mountain Block Mountain is an extraordinary fold-and-thrust belt structure and a keystone mapping project for the many field camps in the Dillon area. The project lies within an area designated by the Bureau of Land Management as a Research Natural Area, and the structure consists of a north-plunging fold pair with a major folded thrust fault (and many minor thrust faults) within the stratigraphic sequence (Sears et al., 1989). Most field camps use the project to learn the skill of mapping and cross-section construction, but they rarely apply the data to solving geologic problems. At UMW, the structural geology students not only learn field skills (Fig. 1), but they also learn about the physical and chemical processes that form the structures by conducting descriptive, kinematic, and dynamic analyses on the data they have collected. Most importantly, they apply their understanding to solving geologic problems, such as interpreting the stresses that produced the deformation or determining the logical sequence of folding and thrust faulting. Students also apply their structural data to making landmanagement decisions and writing reports that assess economic resources. In the final report, they are required to include an analysis of the potential geologic resources within the map area, including a thorough explanation of why particular resources might occur within the map area and the probability that they occur at economic levels. In addition, they research the federal and state regulations required to develop these resources and make decisions about which resources to develop based on all of these factors. Their findings are compiled into reports that are modeled after the Environmental Assessment (EA) reports constructed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The project takes a minimum of six field days and three on-campus office days to complete. The students get a day off after the exercise and before they start the Timber Hill project. Timber Hill The Timber Hill area exposes mostly Paleogene and Neogene terrestrial sedimentary rocks that are cut by an active (but historically dormant) normal fault called the Sweetwater fault (Sears et al., 1995). The fault has ~700 ft (210 m) of offset and is part of the northwest-trending normal fault system in southwest Montana that lies within the Intermountain Seismic Belt (Stickney, 2007). The area contains a remarkable record of drain-

Figure 1. Students in structural geology learning field skills at Block Mountain.

age systems that came off of the track of the Yellowstone hotspot (Sears and Thomas, 2007) and is an ideal environment for students to learn about extensional structures and paleogeomorphology. A 6.0 Ma basalt flow, which can be traced for many kilometers toward its source on the Snake River Plain, holds up the topography in the area and provides a textbook example of inverted topography. The project requires the students to map a 1 mi2 (2.59 km2) area, and heavy emphasis is placed on mapping surficial deposits and landforms like landslides, rock falls, valley-fill alluvium, and alluvial fans. Students also identify areas of potential liquefaction and surface rupture related to the Sweetwater fault. The students not only map the area, but they also draw several cross sections and work out the geohistory of the area. They also take structural data, particularly from the joints and foliation in the underlying Archean metamorphic rocks in order to determine potential groundwater resources and flow paths. The land-management component requires the students to use these data to identify seismic and other geohazards associated with a proposed (fictitious) subdivision on the property. The students are asked to consider these natural hazards in placing a house,

Experience One: Teaching the geoscience curriculum in the field using experiential immersion learning water well, and septic tank on 20 lots located throughout the map area. They investigate and describe techniques used to stabilize landslides, rock falls, and other slope instabilities (e.g., areas of soil creep) that occur in the map area, and they are asked to determine the appropriate state and federal regulations for developing the property. The results are written up in a report format that is typical of those produced in the geotechnical consulting industry, examples of which are provided to the students for appropriate language and layout. This project takes a minimum of four field days and two on-campus office days to complete. The students get a day off at the end of the project to rest up for the “final exam” at Dalys spur. Dalys Spur This exercise serves as the final exam in structural geology. The one-day project involves mapping a <x>$SCALE $SCALE $SCALE ./files/$MODEL ...”

REFERENCES CITED Argand, E., 1922, La tectonique de l’Asie, in Congrès Géologique International, Belgique: Liège, Belgium, Comptes Rendus, p. 171–372. Brimhall, G., 1999, Evaluation of digital mapping in introductory and advanced field classes at UC Berkeley: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 31, no. 7, p. A-191.

Visualization techniques in field geology education: A case study from western Ireland Butler, R., 2007, Teaching Geoscience through Field Work: Plymouth, UK, Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences Learning and Teaching Guide, 56 p. Chew, D.M., Graham, J.R., and Whithouse, M.J., 2007, U-Pb zircon geochronology of plagiogranites from the Lough Nafooey (= Midland Valley) arc in western Ireland: Constraints on the onset of the Grampian orogeny: Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 164, p. 747–750, doi: 10.1144/0016-76492007-025. Condit, C.D., 1999, Components of dynamic digital maps: Computers & Geosciences, v. 25, p. 511–522, doi: 10.1016/S0098-3004(98)00156-3. Dahlstrom, C.D., 1969, Balanced cross sections: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 6, p. 743–757. De Paor, D.G., 1988, Balanced sections in thrust belts: Part I. Construction: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 72, p. 73–91. De Paor, D.G., and Whitmeyer, S.J., 2009, this volume, Innovation and obsolescence in geoscience field courses: Past experiences and proposals for the future, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(05). De Paor, D.G., Feely, M., Kelly, S., and Williams-Stroud, S.C., 2004, Digital maps of students’ data as an integral component of geology field camp: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 5, p. 157. Dewey, J.F., and Bird, J.M., 1970, Mountain belts and the new global tectonics: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 75, p. 2625–2647, doi: 10.1029/ JB075i014p02625. Dewey, J.F., and Ryan, P.D., 1990, The Ordovician evolution of the South Mayo trough, western Ireland: Tectonics, v. 9, p. 887–903, doi: 10.1029/ TC009i004p00887. Edmundo, G.P., 2002, Digital geologic field mapping using ArcPad, in Soller, D.R., ed., Digital Mapping Techniques ’02—Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-370, p. 129–134. Elliott, D., 1983, The construction of balanced cross-sections: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 5, p. 101, doi: 10.1016/0191-8141(83)90035-4. Graham, J.R., Leake, B.E., and Ryan, P.D., 1989, The Geology of South Mayo, Western Ireland: Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press, 75 p. Hennessy, R., and Feely, M., 2005, Galway County in stone: The geological heritage of Connemara. Series 1: Twelve Bens: Galway, Galway County Council and the Heritage Council (Ireland), CD-ROM. Hennessy, R., and Feely, M., 2008, Visualization of magmatic emplacement sequences and radioelement distribution patterns in a granite batholith: An innovative approach using Google Earth, in De Paor, D., ed., Google Earth Science, Journal of the Virtual Explorer, Electronic Edition, vol. 29, paper 100. Hughes, P., and Boyle, A., 2005, Assessment in the Earth Sciences, Environmental Sciences and Environmental Studies: Plymouth, UK, Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences Learning and Teaching Guide, 41 p. Jackson, I., and Asch, K., 2002, The status of digital geological mapping in Europe: The results of a census of the digital mapping coverage, approaches and standards of 29 European geological survey organizations in the year 2000: Computers & Geosciences, v. 28, p. 783–788, doi: 10.1016/S0098-3004(01)00103-0. Johnston, S., Whitmeyer, S.J., and De Paor, D., 2005, New developments in digital mapping and visualization as part of a capstone field geology course: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 7, p. 145. Karlstrom, K.E., Whitmeyer, S.J., Dueker, K., Williams, M.L., Levander, A., Humphreys, E.D., Keller, G.R., and the CD-ROM Working Group, 2005, Synthesis of results from the CD-ROM experiment: 4-D image of the lithosphere beneath the Rocky Mountains and implications for understanding the evolution of continental lithosphere, in Karlstrom, K.E., and Keller, G.R., eds., The Rocky Mountain Region—An Evolving Lithosphere: Tectonics, Geochemistry, and Geophysics: American Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph 154, p. 421–442.

115

Knoop, P.A., and van der Pluijm, B., 2003, GeoPad: Innovative applications of information technology in field science education: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 84, no. 46, p. ED32B–1199. Knoop, P.A., and van der Pluijm, B., 2006, GeoPad: Tablet PC-enabled field science education, in Berque, D., Prey, J., and Reed, R., eds., The Impact of Pen-Based Technology on Education: Vignettes, Evaluations, and Future Directions: West Lafayette, Indiana, Purdue University Press, p. 103–113. Kramer, J.H., 2000, Digital mapping systems for field data collection, in Soller, D.R., ed., Digital Mapping Techniques ’00–Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-325, p. 13–19. Longley, P.A., Goodchild, M., Maguire, D.J., Rhind, D.W., and Lobley, J., 2001, Geographic Information Systems and Science: Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, 454 p. Love, J.D., Reed, J.C., Jr., Christiansen, R.L., and Stacy, J.R., 1972, Geologic Block Diagram and Tectonic History of the Teton Region, WyomingIdaho: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-730, scale. McCaffrey, K.J.W., Feely, M., Hennessy, R., and Thompson, J., 2008, Visualization of folding in marble outcrops, Connemara, western Ireland: An application of virtual outcrop technology: Geosphere, v. 4, p. 588–599, doi: 10.1130/GES00147.1. Mies, J.W., 1996, Automated digital compilation of structural symbols: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 44, p. 539–548. Pyle, E.J., 2009, this volume, A framework for the evaluation of field camp experiences, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(26). Smethurst, M.A., MacNiocaill, C., and Ryan, P.D., 1994, Oroclinal bending in the Caledonides of western Ireland: Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 151, p. 315–328, doi: 10.1144/gsjgs.151.2.0315. Smith, W., 1815, A Geological Map of England and Wales and Part of Scotland: London, British Geological Survey, 16 sheets. Suppe, J., 1985, Principles of Structural Geology: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 537 p. Swanson, M.T., and Bampton, M., 2009, this volume, Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research: An adventure-based approach to teaching new geospatial technologies in an REU Site program, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(11). Walsh, G.J., Reddy, J.E., Armstrong, T.R., and Burton, W.C., 1999, Geologic mapping with a GPS receiver and a personal digital assistant computer streamlines production of geologic maps: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 31, no. 7, p. A-192. Whitmeyer, S.J., and De Paor, D.G., 2008, Large-scale emergent cross sections of crustal structures in Google Earth: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 6, p. 189. Whitmeyer, S.J., De Paor, D.G., Daniels, J., Nicoletti, J., Rivera, M., and Santangelo, B., 2008, A pyramid scheme for constructing geologic maps on geobrowsers: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 89, no. 53, p. IN41B–1140. Williams, D.M., 1990, Evolution of Ordovician terranes in western Ireland and their possible Scottish equivalents: Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh–Earth Sciences, v. 81, p. 23–29. Williams, D.M., and Harper, D.A.T., 1991, End-Silurian modifications of Ordovician terranes in western Ireland: Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 148, p. 165–171, doi: 10.1144/gsjgs.148.1.0165. Williams, D.M., and Rice, A.H.N., 1989, Low-angle extensional faulting and the emplacement of the Connemara Dalradian, Ireland: Tectonics, v. 8, p. 417–428, doi: 10.1029/TC008i002p00417. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009

Printed in the USA

The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009

Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research: An adventure-based approach to teaching new geospatial technologies in an REU Site Program Mark T. Swanson Department of Geosciences, University of Southern Maine, Gorham, Maine 04038, USA Matthew Bampton Geography-Anthropology Department, University of Southern Maine, Gorham, Maine 04038, USA

ABSTRACT Adapting geologic field education and research training to new geospatial technologies requires considerable investment of time and money in acquiring new instruments, mastering new techniques, and developing new curriculum in return for dramatically increased mapping capabilities. The University of Southern Maine’s Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program has developed an integrated system of digital mapping specifically designed for geologic work that involves satellite and optical digital survey instruments, digital imagery, and a variety of mapping techniques. These new digital tools, techniques, and resources are used to explore the nature of crustal deformation in an adventure-based undergraduate field research program that employs sea kayaks for coastal access to island bedrock exposures. This new generation of digital mapping tools enabled the development of new techniques for outcrop surface mapping where we are able to delineate 1–100-m-range mesoscale geologic features that are often overlooked in traditional quadrangle-scale geologic mapping. Maps of extensive exposures in coastal Maine created using these digital techniques continue to reveal new and never-before-seen geologic structures and relationships. Because of this, undergraduate students are able to make meaningful contributions to our base of geologic knowledge and acquire essential geospatial skills, while learning these digital mapping techniques in a research setting. The emphasis we place on teamwork, risk taking, exploration, and discovery as part of the adventure programming aspect of the field component builds a confidence and enthusiasm that extends into the research component of the project, where students are able to develop new analytical methods, applications, and approaches to our field and laboratory work. INTRODUCTION Since 1993, we have run an annual summer field school in geography and geology traveling through the islands of coastal Maine by sea kayak and making detailed topographic and geo-

logic maps of shoreline exposures. Our work draws on the unique and challenging research questions concerning regional strain effects of the late Paleozoic–age Norumbega fault and shear zone system, employs emerging digital mapping and surveying techniques including satellite and optical instruments to address these

Swanson, M.T., and Bampton, M., 2009, Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research: An adventure-based approach to teaching new geospatial technologies in an REU Site Program, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, p. 117–133, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(11). For permission to copy, contact [email protected]. ©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 Undergraduates (REU) Site Program (2002–2010). This program has enabled us to recruit participants nationwide and has provided access to a pool of extraordinarily talented scientists-in-training. Our students are aggressively engaged in an end-to-end research process, completing an entire original research project each year, from walking on to the outcrop examining new geologic structure, to delivering a poster with the results of their research work at a professional meeting. In this research team setting, students develop an understanding of, and appreciation for, the collaborative and interdisciplinary nature of contemporary field research. All reports indicate that this program is a highly valuable educational experience and contributes significantly to the students’ future careers in science. The need for special training in geospatial technologies, the uniqueness of the Maine coast environment for adventure-based programs, and the geologic history of the area as a natural laboratory for crustal deformation have all come together in this unique undergraduate research experience. Need for Special Training Programs in Geospatial Technologies Basic field techniques involved in geologic mapping allow the geologist to produce a quadrangle-based geologic map at a typical scale of 1:24,000, supported by a written report with outcrop photographs of important exposures or photomicrographs from selected samples. The traditional tools for quadrangle-scale geologic mapping (Fig. 1A) are familiar: a topographic base map, field book, Brunton compass, hammer, hand lens, acid bottle, and field camera. All observations are keyed to base-map locations using the map reading and topographic interpretation skills of the field geologist supported by the use of the pace and compass traversing technique and, more recently, the use of conventional aerial orthophotos to pinpoint outcrop locations and delineate bedrock features. Familiarity with these traditional techniques remains essential. However, digital mapping techniques, remote sensing, and spatial analysis have transformed the earth sciences (e.g., McCaffrey et al., 2005) and demand that working scientists add a novel suite of skills to their resumes (National Research Council, 2006a, 2006b). Within the span of a single career, data collection, management, processing, storage, and analysis at all levels, and in both laboratory and field environments, have been revolutionized. This, in turn, has required changes in existing course design and the introduction of new courses in order to incorporate the latest technology and techniques into undergraduate education (Guertin, 2006; Neumann and Kutis, 2006; Menking and Stewart, 2007). Sophisticated digital instruments (Fig. 1B), from handheld digital measuring devices to portable and ruggedized computers, are now readily available to most geoscientists in the

Figure 1. Mapping tool kits: (A) traditional geologic mapping tools, including the map clipboard, field book, Brunton compass, protractor, and scale; and (B) digital mapping tools, including handheld global positioning system (GPS), rod-mounted RTK (Real Time Kinematic) GPS with field base station, tripod-mounted total stations, field laptop computers, as well as the traditional Brunton compass.

developed world. Even simple map-reading skills, traditionally used to determine the location of outcrops and the position of contacts have given way to handheld global positioning system (GPS) technology; hand-written field books have given way to digital data-logging devices; and hand-drafting techniques have been replaced by digital map production and display. Existing hand-drafted geologic maps are also being updated by georeferencing to new high-resolution digital aerial imagery and digitized to the new digital format and coordinate system. The speed with which these new instruments can gather and process a wide array of data has exponentially increased the volume of information we have available for analysis and interpretation in any given project. Because of the value and importance of these new geospatial tools, particularly with respect to field research in general, this innovative REU training program is part of a multidisciplinary geographic information system (GIS) initiative at the University of Southern Maine (USM) that promotes the use of geospatial technologies in research, training, and undergraduate education in geology and geography.

Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research Coastal Maine as a Unique Learning Environment The rocky coast of Maine is often an endless vista of islands, peninsulas, lighthouses, and pocket beaches. A history of glacial scouring and seasonal storm wave action along the coast, particularly with powerful winter nor’easters, has created these seemingly endless geologic panoramas of bedrock exposure, which can serve, effectively, as our windows into crustal deformation processes. The outer islands and promontories, particularly on their open ocean sides, reveal magnificent, glacially smoothed, bare rock exposures stripped of soil and vegetation that are kept clean by repeated storm waves. Local outcrops in this natural geologic laboratory serve as field-trip sites for our introductory and upper-level geology laboratory courses at USM. Structures in these local outcrops have been the basis for detailed studies reported in at least a dozen articles on kinematic indicators, fault structure, and dike intrusion (see, e.g., Swanson, 1999a, 2006). We have also used these island exposures each summer for the past 15 years as a unique outdoor learning environment when partnered with the use of sea kayaks for shoreline access. The scenic sea and shoreline landscapes and stunning geology of the remote reaches of the coast are best seen and experienced by sea kayak, and Maine’s coast offers some of the best sea kayaking found anywhere in the world. Teaching in this environment (Fig. 2) naturally leads to an adventure-based component to any program, where the thrill and excitement of sea kayaking is accompanied by the sense of exploration and discovery in walking new shoreline exposures and unraveling new geologic relations. The aspect that makes this Maine coast area even more unique is the geology itself: the bulk of the regional deformation has been influenced in some way by broadly distributed right-lateral shearing associated with the late Paleozoic Norum-

119

bega fault and shear zone system (Fig. 3). Late-stage syntectonic granites have been involved in this regional shearing and developed unique deformed geometries that could only be seen in these large coastal exposures. Documentation of these deformed geometries is greatly facilitated by the use of new digital mapping techniques. These mapped deformed geometries act as kinematic indicators and record the strain history of oblique convergence during Devonian Acadian collision, an important tectonic process during mountain building in the northern Appalachians. Geologic Questions Being Addressed Geologic interpretations for faults in coastal Maine have evolved significantly in the past 20 yr from a series of discontinuous postmetamorphic and post-tectonic minor brittle faults (Hussey, 1988) to a narrow through-going Norumbega fault zone of right-lateral postmetamorphic displacement coupled to a much broader, 100-km-wide zone of earlier regional ductile shear (Swanson, 1999b, 2007). Strain associated with the Norumbega fault and shear zone system dominates the rocks of the area, and the focus of the current research project concerns unraveling the details of this regional pattern. This research grew out of the development of new interpretational skills in shear zone geology during the 1980s involving kinematic indicators (Swanson, 1992, 1994, 1999a) that allowed the recognition of basic strain types (pure shear versus simple shear) and shear senses (left-lateral versus right-lateral) in these rocks. Training students, not only in geospatial technologies, but in the kinematic interpretational skills of the modern-day structural geologist as well, allows us to assess, document, and quantify deformation strain patterns found anywhere in the region. The team research approach allows us to apply these kinematic tools over wider geographic areas at greater structural detail than previously possible, since a larger team of researchers using more advanced digital tools is engaged in yearly mapping, analysis, and writing. By carefully delineating the outcrop strain patterns for syntectonic granite dike intrusions throughout the area, we are able to see for the first time the broader strain pattern associated with the development of this major crustal shear zone and the way in which oblique convergence in mountain building can work. The use of digital mapping techniques allows us to focus on detail outcrop surface mapping as the preferred way to delineate complex structure, and, in that way, we are changing the nature of geologic mapping itself. RESEARCH EXPERIENCES FOR UNDERGRADUATES

Figure 2. Sea kayaks are used to transport gear and personnel to the island field sites and to provide an adventure-based experience of cold-water paddling and remote-island camping in coastal Maine that helps to foster the sense of exploration and discovery inherent to scientific research.

The National Science Foundation’s Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program provides funds for hands-on research training of undergraduate students in appropriate STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) majors as a way to develop the next generation of researchers. The REU Site Program is designed for multiple student training programs that allow students to be mentored by, and collaborate with, working scientists from across the country on relevant research projects.

120

Swanson and Bampton

Figure 3. The University of Southern Maine (USM) Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Site project field area consists of coastal Maine exposures from Casco Bay to Muscongus Bay on the SE side of the Norumbega fault and shear zone (SZ) system. White arrowed lines show the stretching directions along oblique-to-fault folds related to regional right-lateral shear, the block arrows highlight areas of layer-normal shortening with no lateral shear, and the largest block arrow shows the lateral extrusion of the midcoast section where squeezed between left-lateral and rightlateral shear zones. Background geology base map is from Osberg et al. (1985).

The NSF REU Site Program at USM The NSF REU Site Program at USM trains nine undergraduate students each year in the use of traditional and digital field mapping tools and techniques in a long-term adventurebased field research project (2002–2010). Sea kayaks are used for access to extensive coastal outcrop exposures (Fig. 2), and participants camp on remote islands during the survey period. This continuing program of detailed mapping is focused on the delineation of crustal deformation features related to regional transpression associated with the Norumbega fault and shear zone system as preserved in these coastal Maine outcrops. New digital instruments and resources are combined in a system of integrated digital mapping and used to construct a digital geospatial database in ArcGIS to coordinate these new digital maps, photos, data, and interpretations. These new detailed maps of never-before-seen deformed intrusion patterns allow new analyses and new interpretations of geologic structure. These, in turn, lead to more accurate structural and tectonic modeling of basic crustal-scale mountain-building processes.

Each project year is built around an 8 wk summer research session, and each student returns to their sponsoring institution with DVDs of all project data, field photos, maps, posters, and PowerPoint presentations as well as a 1 yr student copy of ESRI’s (Environmental Research Institute) ArcMap GIS software. The student researchers prepare several abstracts and accompanying posters for the Northeast Geological Society of America (NE GSA) meeting each year; and they prepare and deliver an oral presentation about their work to their sponsoring departments under the supervision of their faculty mentors and receive a grade for a six-credit field course (GEY 360/ GEO 360 Field Mapping in the Island Environment: Data Collection to GIS). One factor that is important to any REU program is the ability to offer an effective and challenging multistudent research experience. Our REU Site Program combines a unique and spectacular field environment with the adventure of using sea kayaks for island access while students investigate fundamental scientific research questions concerning complex crustal deformation using state-of-the-art digital technology.

Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research Student Recruitment and Selection The NSF REU Site Program is designed to benefit undergraduate students from colleges and universities where opportunities for research experiences are limited. To meet these program goals, we target the smaller undergraduate institutions with a nationwide e-mail announcement to all chairs and structural geology faculty. The e-mail list is created from over ~400 e-mail addresses taken from the AGI Directory each year. In addition, the program is listed under the NSF REU program Web site with a link to the program description and application materials on our USM REU Web page at http://www.usm.maine.edu/gis/reu.html. The student-selection process is by necessity a balance between fostering new research experiences for the students involved and the successful completion of the specific research goals for the projects each year. The primary student skills that influence the selection process are wilderness outdoor experience (hiking, camping, boating, wilderness first aid) and prior coursework in structural geology and/or GIS. While we offer training in all aspects of the program, we need the student participants to have a base of appropriate experience on which to build new geospatial, interpretational and digital skills. We also strive for a mix of individual skills and experience in order to enhance the peer-to-peer learning potential for the research team. This REU Site Program is in its seventh year and has involved, to date, 63 undergraduates (nine students per year) representing 45 different colleges and universities from across the country. Ten schools have sent multiple student participants. Over the first seven years, our program has attracted an average of 32 applicants each year, with a nearly equal number of qualified men (53%) and women (47%). Our nine-student research teams have been composed of, on average, 54% men and 46% women. This translates to a typical research team of 5 men and 4 women, but this has varied from 2 to 8 women per team through the years. Of the 63 students accepted into the program over the past 7 years, the majority (65%) of students have been from strictly undergraduate baccalaureate degree institutions (our primary recruitment target), and 35% have been from institutions with M.S. and/or Ph.D. graduate degree programs in relevant majors. Students majoring in geology have been the primary target (72%), but students in geography (22%), environmental science (4%), and physics (2%) have also been involved. This range of student backgrounds reflects the need for prior experience in GIS or GPS in addition to course work in structural geology and field methods in each year’s research team. In recent years, we have tried to have at least one student with a strong GIS or information technology background (often as a geography major) to handle the database development aspect of the current program. Adventure-Based Programming The REU Site Program at USM provides field research training in an environment of exploration and discovery on the Maine coast. Adventure-based education strategies (e.g., McKenzie, 2000; Priest and Gass, 2005) for our program center on the field component to the research work, where all supplies,

121

gear and personnel are transported to the field sites by sea kayak (Fig. 2). Students get to experience (and be challenged by) the rugged and strenuous conditions of cold-water kayaking and remote-island camping throughout coastal Maine while conducting field research. While we initially used sea kayaks as a logistical and economic necessity, we quickly discovered unanticipated benefits to this method of transport to the field sites. Group bonding and a sense of personal responsibility through the physical and intellectual challenges of sea kayaking lead to enhanced self image and personal growth. Extensive practice on assisted rescues with frequent “all-in” capsize drills stresses the potential life and death consequences of the everyday logistics of travel associated with fieldwork in this coastal ocean environment. Rotation of student leaders for group kayak travel ensures that all students become involved in navigation decisions, route planning and the work of flank and sweep boats to keep the group tight during ocean crossings. This constantly reinforces the importance of team work, cooperation, and group dynamics in everything we do. By assigning students the responsibility for all aspects of daily field life, including tasks as diverse as work management, group meal preparation, menu planning, camp chores, and waste disposal, we emphasize the need for leadership, cooperation, and group cohesion. This experience carries over from the tasks of daily field life to the daily research planning and logistics that are involved in mapping and survey work. The intent of the adventure-programming component of the REU is for personal successes to overcome the physical and environmental challenges, and for the team spirit fostered by the day-to-day cooperation in all aspects of the field experience to carry over to the personal and intellectual challenges the students face as the program develops toward computer laboratory work, analysis, abstract writing, and poster design. The greatest challenge in this program is, ultimately, to assemble the acquired field data into a coherent and meaningful project that contributes to a better understanding of the research questions involved. The REU Site Research Project REU Site Programs need to have a solid scientific focus to give the participating undergraduate students firsthand experience working in a relevant research project. Our program of field research centers on the rocky coast of Maine as a unique geologic resource with a rich and complex geologic history where storm waves have created extensive coastal exposures. Syntectonic granite intrusions, quartz veins, brittle strike-slip faults, and the structural analysis and tectonic interpretation of those mapped features as they appear throughout Casco Bay and midcoast Maine are interpreted in terms of regional strain accommodation associated with transpressional deformation on the SE flank of the Norumbega fault and shear zone system (Fig. 3). The Norumbega fault and shear zone system of the northern Appalachians is an orogen-parallel intracontinental fault boundary that displays a lengthy and complex structural history and possibly several hundred kilometers of right-lateral, or dextral, strikeslip displacement. Geological Society of America (GSA) Special

122

Swanson and Bampton

Paper 331, Norumbega Fault System of the Northern Appalachians (Ludman and West, 1999), established the Norumbega as a major strike-slip fault boundary active from the Mid-Devonian into the early Mesozoic having a complex history of dominantly dextral strike-slip deformation for over 100 m.y. Much of the early deformation associated with the Norumbega was in the form of regional shearing (Swanson, 1999a, 1999b) about the main fault trace as part of an even wider zone of orogen-parallel shearing that has affected much of the northern Appalachians (Hubbard, 1999). Regional ductile shearing is thought to have localized into higher strain zones and eventually into a few narrow brittle fault zones (Hussey, 1988; Bothner and Hussey, 1999) as the system evolved through exhumation and cooling during the later stages of orogenic activity. Earlier field studies developed an initial orthogonal-to-layer (and normal to regional fold hinge-parallel lineation) emplacement model for deformed quartz and granite intrusions (Swanson, 1992, 1994). An array of kinematic indicators for ductile dextral shear parallel to foliation and lineation was observed (Swanson, 1999a) and used to constrain a tectonic model that used transpression at a restraining section of the fault to account for the observed structural patterns (Swanson, 1999b). For the SE side of the main fault zone, this regional shearing model (Swanson, 1999b) includes an early history of regional oblique-to-fault folding and reorientation of the steeply dipping fold limbs into a 1–2 km inner zone of high dextral shear strain along the main trace of the NE-striking Norumbega fault. Our REU Site Program (2002–2007) expanded coverage across northern Casco Bay (Fig. 3) (Jansyn et al., 2003; O’Kane et al., 2003) and east to Muscongus Bay (Castle et al., 2004; Doyle et al., 2004; Olson et al., 2005; Betka et al., 2006) within the SE side of, and at progressively greater distances from, the main Norumbega fault zone (for regional geology, see Osberg et al., 1985; Hussey and Berry, 2002). Elongation and shear along steep limb layers in oblique-to-fault upright folds throughout the area can be interpreted from kinematic indicators such as symmetric to asymmetric boudinage, asymmetric folds, shear band fabrics, and the geometry of initially orthogonal quartz veins and granite intrusions (Swanson, 1992, 1999a). The work of the REU research teams has documented zones of both right- and left-lateral shear that have been used in a lateral extrusion model of a midcoast structural block that is dominated by pure shear layer-normal flattening (Fig. 3).

maps using simple hand tools and map and landscape reading skills, a sophisticated analytical interpretation can be produced. Various techniques are employed to address structures over a variety of scale ranges (Fig. 4), and regional, local, outcrop, and feature observations are compiled. Outcrop Surface Mapping Outcrop surface mapping techniques are designed to delineate an intermediate or mesoscale range of geologic structure somewhere between the ~10 km scale of the topographic map and the ~1 m scale of an individual small outcrop (Fig. 4). Outcrop surface mapping is a detailed depiction of specific structural features such as folds, faults, or intrusions found within single large outcrop exposures. These laterally extensive exposures are found in glaciated environments, river channels, above tree line, road cuts, and in wave-washed coastal settings. The latter types are common along Maine’s rocky shoreline. This bird’s-eye perspective allows the representation of features that are typically overlooked in traditional quadrangle geologic mapping because they are too small to be recognized in traditional aerial photographs yet are too large to be seen while standing on the outcrop. Outcrop surface mapping techniques, therefore, are capable of delineating new, never-before-seen geologic features and relationships. The importance of outcrop surface mapping has long been recognized in geology. While early workers sketched map views of outcrop features freehand (see Jackson [1838] for the first dike intrusion maps of Maine exposures), more recent outcrop surface maps have been prepared using detailed grid mapping techniques (e.g., Swanson, 1983, 2006; DiToro and Pennacchioni, 2005)

DIGITAL TECHNIQUES FOR OUTCROP SURFACE MAPPING Geological mapping is one of the fundamental skills of field research in the earth sciences since its development with William Smith’s initial mapping work during the early 1800s (Winchester, 2001). In particular, quadrangle-scale geologic mapping has been the backbone of most twentieth-century field research. By compiling and correlating some combination of lithologic, paleontologic, structural, and stratigraphic observations made at scattered outcrops, and spatially referencing them to topographic base

Figure 4. Scale range for typical geologic mapping leaves a gap in coverage between typical quadrangle-scale mapping and handheld onthe-outcrop photography. Detailed outcrop surface mapping completes this scale range and can reveal new, never-before-seen geologic structures and relationships.

Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research involving outcrop grid lines, field clip boards, similar squares, and hand-drawing techniques. More detailed and accurate representations of larger outcrop structures and their relationships can be attained using the time-honored plane table and alidade, a survey instrument used with a stadia rod to determine direction and distance where position data are plotted directly on a tripodmounted map board in the field (Swanson, 2006). Integrated Digital Mapping At the beginning of the twenty-first century, digital survey instrumentation (global positioning system [GPS] and total station [optical survey transit]) and high-resolution digital aerial and camera-pole imagery coupled with the data management capacity of GIS software have transformed the mapping process, allowing for an “all-digital” style of geologic mapping (Swanson et al., 2002). The “tools” required for this style of digital mapping create a much more cumbersome field kit (Figs. 1B and 2) for today’s field investigators, but they allow far greater capability and precision. We refer to this cluster of techniques as “integrated digital mapping” (Swanson and Bampton, 2004). Integrated digital mapping (Box 1) utilizes several different high-precision geospatial mapping tools to create a data-rich GIS representing complex geologic features. This GIS has a data structure that is readily navigable, allowing for both visualization and analysis of complex features with great accuracy and at high resolutions (Swanson et al., 2002; Berry et al., 2003; McBride et al., 2004; Swanson and Bampton, 2004). At present, we use a variety of handheld mapping-grade and survey-grade instruments, imagery, GIS, and data management software, along with some specialized techniques. Our integrated mapping system forms the core of our undergraduate research program at USM under the National Science Foundation’s Research Experiences for Undergraduates Site Program.

123

BOX 1. TOOLS AND RESOURCES Digital Instrumentation Six handheld global positioning system (GPS) receivers—mapping-grade Trimble GeoXT GPS with built-in antenna, broad area real-time corrections, feature/attribute data-logging functions, ~1 m precision. One GPS field base station—a tripod-mounted Trimble 5700 dual-frequency receiver using a geodetic antennae with ground plane and a 2–25 W radio and whip antennae for broadcasting real-time corrections. Three RTK GPS rovers—rod-mounted survey-grade Trimble 5700 receivers using real-time kinematic corrections and three Trimble TSC-1 survey controllers, ~2 cm precision. Three Total Stations—tripod-mounted SpectraPrecision 608 series Geodimeters, servo-driven, Windows GeoDatWin controllers, and autolock tracking of target prisms, ~1 cm precision. Supporting Digital Imagery High-resolution digital aerial imagery—orthorectified (to remove lens distortion), georeferenced (positioned, scaled, and oriented within a coordinate system) with ground pixel sizes of 15–30 cm depending on field area, from Maine Office of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Low-elevation digital aerial imagery—using a 14 m camera-pole system with images and mosaics georeferenced to RTK (real time kinematic) GPS or total station control points; pixel sizes vary with camera type and camera pole height. High-resolution macrophotographic imagery—using a digital SLR (single lens reflex) camera, macrolens, and extension collar for photomacrography of brittle fault thin sections. Supporting Hardware Three laptop computers—Panasonic CF-29 Toughbooks with USB and PCMCIA flash card slots, field hardened for downloading RTK GPS and total station data, with access to data, maps, GIS software, and high-resolution aerial imagery in the field. Twelve GIS laboratory computers—Dell Precision 340 Pentium 4 in a GIS Laboratory network. Scanner—HP 12" × 20" scanner. Printer—HP Color Laserjet with ledger-sized 11" × 17" paper.

Instrument Precision Instrument precisions used in this report refer to the diameter of multiple same-point position clusters when plotted in GIS (Fig. 5), which reflect the error in determining coordinate positions for each instrument. Handheld mapping-grade instruments provide adequate meter-scale precision for plotting positions on topographic maps, whereas rod and tripod-mounted survey-grade instruments provide centimeter-scale precision for delineation of finer-scale features. Tools and Resources The equipment, supporting imagery, and software required for USM’s REU Site Program in integrated digital mapping (Box 1) are designed to take the researcher from data collection in the field to final map presentation in the computer laboratory. The mapping- and survey-grade instruments include handheld GPS receivers, a GPS field base station, RTK (Real Time Kinematic) GPS rovers, and optical total stations. Supporting digital imagery includes high-resolution digital aerial imagery currently available

Plotter—HP DesignJet 36-in.-wide color plotter for map and poster production. Supporting Software ESRI’s (Environmental Systems Research Institute) ArcGIS 9.2 software—for display, analysis, and spatial data structure. Microsoft Excel—for data file formatting in the survey download/ export process. Adobe Photoshop—for creating photomosaics from camera-pole imagery. Adobe Illustrator—for final map and poster production. Microsoft Access—for building a searchable database for field data and metadata. Microsoft PowerPoint—for presentation of project results. Microsoft ActiveSync—for connecting to Windows CE devices (Trimble GeoXT GPS). Trimble GPS Pathfinder Office—for data transfer and export from handheld GPS. Stereoplot—stereonet program for PC, Allmendinger (Cornell University Web site). Microsoft Word—word-processing program.

124

Swanson and Bampton

Figure 5. Precision for mapping and survey instrumentation is reported as the diameter of a cluster of multiple, same-point, position coordinates when plotted in geographic information systems (GIS). Mapping-grade handheld global positioning system (GPS) is capable of meter-scale precisions, while (A) survey-grade RTK (Real Time Kinematic) GPS and (B) optical total stations are capable of centimeter-scale precisions.

from the State Office of GIS and low-elevation camera-pole imagery taken at the field site. The needed hardware consists of field laptop computers and a supporting GIS Lab, desktop computers, scanner, printer, and plotter. Supporting software needed includes ArcGIS 9.2, Excel, Photoshop, Illustrator, Access, PowerPoint, ActiveSync, Trimble GPS Pathfinder Office, Stereoplot, and Word. Handheld GPS receivers with 1 m precision are used for collecting basic structural orientation data (Figs. 6A and 6B) and for fast mapping of larger features where higher precisions are not required, such as general outcrop shapes, soil lines, tide lines, and contacts of larger intrusive bodies. Real-time kinematic or RTK GPS receivers with centimeter precisions (Figs. 6C and 6D) are used to map the shape, orientation, and position of a broad range of geologic features, such as host rock fabric, folds, faults, and dike intrusions. For more intricate structures or for conditions where satellite signals are poor or unavailable, such as in the woods or near obstructions, the electronic total stations are used (Figs. 7A and 7B). Optical total stations utilize infrared light and an autolock system, where the instrument can lock onto and follow a signal-emitting prism, making quick work of any survey task. All of these instruments allow comparatively rapid collection of large amounts of data (nearly 1000 survey points per day), including descriptive attributes for the features being mapped. Data Export Positional data and attributes collected by these instruments must be exported in a format compatible with GIS, since that is where most of the mapmaking and analysis will take place. Handheld GPS instruments are cabled to computers, and point, line, and area features are exported directly as ArcGIS shape

files and attribute tables populated with field observations. RTK GPS and total station point data are exported as .csv files that are formatted in Excel. Each data point is numbered and associated with an easting, northing, elevation, object type (point, line, or polygon), object number (which identifies all the points involved in a single line or polygon shape), and point code (to describe the features being mapped). For RTK GPS and total stations, all attributes are coded into a single multicharacter field that is broken up into separate columns during file formatting using a textto-columns function in Excel. The reformatted .csv files from both the RTK GPS and total stations are brought into ArcGIS as x-y data and converted into shape files. GIS software loaded on field laptop computers provides access to field data and imagery, allowing continual adjustments to the active field plan as data points are accumulated (Fig. 7C), as well as on-site field editing of the developing maps (Fig. 7D). Digital Imagery It is possible in many cases to map and interpret some structures based on high-resolution georeferenced digital aerial imagery available for the area, assuming the structures are of the appropriate scale and have a sufficient color contrast to be visible in the images. For smaller-scale features, low-elevation photography with an adjustable telescoping camera-pole (Fig. 8) can be used. Photomosaics of the outcrop surfaces are georeferenced in ArcGIS to RTK GPS–surveyed or total station–surveyed control points within each image (Swanson and Bampton, 2008). Structures within these images can be delineated by on-screen digitizing, creating new shape files in ArcGIS. These mapped image features can be combined or integrated with other GPS or total station data, since these images are tied to the same datum and coordinate system used for mapping and surveying. Establishing a Field Datum All surveys using RTK GPS and total stations must be tied to a field datum point in a coordinate system with known xyz coordinates (easting, northing, and elevation). Handheld mapping-grade GPS works independently of the field datum but has less precision as a result. All of the RTK GPS surveys are linked to this initial field datum through the broadcasting GPS field base station (Fig. 6C). Because the field base station receiver continuously monitors its calculated position using the available satellite clusters at the time, it compares these calculated positions with its known coordinates to create and broadcast a correction factor to the RTK GPS rovers for on-the-fly processing in real time. The RTK GPS rovers are then used to determine the coordinate positions for the total station tripods and for the reflector reference objects needed to “establish” the total stations by position and orientation. Since both RTK GPS and total stations are using the same coordinate system and are tied to the same field datum, the resulting surveyed points can be combined in an integrated survey. The coordinate system used here in coastal Maine, for example, is NAD 83, UTM, and Zone 19 North. Coordinate

Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research

125

Figure 6. (A) Handheld mapping-grade global positioning system (GPS) (Trimble GeoXT) with its touch screen and built-in antenna is used for (B) logging position and descriptive attribute information (orientation, lithology, etc.) pertaining to mapped features (points, lines, and areas). (C) Broadcasting field base station for RTK GPS setup consists of a tripod-mounted geodetic antenna with ground plane (to eliminate multipath errors from satellite signals reflected off of the ground), a Trimble 5700 base receiver, and a 2–25 W broadcasting radio and whip antenna for communication with (D) survey-grade RTK GPS (Trimble 5700) and rover receivers with rod-mounted antenna and radio link to broadcasting base station for real-time corrections to position data.

positions are measured in meters to three decimal places, representing distances to the nearest millimeter. Datum coordinates. The initial datum coordinates for the field base station can be acquired by several different methods depending on the accuracy needed for the survey. Here, the term “accuracy” refers to how well the precision survey will fit into the coordinate system. For a postprocessed datum, 2 hour static data runs using the GPS base receiver and geodetic antenna with ground plane can be postprocessed automatically using National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Web-based Online Position User Service (OPUS), which compares the base receiver satellite data to several nearby Continuously Operating Receiver Stations (CORS) to apply position corrections. GPS receiver files in RINEX format are uploaded, and postprocessed results are emailed to the users usually within several minutes. These postprocessed positions can be calculated using three different levels of satellite orbital model precisions. Postprocessed

GPS base station positions are precise to within ~2 cm relative to three nearby CORS base stations. Alternately, this postprocessing procedure can be sidestepped, and, instead, an unprocessed position can be accepted as datum, where the base station receiver makes a position calculation based on a single epoch of satellite data. Whereas global accuracy may be diminished using this procedure, the internal precision of the survey remains the same. In practical terms, this “quick grab” datum may be sufficient for the mapping project at hand and allows the survey to proceed without the delay of postprocessing. Most surveys need to be tied to available georeferenced aerial imagery, and a best match can often be achieved by selecting a datum point visible within the image that can be recognized on the ground. Northing and easting coordinates for this visual datum can be retrieved in ArcMap using field laptop computers by pinpointing image features with the cursor. Static data collected by the base receivers

126

Swanson and Bampton

Figure 7. (A) Optical tripod-mounted total stations (SpectraPrecision 608 Series Geodimeter) require a rod-mounted prism and line-of-sight to map features. (B) Autolock function allows the station to automatically track the target prism mounted on a short rod for increased precision. (C) Laptop computers in the field are used for downloading and processing survey data into a geographic information system (GIS). (D) Use of a computer harness allows on-site editing of GIS shape files.

Figure 8. Camera-pole imagery offers a low-elevation aerial view of the outcrop surface utilizing (A) a bracket and plumb tube for holding, triggering, and aligning the camera on top of a telescoping aluminum pole, adjustable to 14 m in height. RTK (Real Time Kinematic) global positioning system (GPS) is used to measure the position of georeferencing control points within each image. (B) Visible geologic features are digitized on-screen to produce shape files in a geographic information system (GIS). (C) Seamless photomosaics are georeferenced into the correct position, size, and orientation.

Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research can also be postprocessed at a later time for more accurate elevations to the survey data. Digital Atlas Structure Outcrop surface mapping allows us to construct a complete range-of-scale perspective for the geology of a particular area (Fig. 4). This perspective extends from the regional scale of the state bedrock geologic map (1:500,000), through quadrangle-scale geologic maps (1:24,000), high-resolution digital aerial imagery (pixel sizes at 15 cm ground distance), outcrop surface maps and camera-pole imagery, to typical outcrop photos showing features at your feet. The incorporation of all of these maps and images within a single georeferenced coordinate space in ArcGIS provides a multiscale digital atlas structure linking global, regional, local, outcrop, and feature observations (Fig. 9). The coordinated multiscale maps, images, spatial relationships, and orientation data create a useful analytical tool to explore, investigate, and analyze, at a variety of scales, the thematic geologic features portrayed. High-resolution micro- and macrophotography can be used to extend the range-of-scale perspective to include detailed maps of microscopic features based on digital photomosaics of full thin sections. Using the thin section photomosaic as a digital “microscopy” system, brittle fault zone samples, with their multiple fault lines, veins, and an assortment of fault materials, can be easily mapped at the microscopic scale by on-screen digitizing techniques in ArcMap, zooming in to higher magnifications for accurate interpretation of the observed features. Digital Analysis Techniques Digital mapping and survey instruments, digital aerial imagery, and GIS are transforming the mapping process as well as the analysis of the collected field data. Orientation analysis. As mapping proceeds, computer stereonet plotting programs can be used to display and interpret structural orientation data. Orientation data that have been positioned and logged using handheld GPS can be easily copied from the resulting GIS shape file attribute tables and used to create stereonet plots of selected data. GIS symbol palettes allow rapid plotting of selected strike and dip or trend and plunge symbols, along with rotation of symbols to appropriate strike or trend azimuth values. Dip or plunge values can be labeled and edited for size and position relative to the chosen symbol. Strain analysis. For strain analysis of mapped features, GIS can be used to measure lengths, widths, and relative angles as well as to calculate surface areas of selected mapped polygons. These acquired values can be used to make a number of different strain calculations based on the mapped geometric relationships. These include: (1) gamma shear strain from reorientation of mapped features subjected to simple shear, (2) shortening of folded intrusions by line length comparisons, and (3) elongation associated with boudinage of more competent layers by surface area reconstruction. Spatial analysis. Analytical techniques based on geostatistics, or spatial analysis, can also be used with a variety of point

127

data such as topographic elevations or structural orientations. These spatial analysis techniques, until recently, have been considered arcane and highly specialized, but they have now become widely available on the toolbars of many commonly used desktop GIS packages, such as ArcGIS and Idrisi. Interpolation using TIN (triangular irregular network) or IDW (inter distance weighted) functions creates raster images that can be used to highlight specific spatial relationships such as slope or aspect for topography. For structural analysis, this allows the user to make spatial variation diagrams that are essentially contour maps of selected feature variations sometimes referred to as “alternate Z-value” maps. At present USM’s REU team is exploring the potential of these types of techniques in developing structural geology interpolations, and predictive surfaces for complex folding on the local and regional scales (Land et al., 2004; Kroll et al., 2008). Database Development An increasingly important component of modern field research using digital mapping techniques is the handling of enormous quantities of digital data, including supporting digital maps and imagery as well as field data created during mapping, processing, and analysis. File system. A simple folder file system in Windows XP is used to organize the project work space in the GIS Laboratory network, where students develop folders for processing, analysis, and archiving of final data files. File naming conventions are important for keeping track of data files as they are created in the field, during processing of that data into shape files for GIS, and for updating feature files as more data are added to the final shapes. File names include a two-letter island reference, which allows files to be organized alphabetically by island location, date the data was generated, instrument type, instrument ID number, and a feature reference to indicate what exactly was being surveyed. Work space folder sizes and total number of files created for each year (Fig. 10) for our nine-student research teams have increased from just a few hundred megabytes in 2002 to nearly 50 gigabytes and over 15,000 files in 2008 as techniques and resources have evolved. We expect this trend to continue with the acquisition of more extensive camera-pole imagery for more complex outcrop structure as well as the use of new LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) elevation data to aid in our regional studies. Database structure. To keep track of all field-collected and processed data files, all files are accompanied by direct metadata entry into a Microsoft Access Database using the field laptop computers. This procedure records the file name, instrument type, instrument number, features mapped, object type mapped (point, line, or polygon), datum and coordinate system used, and person(s) responsible for collecting or processing the data. This allows the research team to keep track of all of the field-generated files and to search the developing database when needed for specific files by date, instrument, feature type, or student worker. The final GIS shape files (points, lines, and polygons) for each feature type (granite intrusion polygons, foliation lines,

128

Swanson and Bampton

Figure 9. Thematic digital atlas structure for syntectonic granite intrusions linking (A) regional geology; (B) area structure; (C) local features; (D) outcrop maps; (E) camera-pole imagery; and (F) handheld feature photos through a spatial database structure in a geographic information system (GIS). BBF—Bloody Bluff Fault; CCF—Cobequid-Chedabucto Fault; CNF—Clinton-Newberry Fault; FZ—Fundy Zone; NF—Norumbega Fault; N.H.—New Hampshire.

Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research

129

abstract/poster presentations and five faculty-led abstract/poster presentations at NE section GSA meetings. The 2009 NE GSA meeting featured a symposium and theme poster session on GIS and digital techniques in the geosciences and an REU studentassisted premeeting workshop on integrated digital mapping for the general geologic community.

Figure 10. (A) Increasing number of files generated and (B) increasing size of the digital work space for successive years of the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program are typical for digital mapping, where an ever-increasing work space volume requires special data management strategies.

structural data points, etc.) created from field-generated survey data and supporting imagery are archived within the flat folder project work space. A more versatile spatial database structure, the geodatabase in ArcGIS, is also used, where final shape files are organized by location, and a map index can be browsed and zoomed in to highlight selected features and recall attributes. RESULTS OF THE REU SITE PROGRAM EFFORTS Seven years of REU team research thus far has resulted in significant progress in meeting the research and educational goals of the project. The geologic work has documented new structures and contributed to an evolving tectonic model for Norumbega deformation. Research Results REU student research teams have, to date, mapped on 16 different island and coastal field sites from Casco Bay to Muscongus Bay and explored the use and application of new digital tools and techniques while examining the crustal deformation effects of regional transpression. This work has generated 34 student-led

Student Research Research topics explored by student participants and presented as abstracts and posters have focused on three aspects of our work: (1) the use and application of digital mapping tools and development of new digital mapping techniques; (2) new geologic features and relationships revealed in the targeted field exposures; and (3) the use of GIS in new ways for the compilation and analysis of the collected field data. Use of digital mapping tools and development of new digital mapping techniques. A main thrust of our research efforts is focused on developing novel applications for the new digital mapping tools and new digital mapping techniques that can be applied to geologic and environmental field projects. These studies have included: (1) integrated digital techniques for outcrop surface mapping in structural geology (Berry et al., 2003; McBride et al., 2004; Swanson and Bampton, 2004) to describe applications to geologic field problems; (2) aerial camera-pole techniques for generating outcrop surface imagery (Verhave et al., 2005; Duwe et al., 2006; Mayhew et al., 2007; Swanson and Bampton, 2008) as a new way to create low-elevation images for detailed mapping; and (3) a database structure for digital outcrop surface mapping (Millard et al., 2005; Spaulding et al., 2006; Sigrist et al., 2008) to keep track of an increasing number of project data files generated each year. New geologic features and relationships. The geologic questions addressed by the detailed outcrop surface mapping evolved as our exploratory work progressed. Specific focus has been maintained on delineating the nature of the syntectonic granite intrusions found throughout the coastal field areas. Research has focused specifically on: (1) the nature of syntectonic granite intrusion (Jansyn et al., 2003; Doyle et al., 2004; Olson et al., 2005; Betka et al., 2006; Waters et al., 2008; Saunders et al., 2008) in relation to initially orthogonal emplacement as dikes and the subsequent strain partitioning into the shear and flattening components of the deformation; and (2) the structure of pseudotachylyte fault veins (Bates et al., 2006; Swanson, 2005) in left-lateral strike-slip faults that were discovered in several Muscongus Bay area locations. Use of GIS for compilation and analysis. This aspect of the research focused on the application of GIS and its compilation and spatial analysis capabilities to the geologic and environmental issues at hand. The majority of this work has revolved around using digital measurement techniques (angles, line lengths, and surface areas) in GIS for accurate strain analysis (elongation and

130

Swanson and Bampton

gamma shear strain) of the documented syntectonic features. These efforts have dealt specifically with: (1) strain analysis of deformed syntectonic granites (O’Kane et al., 2003; Castle et al., 2004; Benford et al., 2005; Orton et al., 2007; Swanson, 2007) to quantify the various strain components of the deformation; (2) spatial analysis of complex folding (Land et al., 2004; Plitzuweit et al., 2007; Kroll et al., 2008) using the spatial analyst tools in GIS to look at the distribution of variation in layer orientations in complexly folded terrains; and (3) environmental mapping and geomorphology (Arnold et al., 2007; Gilbert et al., 2007; Saunders et al., 2008; McBride et al., 2004; Mueller et al., 2008; Vanderberg et al., 2008; Joyner et al., 2008) as a way to tie the evolving landscape into our developing geologic work. This student-driven field research has created an extensive base of field data and observations that will support and foster the publication of significant contributions in digital mapping techniques (this paper), spatial analysis of complex structures as well as the geometry of syntectonic granite intrusions, details of strain analysis, and the nature of strain partitioning during transpressional deformation. In terms of the regional tectonics, the REU research teams have found that right-lateral (or dextral) layer-parallel shear dominates close to the main fault zone within inner Casco Bay and in a narrow kilometer-wide zone farther east away from the main fault trace in the Phippsburg shear zone (Fig. 3). Left-lateral (or sinistral) layer-parallel shear was found to dominate at Pemaquid Point and in the Muscongus Bay area even further to the east and includes rare exposures of faultrelated friction melts (pseudotachylyte) (Swanson, 2005; Bates et al., 2006) in left-lateral strike-slip faults. A tectonic model of southward extrusion of a midcoast block between zones of opposing shear sense at Phippsburg and Pemaquid (Olson et al., 2005) during regional Norumbega shearing was developed and best explains the observed kinematic patterns. Much of this midcoast block as seen in large offshore island exposures at Seguin and Salter Islands at the mouth of the Kennebec River (Plitzuweit et al., 2007; Kroll et al., 2008) and Damariscove Island off of Boothbay (Saunders et al., 2008; Waters et al., 2008) has been studied, revealing significant layer-normal shortening but little evidence for layer-parallel strike-slip shearing. Educational Results The educational goals of the project involved the research training and experiences of the participating students as well as outreach to the public in sharing the results of the students’ research. REU Skills Assessment In an effort to document the learning process in more than purely anecdotal terms, we developed an assessment instrument as a way to evaluate the program outcomes. We made a list of 46 special skills and techniques (Box 2) essential to integrated

digital mapping and the REU experience that the participating students are exposed to during the course of the program. Most of these skills are related to the use of digital instruments and GIS for field mapping and analysis, but they also include various outdoor skills, use of Brunton and stereonet, use of supporting software, and abstract/poster development. Students fill out the skills assessment sheet at the end of the summer field season, providing a self evaluation of their prior knowledge or skill level and of their knowledge and skill level after the completion of the REU summer program. This skills assessment provides a simple measure of the effectiveness of the learning process as students are exposed to the new digital field mapping techniques. The list itself highlights the versatility of these new techniques and the need for specialized training in geospatial technologies as part of the future of geologic mapping. The results of the REU 2007 skills assessment survey, for example (Fig. 11), indicate that significant learning takes place over the eight weeks of the program. The average prior skill level was 1.56 (on a scale of 0–5), and an average post-REU skill level is 3.75. This means an average skill-level increase of 2.19 for the 46 skills and techniques involved. Student responses can be grouped by category to include outdoor skills, structural geology, digital mapping, GIS, supporting software, and abstract/poster development. The lowest initial skill level (0.21) was estimated for the digital mapping component, while the highest initial skill level (2.16–2.19) was estimated for the GIS, software, and abstract/poster components of the program. Consequently, the highest average skill level increase of 3.59 came from the digital mapping skill set, with the other categories ranging from 1.38 to 2.13. The lowest post-REU skill level was estimated for the structural geology component (2.90), reflecting the overall complexity of the field area history. The highest post-REU skill level was estimated for the outdoor skills (4.10) and abstract/poster (4.06) component of the program, reflecting overall student confidence in their field and writing abilities. Public Dissemination and Education Most of the REU work is by necessity focused on publicly accessible state parks and nature preserves where significant exposures can be found as well as on private islands where permission for access has been granted. The more significant publicly accessible sites examined during the program have included Pemaquid Point Lighthouse Park (featured on the new Maine State quarter), the historic Seguin Island and Lighthouse, and the Damariscove Island Nature Preserve. These targeted field areas and their museums, informational kiosks, and summer visitors create a unique opportunity for the public dissemination of our scientific research results. Educational materials have been produced for the Seguin Island site that include maps, brochures, and summary data compilations exported from ArcMap as layered clickable .pdf files. A computer has been installed at the Seguin Island Museum as a digital kiosk to display the layered .pdf map file so that visitors can explore the many different views (aerial image, topographic, geologic, land-use features, etc.) of Seguin

Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research

131

BOX 2. SKILLS LIST FOR DIGITAL FIELD MAPPING

OUTDOOR Low-impact camping Cooking for large groups Kayak paddling strokes Rescue techniques Navigation and charts Leadership, group work STRUCTURE Brunton compass; quadrants Planar data, right-hand rule, azimuth compass Linear data as trend and plunge Stereonet program for digital orientation data Strain analysis using line length or surface area reconstruction DIGITAL MAPPING Geo XT Custom Data Dictionary 5700 RTK Measure Points Continuous Topo Mode RTK base station setup Total Station Station establishment Design survey strategy Trimble data transfer utility Trimble export as shape files utility Download procedure for imagery from MeOGIS Upload procedure to OPUS for static GPS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM Arc GIS 9 Download, format, display, and convert to shape routine for digital survey data Georeference preexisting maps Merge shape files Use ET Wizard to connect data points Plot, rotate, and label map symbols Areas of polygons Lengths of line segments Measure angles Produce TIN contours from elevation data Run Arc Scene Export as video clip Create new shape file and digitize new features in Edit Export MXD layouts as tiffs, jpegs & pdfs Personal geodatabase SOFTWARE Excel Manage and edit coordinates Adobe Photoshop for camera-pole mosaics Adobe Illustrator for poster layouts POSTER Hypothesis generation and testing Write scientific abstract Design and create scientific poster

Prior skill level

Post-REU skill level

0–5

0–5

132

Swanson and Bampton riculum, and Laboratory Improvement) grant program for the initial equipment purchases, and to University of Southern Maine (USM) for research and development funds for the purchase of the field laptop computers. Much appreciation goes to the many Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) student researchers who have contributed their efforts and enthusiasm to various aspects of this work and to the conservatory organizations and landowners who have graciously provided access to these extraordinary field sites. REFERENCES CITED

Figure 11. Skills assessment results for the 2007 Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program showing the pre- and post-REU estimated skill levels (on a scale of 0–5) as an evaluation of learning. Student responses are grouped by category to include outdoor skills, structural geology, digital mapping, geographic information systems (GIS), supporting software, and abstract/poster development.

Island in a navigable and zoomable digital format. Layered .pdf files with compiled data can easily be added to Web sites maintained by nonprofit organizations charged with the conservation of these natural areas (Friends of Seguin [Seguin Island]; Boothbay Region Land Trust [Damariscove Island], for example). CONCLUSIONS Field mapping in the twenty-first century requires an intimate knowledge of the operation, application, and limitations of a range of new digital resources, computer software, and geospatial technologies. The National Science Foundation’s Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Site Program at USM offers an adventure-based platform of hands-on exposure to a wide variety of new mapping tools and resources. Such a fully integrated multi-instrument approach provides a well-rounded introduction to these important new tools and resources. Knowledge and experience with a broad range of these new tools and techniques allow the modern-day field scientist to adjust and adapt to the specifics of new field research environments. The use of these new tools and techniques gives scientists access to previously untapped sources of new precision field data, such as highresolution imagery and outcrop surface maps, that can reveal new, never-before-seen geologic features and relationships. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks are due to the National Science Foundation for support of this Research Experiences for Undergraduates Site Program (grant 0139021 for 2002–2004; 0353601 for 2004– 2007; 0647779 for 2007–2010); to NSF’s CCLI (Course, Cur-

Arnold, T., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M.T., 2007, A 3D approach: Application of detailed topography for enhanced visualization: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 1, p. 44. Bates, A., Byars, H., McCurdy, K., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2006, Digital mapping of pseudotachylyte in the Harbor Island fault zone, East Muscongus Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 2, p. 24–25. Benford, B., Burd, A., Mason-Barton, K., Millard, M., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2005, Digital strain analysis of syntectonic veins and intrusions, eastern contact of the Waldoboro pluton, Muscongus Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 1, p. 59. Berry, L., Cooper, J., Weiss, H., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M., 2003, Integrated precision digital mapping techniques for structural geology in Casco Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35, no. 3, p. 94. Betka, P., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2006, Digital mapping techniques used to correlate left-lateral shear with the emplacement of the Waldoboro pluton, Muscongus Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 2, p. 92–93. Bothner, W., and Hussey, A.M., II, 1999, Norumbega connections: Casco Bay, Maine to Massachusetts?, in Ludman, A., and West, D.P., Jr., eds., Norumbega Fault System of the Northern Appalachians: Geological Society of America Special Paper 331, p. 59–72. Castle, N., Heffron, E., McCoog, M., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2004, Strain analysis of syntectonic granite intrusions east of the Norumbega fault zone at Pemaquid Point, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 2, p. 101. Di Toro, G., and Pennacchioni, G., 2005, Fault plane processes and mesoscopic structure of a strong-type earthquake fault in tonalites (Adamello batholith, Southern Alps): Tectonophysics, v. 402, p. 55–80, doi: 10.1016/j .tecto.2004.12.036. Doyle, J., Kiser, B., Newton, M., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2004, Syntectonic granites and transpressional deformation Muscongus Bay, coastal Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 2, p. 101. Duwe, J., Rich, J., Robinson, T., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M., 2006, 3D virtual outcrop: Conception, construction and application: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 2, p. 25. Gilbert, A., Tragert, C., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M., 2007, Seguin Island: The use of digital mapping techniques in environmental analysis: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 1, p. 100. Guertin, L.A., 2006, Integrating handheld technology with field investigations in introductory-level geoscience courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 143–146. Hubbard, M., 1999, Norumbega fault zone: Part of an orogen-parallel strikeslip system, northern Appalachians, in Ludman, A., and West, D.P., Jr., eds., Norumbega Fault System of the Northern Appalachians: Geological Society of America Special Paper 331, p. 155–166. Hussey, A.M., II, 1988, Lithotectonic stratigraphy, deformation, plutonism and metamorphism, greater Casco Bay region, southwestern Maine, in Tucker, R.D., and Marvinney, R.G., eds., Studies in Maine Geology: Volume 1. Structure and Stratigraphy: Augusta, Maine Geological Survey, p. 17–34. Hussey, A.M., II, and Berry, H., 2002, Bedrock Geology of the Bath 1:100,000 Quadrangle, Maine: Maine Geological Survey Geologic Map 02-152 and Bulletin 42, scale 1:100,000.

Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research Jackson, C.T., 1838, Second Report on the Geology of the State of Maine: Augusta, Luther Severance, 168 p. Jansyn, S., Szafranski, J., Stone, S., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2003, Syntectonic granite intrusions and the Norumbega fault system, Casco Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35, no. 3, p. 93. Joyner, A., Pasay, L., Vanderberg, J., Sigrist, B., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M., 2008, High-resolution mapping of environmental geology on Damariscove Island, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 2, p. 7. Kroll, K., Swanson, M.T., and Bampton, M., 2008, Spatial analysis of complex fold structures on Seguin Island, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 2, p. 23. Land, A., Swanson, M., Bampton, M., and Davis, S., 2004, Alternate z-value surface analysis of fabric orientation in regional transpression related to dextral Norumbega shearing, mid-coast Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 2, p. 101. Ludman, A., and West, D.P., Jr., eds., 1999, Norumbega Fault System of the Northern Appalachians: Geological Society of America Special Paper 331, 202 p. Mayhew, J., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2007, Strain analysis of highly sheared granites, inner Casco Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 1, p. 77. McBride, M., Taylor, C., Witcoski, J., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2004, Techniques for integrated precision digital mapping at Pemaquid Point, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 2, p. 100. McCaffrey, K.J.W., Jones, R.R., Holdsworth, R.E., Wilson, R.W., Clegg, P., Imber, J., Hollman, N., and Trinks, I., 2005, Unlocking the spatial dimension: Digital technologies and the future of geoscience field work: Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 162, p. 927–938, doi: 10.1144/0016-764905-017. McKenzie, M.D., 2000, How are adventure education program outcomes achieved?: A review of the literature: Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, v. 5, no. 1, p. 19–28. Menking, K., and Stewart, M.E., 2007, Using mobile mapping to determine rates of meander migration in an undergraduate geomorphology course: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, no. 2, p. 147. Millard, M., Archer, K., Mason-Barton, K., Gerhold, M., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2005, GIS data structure for geologic mapping using integrated precision digital techniques: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 1, p. 58. Mueller, P., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M.T., 2008, Using GIS to develop effective dissemination strategies: Designing a digital kiosk for the natural and cultural history of Seguin Island, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 2, p. 72. National Research Council, 2006a, Learning to Think Spatially: The Incorporation of Geographic Information Science across the K–12 Curriculum: Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 332 p. National Research Council, 2006b, Beyond Mapping: Meeting National Needs through Enhanced Geographic Information Science: Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 116 p. Neumann, K., and Kutis, M., 2006, Mobile GIS in geologic mapping exercises: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, p. 147–152. O’Kane, A., Melendez, C., Beal, H., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2003, Strain analysis of syntectonic granite intrusions deformed by Norumbega shearing, Casco Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35, no. 3, p. 93. Olson, N., Archer, K., Gerhold, M., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2005, Digital mapping techniques to delineate left-lateral shear at the eastern contact of the Waldoboro pluton, Muscongus Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 1, p. 58–59. Orton, S., Maddox, L., Martin, C., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2007, Digital strain analysis of deformed syntectonic granites at Salter Island, ME: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 1, p. 77. Osberg, P., Hussey, A.M., and Boone, G.M., 1985, Bedrock Geologic Map: Augusta, Maine Geological Survey, scale 1:500,000.

133

Plitzuweit, S., Rajter, D., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2007, Using digital techniques to study complex folding on Seguin and Salter Islands, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 1, p. 77. Priest, S., and Gass, M.A., 2005, Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming: Champaign, Illinois, Human Kinetics Publishers, 344 p. Saunders, R., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2008, The post-emplacement deformational history of granite intrusions: The quarries of Damariscove Island, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 2, p. 23–24. Sigrist, B., Mueller, P., Joyner, A., Mosher, R., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M.T., 2008, Design and implementation of a NADM compliant data model for regional to outcrop scale geologic mapping projects: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 2, p. 71. Spaulding, A., Ofsevit, A., Byars, H.E., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M.T., 2006, Geodatabase: The next step in data management?: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 2, p. 25. Swanson, M.T., 1983, Continuous outcrop mapping within the Mesozoic eastern New England dike swarm of southern coastal Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 15, no. 6, p. 703. Swanson, M.T., 1992, Late Acadian–Alleghenian transpressional deformation: Evidence from asymmetric boudinage in the Casco Bay area: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 14, p. 323–341, doi: 10.1016/0191-8141(92)90090-J. Swanson, M.T., 1994, Minimum dextral shear strain estimates in the Casco Bay area of coastal Maine from vein reorientation and elongation: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 26, no. 3, p. 75. Swanson, M.T., 1999a, Kinematic indicators for dextral shearing along the Casco Bay section of the Norumbega fault zone, coastal Maine, in Ludman, A., and West, D.P., Jr., eds., Norumbega Fault System of the Northern Appalachians: Geological Society of America Special Paper 331, p. 1–24. Swanson, M.T., 1999b, Dextral transpression at the Casco Bay restraining bend, Norumbega fault zone, coastal Maine, in Ludman, A., and West, D.P., Jr., eds., Norumbega Fault System of the Northern Appalachians: Geological Society of America Special Paper 331, p. 85–104. Swanson, M.T., 2005, Digital mapping in a new pseudotachylyte locality from the Harbor Island fault zone, Muscongus Bay, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 1, p. 59. Swanson, M.T., 2006, Late Paleozoic strike-slip faults and related vein arrays of Cape Elizabeth, Maine: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 28, p. 456–473, doi: 10.1016/j.jsg.2005.12.009. Swanson, M.T., 2007, Strain partitioning during transpressional deformation: Evidence from boudin partings, quartz veins, and granite intrusions: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 1, p. 97. Swanson, M.T., and Bampton, M., 2004, Precision digital mapping techniques used to study multi-scale crustal processes: An integrated GIS-based approach: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 2, p. 49. Swanson, M.T., and Bampton, M., 2008, Digital camera-pole photography: A useful research tool for outcrop surface mapping of mesoscale structures: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 2, p. 71. Swanson, M.T., Francis, B., Cooper, J., and Bampton, M., 2002, All-digital outcrop mapping at Hiram Falls, Saco River, Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, no. 1, p. A-68. Vanderberg, J., Joyner, A., Bampton, M., and Swanson, M., 2008, High-resolution GIS analysis of palimpsest glacial features in a marginal glacial environment: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 2, p. 68. Verhave, A., Wanless, S., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2005, Applications of georeferenced precision photography to digital outcrop surface mapping: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, p. 1, p. 58. Waters, L., Young, K., Swanson, M., and Bampton, M., 2008, Digital mapping of the syntectonic Damariscove granitic dike intrusion complex of midcoast Maine: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 2, p. 23. Winchester, S., 2001, The Map That Changed the World: William Smith and the Birth of Modern Geology: New York, Harper Collins, 329 p. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009

Printed in the USA

The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009

Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options Robert L. Bauer Department of Geological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA Donald I. Siegel Department of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244-1070, USA Eric A. Sandvol Department of Geological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA Laura K. Lautz Department of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244-1070, USA

ABSTRACT The incorporation of increasingly multidisciplinary aspects of geoscience curricula into a traditional geology field camp requires compromises. Among these, decisions 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 refraction, 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 philosophies. 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 [email protected]. ©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 undergraduate geoscience students intensive instruction and field experience and integrate standard coursework into a field setting. Historically, this integration has involved geologic mapping and three-dimensional subsurface interpretations in a wide range of geologic terrains. However, today’s geoscience curricula are more multidisciplinary, and many programs commonly incorporate hydrology, aqueous geochemistry, and geophysics. Although the majority of geology field camps continue to place strong emphasis on traditional field mapping, increasing numbers of field programs now offer projects in hydrology, geophysics, and environmental geology (e.g., McKay and Kammer, 1999; Baker, 2006), and some programs integrate various new technologies into these projects or the field mapping process (e.g., Knoop et al., 2007; Swanson and Bampton, this volume; Whitmeyer et al., this volume). Two of the principal challenges when adding such components are: (1) to achieve a balanced curriculum that provides sufficiently broad field instruction while integrating new topics and techniques, and (2) to accommodate differences in the coursework that students have completed prior to beginning the field camp. Some field camps accommodate the second challenge by specializing in hydrology, geophysics, or environmental geology—avoiding any pretense of a broad field curriculum— and requiring that students have the prerequisite courses in the specialty subject. However, we asked: how and to what degree can both of these challenges be met? Over the past 10 yr, the University of Missouri has introduced a series of hydrology, aqueous geochemistry, and geophysics exercises into our six-week course in an effort to broaden our curriculum and overcome both of these challenges. Our course continues to emphasize traditional aspects of field geology and regional geology during the first four weeks. However, we have also developed instructional modules for the last two weeks that serve the interests and abilities of students that have little or no previous course work in hydrology and geophysics, as well as students who have previous background courses in these subjects and/or who have advanced interests in hydrology or geophysics. The fifth week of the course includes instruction and projects in surface and groundwater hydrology, seismic refraction, stream terrace mapping, and hard-rock structural analysis. Although structural geology is a course prerequisite, courses in hydrogeology, geophysics, and geomorphology are not required. As a result, the instruction during the fifth week provides considerable fundamental background for the projects. During the sixth week of the course, we offer a series of advanced options: students have the choice of completing advanced projects in hard-rock structural analysis, seismic reflection, refraction, and

tomography studies, or groundwater and surface water hydrology. This paper describes our fifth- and sixth-week projects with emphasis on the hydrology and geophysics projects. To provide a course context for the addition of this new material, we describe our instructional philosophy, our basic course curriculum, and the ways in which we have integrated geophysics and hydrology into a traditional geology field course. As a basis for general comparison with other field courses, our course operates from a permanent residential base camp that includes a laboratory where students complete their project reports, and computer facilities that include satellite broadband access. We accept a maximum of 40 students for our six-week course, which has prerequisites of structural geology, historical geology, sedimentology, and mineralogy. Typically, less than one third of the students are from our department, and the remainder of participants come from other departments across the country and the state of Missouri. All students pay the same fees. The students work 6 d per week. Faculty members generally rotate into the course for two-week periods to teach projects in their research specialties. Most field projects are completed at sites within a 45 min drive from the camp, but the curriculum also includes a 4 d instructional trip through Teton and Yellowstone National Parks, and adjacent areas of the Snake River Plain and Beartooth Mountains. FIELD SETTING FOR OUR PROJECTS The Branson Field Station is located in Sinks Canyon in the foothills of the Wind River Mountains near Lander, Wyoming, ~200 km southeast of Yellowstone National Park (Fig. 1). The immediate field areas provide a wide variety of rock units and deformation features that form the basis for our field instruction and projects. The rock section includes exposures ranging from Precambrian granite-greenstone belts through most of the Paleozoic (not including Silurian), Mesozoic, and Tertiary stratigraphic sections (Fig. 2). The Wind River Mountains were deformed by basementinvolved uplift during the Laramide orogeny (ca. 75–51 Ma in Wyoming), which exposed the Precambrian core of the range and tilted the overlying Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata to the northeast, dipping into the adjacent Wind River basin (e.g., Keefer, 1970). Our field station is located near the Precambrian-Paleozoic contact within the steep-walled Pleistocene glacial valley containing the Middle Fork of the Popo Agie River. Several doubly plunging, en echelon anticlines, which formed during the Laramide uplift of the range, occur along the southwestern margin of the Wind River basin within ~25 km of our camp. These anticlines fold Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata and trend subparallel to the northwest-southeast trend of the Wind River Mountains

Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options

A

o

o

110 W

104 W

137

B

o

45 N

o

41 N

Age in millions of years

Map Explanation

N

CENOZOIC IGNEOUS ROCKS Quaternary, Pliocene and Miocene rhyolite and basalt; some intrusives Upper Tertiary to Cretaceous (?) intrusive rocks; some extrusives Eocene Absaroka Volcanic Supergroup

100 km

SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS Cenozoic Quaternary unconsolidated sediments

C

N

Absaroka Mountains

Lower Quaternary, Pliocene, and Miocene Oligocene Middle Eocene; some Upper Eocene Lower Eocene Paleocene Mesozoic

ind

Upper Cretaceous

ve

Pinedale

rM

Jurassic, some Lower Cretaceous

s

~ 543 IGNEOUS AND METAMORPHIC ROCKS Precambrian

1,400 2,500

Major unconformity Middle Proterozoic intrusive rocks

Early Proterozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks

ain

Wind River thrust

Lander Camp Dallas dome Branson Derby dome

nt

Paleozoic Permian and Pennsylvanian; some Mississippian and Triassic Cambrian, Ordovician, Devonian, and Mississippian

ou

Triassic

245

Riverton

Ri

Upper and Lower Cretaceous Lower Cretaceous; some Jurassic

Wind River basin

W

66.4

100 km

Sheep mountain

Red Canyon South Pass greenstone belt

Archean igneous and metamorphic rocks MAJOR FAULTS Fault (dotted where concealed) Thrust fault (teeth on upper plate)

Figure 1. (A) Geologic index map of the state of Wyoming showing the outline of the area containing the Wind River Mountains (after Roberts, 1989). (B) Geologic map of the Wind River Mountains and adjacent areas of the Wind River basin. (C) Map overlay of B showing the location of the major features discussed in the text.

P

P P P

M M M M

S

M

P

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

Figure 2. Stratigraphic section exposed in the Wind River Mountains and adjacent parts of the Wind River basin. M—units that are included in major mapping projects; P—units that are studied during major sedimentation and stratigraphy projects; S—units that are examined in the field for their stratigraphic and regional historical significance. Pleistocene units not shown in the section were also included in a mapping exercise.

S

S

S

S

M

M

M

M

138

Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options (e.g., Willis and Groshong, 1993). The folds range from 8 to 15 km long and contain numerous normal and reverse faults produced during the Laramide folding. Two of these folds, Dallas dome and Derby dome (Fig. 1C), have well-exposed faulted and folded Mesozoic sections, and serve as field sites for several of our stratigraphy, sedimentation, geologic mapping, and advanced geophysics projects. Exposures of deformed and metamorphosed rocks of the South Pass greenstone belt (cf. Figs. 1B and 1C) occur in the uplifted Precambrian core of the range, and these exposures provide field sites for our hard-rock projects in structural analysis and mapping of igneous and metamorphic rocks. By the end of the Tertiary, the Wind River basin was filled with Tertiary sediment eroded from the adjacent uplifted mountain ranges and with interlayers of volcanic ash from the Eocene Absaroka volcanic field to the north-northwest of the basin (Fig. 1). The result was a landscape of relatively low relief (e.g., Mears, 1993). Subsequently, late Cenozoic regional uplift or regional climate change (cf. Epis and Chapin, 1975; Gregory and Chase, 1994; Riihimaki et al., 2007) resulted in exhumation of much of the Wind River basin by the Wind River and its tributary streams. This process produced the current relief between the basins and adjacent ranges and also exposed numerous angular unconformities between the relatively flat-lying Tertiary strata and the underlying Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata dipping off of the uplifted core of the Wind River Mountains. Our instruction and projects in sedimentology, stream terrace mapping, hydrology, and geophysics take advantage of these exposed relationships and/or the associated stream systems. Although our project settings are primarily geologic, we also take advantage of our location near the towns of Lander and Riverton, Wyoming, and nearby mining operations in Fremont County to help our students appreciate the societal implications of field geology. For instance, our groundwater and geophysics projects have examined the relationship of municipal water quality and waste disposal to the local geology. Students also learn how field geologists working for the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality in Lander oversee mine reclamation in abandoned iron and gold mines in the area. INSTRUCTIONAL PHILOSOPHY Geoscience students have a fairly broad spectrum of geology field courses from which to choose. These range from courses that concentrate primarily on traditional field mapping, to specialty courses in hydrology, geophysics, or environmental geology, and courses that broadly integrate field computers and geographic information system (GIS) technologies into the mapping process. Our basic course philosophy has been to give students a broad diversity of field problem-solving experiences while still providing thorough training in field geologic mapping. We have continued this philosophy with the addition of our advanced course options by working to integrate mapping and subsurface interpretation techniques into the more instrumented data gathering and analysis that are associated with the advanced projects.

139

Beyond this general philosophy, we have developed our own philosophies about field and laboratory instruction, field mapping, and technology integration. Field and Laboratory Instruction Our primary instructional goal is to teach field-oriented problem solving that reinforces critical work skills. We emphasize five-dimensional problem solving—understanding the three physical dimensions of geological features, the way these features have developed with time, and the processes responsible for the observed features over time. We emphasize this approach in all of our projects, and students are asked to address each dimension in their project reports. The general work skills that we promote include cooperative group work, effective time management, report writing skills, and dealing with uncertainty by considering interpretations with incomplete data. All of our projects are conducted in groups that usually include three students. Groups change with each project to allow students to work with other students of varying interests, expertise, and abilities. This approach promotes cooperative learning among the students, provides for field safety, and allows us to group students with different academic and physical strengths. As in any work situation, group dynamics and abilities will vary, but we do find that collaborative learning increases students’ involvement in the learning process. When students share and discuss their ideas, their thinking about the projects is enhanced and their understanding deepens. Group projects make up 50% of the students grade, and three individual exams make up the remaining 50%. The diversity of students within a group may lead to uneven work efforts (reflecting a real-world work environment), but the grading system rewards those who are the active learners. Most of our projects include full field days (6 d/wk) combined with evening data analysis or report writing in a laboratory setting using group laptop computers for project completion. Longer projects may include an entire day in the laboratory preparing reports. Strict time constraints for project completion require that the groups develop effective group time management. Geologists, probably more than other scientists and engineers, are commonly called upon to make interpretations based on incomplete data. This is particularly true in the development of structural cross sections and three-dimensional (3-D) interpretations of the subsurface from geologic maps (e.g., Groshong, 2006), but it is also common in hydrologic and geophysical interpretations. We discuss techniques for making subsurface interpretations and cross sections from geologic maps, and instructors work individually with student groups to help them understand the process of making reasoned interpretations when faced with limited data. Part of our instructional philosophy includes hiring instructors to teach projects in their areas of specialization. For the 40 students that we instruct during our course, we typically hire a cadre of eight to ten faculty members and three teaching assistants. Faculty members and teaching assistants come from a

140

Bauer et al.

variety of institutions; generally less than half of the instructors are from the University of Missouri faculty. Most of the faculty members teach over two-week periods. Generally, at least five instructors (faculty and teaching assistants) are in the field with student groups during the projects. The project areas are wellexposed exemplary areas for the problems addressed, and they are well-known to the instructors. We promote instructor-student interactions in the field and prompt feedback to students upon completion of the projects. Lectures to set up and provide background for the projects are presented in our laboratory just prior to the projects. Lecture materials are made available to students as handouts that can be stored in their course binders, and they are also available for review on the desktop computers in our field camp laboratory.

the effective use of these technologies and associated software. Although most students are already familiar with laptop computers and the commonly available software noted here, at this point, few students come to field camp already familiar with GIS or map preparation software, or with the hardware and software used for real-time computer-assisted field mapping. Relative to our general objective of exposing students to as many different types of relevant field experiences as possible, we have decided that taking time to instruct students in the use of such rapidly evolving technologies is not a priority at this point. Students who consider exposure to these technologies as an educational priority have several field camp options that provide this experience (e.g., Knoop et al., 2007; Swanson and Bampton, this volume; Whitmeyer et al., this volume).

Field Mapping

TRADITIONAL COURSE CURRICULUM— WEEKS ONE THROUGH FOUR

Traditional field geologic mapping continues to be a prominent component of our field course. Our students use paper topographic maps and registered paper orthophotos as base maps. The mapped areas are well exposed and allow students to draw map-unit contacts on the topographic maps as contacts are viewed either from a distance or along traverses. Each project group also has a handheld global positioning system (GPS) receiver to record UTM coordinates of specific station locations or to reinforce location decisions, but we strongly emphasize the reading of topographic maps, the use of the Brunton compass, and the integration of orthophotos as the primary mapping tools. We believe that this is the best approach to help students develop the three-dimensional perspective that is so critical to geologists, geophysicists, and hydrogeologists. We emphasize that the geologic map is an interpretation of field data and observations, and it serves as the basis for subsurface interpretations and “fivedimensional” hypothesis testing. Integrating Technology We have embraced the use of various technologies to enhance our data collection, analysis, and report writing for various projects. Each project group has a notebook computer available for compilation and analysis of field data in the laboratory. Programs available on these computers and several desktop computers in our laboratory include commonly available software such as spreadsheet, word-processing, and photo editor programs. We have satellite broadband access and a local wireless network that allows students to download remote data sets and print to networked printers. We also use project-specific equipment and several specialty programs in our advanced geophysics, hydrology, and structural analysis projects. Nevertheless, we have not attempted to integrate technologies for recording general project notes or data in the field (e.g., using tablet or handheld computers), or for the field mapping or the map preparation process. The principal factor that influenced this decision is the time required to instruct students in

The first four weeks of our course (Table 1) include as series of instructional sessions and field projects that: (1) review basic field methods and introduce students to the Mesozoic and Paleozoic sections, (2) provide projects that help students understand the sedimentation histories and processes that produced the sedimentary sections, (3) teach students how to map folded and faulted sedimentary rocks, and (4) include field mapping projects in the deformed Mesozoic section (Fig. 2). Following the mapping projects, the students receive a day of field review and feedback in the area of the last mapping project, and, finally, all students complete an individual 1 d field mapping exam. All of our projects are discussed in a regional geologic context. To set up this context, faculty members present a series of evening lectures on: the regional geology and geologic history of Wyoming, deformation styles during the Laramide and Sevier orogenies, the geologic history of northwestern Wyoming, tectonic history of the Snake River Plain and Yellowstone hotspot, and the Pleistocene glacial history of northwestern Wyoming. The culmination of the lecture series is a 4 d instructional tour of the geology of Teton and Yellowstone National Parks and adjacent areas of the Snake River Plain and Beartooth Mountains, which follows shortly after the field mapping exam. WEEK FIVE INSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS Philosophy and Logistics Our fifth week of instruction begins shortly after students return from their 4 d trip through northwestern Wyoming and adjacent areas. The general objective during this week is to instruct the students in a broad range of projects in areas that are not covered by our basic prerequisite courses. During this week, we place particular emphasis on hydrology and geophysics to help the students understand water-related environmental problems and their relationship to the surface and subsurface geology of the area (Table 2). We emphasize the five-dimensional

Week 1

Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF THE TRADITIONAL FIELD CAMP PROJECTS AND INSTRUCTION INCLUDED DURING THE FIRST FOUR WEEKS OF THE COURSE Projects Objectives Units/features/location Pace and compass methods Become familiar with field methods Section reconnaissance Learn stratigraphic sections All Paleozoic and Mesozoic units Sedimentary structures Recognize/interpret structures Mesa Verde Formation Sedimentary facies Interpret sedimentary facies Mesa Verde Formation Tertiary unconformity

Week 3

Week 2

Section measurement

Week 4

141

Paleocurrent analysis Mapping folded and faulted sedimentary rocks Map evaluation Mapping folded and faulted sedimentary rocks Review of the map area Field exam Mine reclamation tour Wyoming geotour (4 d)

Observe Tertiary sedimentary facies and their tectonic implications Learn to measure and describe sedimentary units, draw section Learn paleocurrent techniques Mapping instruction/techniques

Tertiary units and unconformity

Individual group evaluations

Camp laboratory

Learn from the mapping experience, produce maps and cross sections Participate in half-day field review of the area just mapped

Derby Dome–Mesozoic units

Individual test of mapping skills Learn how geologists oversee the mine reclamation process Show and discuss features of the geologic history of northwestern Wyoming and adjacent areas

Previously unseen area Atlantic City Mine

approach that we used during the previous course projects and that continues to provide students with a mental framework to relate hydrologic and geophysical interpretations to surface and subsurface geological environments (Siegel, 2002). We strive to underscore the association between subsurface geometries and 3-D hydrologic systems through field exercises that are organized around the core concept of 3-D visualization the students learn from field mapping. The projects during the fifth week each include a day in the field studying: surface water hydrology, groundwater hydrology, seismic refraction, stream terrace mapping, and structural analysis in igneous and metamorphic rocks. The first four projects are completed over a 4 d field period on property owned by The Nature Conservancy in the picturesque Red Canyon (RC) area (Fig. 3, located on Figs. 1C and 4). The setting lies along the Paleozoic-Mesozoic boundary between the upper Phosphoria Formation (Permian) and the lower Red Peak Formation of the Chugwater Group (Triassic). The location includes the confluence of two streams, Red Canyon Creek and Cherry Creek (Fig. 4), and includes a series of Pleistocene glaciofluvial terraces. Each of the Red Canyon area projects is run by a faculty member, and all of the projects are conducted on each of the four field days. The student groups (of three students each) are combined into four “supergroups” made up of three or four of the student groups. Each supergroup is assigned to one of the four Red Canyon projects on a given day, and each supergroup receives a morning lecture and instruction prior to traveling to the field site to collect data and make observations for the projects. The hydrology and geophysics project reports are due by 10:00 p.m. on the day of their assignment. All groups have a full day at the

Sundance & Gypsum Springs Derby and Dallas domes Nugget Sandstone Dallas Dome–Mesozoic units

Derby Dome–Mesozoic units

Teton, Yellowstone Parks, Snake River Plain, Beartooth Mtns, Absaroka Mtns

end of the 4 d project period in which to prepare their maps and reports for the terrace mapping project. The structural analysis project is completed by all of the student groups on the last day of the project week at a location in the Precambrian South Pass greenstone belt (Fig. 1C) and is due by 10:00 p.m. on the day of the assignment. The hydrology, geophysics, and surficial mapping projects that are now covered during the fifth week replaced an extensive mapping project in the Paleozoic section and a more extensive hard-rock mapping and structural analysis project than we now include during week five (Table 2). Since the new materials developed for this week are primarily associated with the hydrology and geophysics projects, the following sections concentrate on these subjects. Hydrology Projects The hydrology exercises emphasize fundamental field and instrumental skills, data collection, and data interpretation that are common to a wide range of hydrologic and geochemical studies in a 3-D setting (Siegel, 2008). Red Canyon creek flows through a spectacular valley along the contact between a thick sequence of Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks that dip off of the uplifted core of the Wind River Mountains (Figs. 3 and 4). The climate is semiarid, which is typical of western Wyoming. Most precipitation occurs during the winter, and snowmelt provides most of the water to rivers in the region. The field site is located on The Nature Conservancy property where Red Canyon Creek meanders through a series of stepped dams that are separated by narrow downcut channels. The water from the

Week 6 (new)

Week 6 (old)

Week 5 (new)

Week 5 (old)

142

Bauer et al. TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF THE NEW FIFTH- AND SIXTH-WEEK PROJECTS AND THE PROJECTS THAT THEY REPLACED Projects (old vs. new) Objectives Units/features/location Mapping folded and faulted sedimentary Provide more mapping experience Paleozoic section that includes different rocks Exposure to mapping different rock units and faulting and folding mechanisms than the different fault and fold geometries previous map areas—Sheep Mountain Analysis of deformation fabrics in igneous and metamorphic rocks

Learn to map igneous and metamorphic rocks, record and analyze deformation fabrics

Folded Precambrian gneiss and schist with variable deformation fabrics—Sheep Mountain

Surface-water hydrology Groundwater hydrology

Expose students to a broad range of surfacewater and groundwater monitoring techniques to illustrate surface-groundwater interactions

Floodplain of Red Canyon Creek reworking the lower part of the Triassic Chugwater Group

Shallow seismic refraction

Introduce shallow seismic techniques and their relationship to local stratigraphy and groundwater

(Same location as above)

Stream terrace mapping

Introduce surficial mapping techniques

Red Canyon glaciofluvial terraces

Analysis of deformation fabrics in igneous and metamorphic rocks

Learn to record and analyze deformation fabrics produced during folding and boudinage

Folded schist and boudinaged granitic layers in the roof area of a granite pluton—South Pass greenstone belt

Mapping and structural analysis of folded and faulted schist intruded by granite and mafic dikes

Learn to map igneous and metamorphic rocks and large-scale folding without stratigraphy. Record and analyze deformation fabrics as an aid to regional deformation geometries and deformation–metamorphism history

South Pass greenstone belt Precambrian amphibolite-facies schist intruded by two igneous units and mafic dikes

Option 1. Same as the old sixth-week project

Same as the old sixth-week project

Same as the old sixth-week project

Option 2. Advanced hydrology

Expose students to a variety of “real-world” hydrology problems (examples described in the text)

Varies depending on opportunities in a given year (example locations described in the text)

Option 3. Advanced geophysics

Expose students to a variety of “real-world” seismic problems (examples described in the text)

Varies depending on opportunities in a given year (example locations described in the text)

creek mixes with groundwater, leading to biogeochemical reactions 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 interested 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 multidisciplinary 3-D field investigations (Triska et al., 1993; Winter et al., 1998; Jones et al., 2000). We began our integrated hydrologic and geophysical studies in 1999 (Bauer et al., 2003). Subsequently, we have incrementally 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 techniques and data analysis, stream gauging, and tracer tests. We are able to logistically compress these experiences within a short time frame because the diversity of stream-groundwater interaction at our site occurs over a relatively restricted area. Students measure water level elevations in the 35 monitoring wells and mini-piezometers installed in an ~2-acre meadow adjacent to a meander of Red Canyon Creek. From these water levels, students construct a water-table map, focusing on the way that contours change as they cross the creek under different groundwater–surface-water settings, which change from year to year. Students use water-height differences between the stream and

Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options

Red Canyon project proj o ect ar area ea Nugget Sandstone Nugg Nu gg gett San S nds dsto tone one ne

Phosphoria Formation

C Ch hugwa ug gwa w te er Gr G rou up Chugwater Group Red Canyon Creek R Re d Ca C any yon o C Cre rre eek ek

143

Figure 3. Red Canyon viewed to the northwest from Wyoming Highway 28 overlook showing the location of the Red Canyon project areas in the distance and Red Canyon Creek in the foreground. The rock units shown are dipping to northeast (to the right) into the Wind River basin off of the uplifted Precambrian core of the range. The flat-lying mesa above the project area is capped by Tertiary sediment, illustrating the angular unconformity described in the text. The distance from the location of the photographer to the study area is ~9 km.

Geologic Map Explanation alluvium and colluvium

N

White River Formation

B

Nugget Sandstone Chugwater Group and Dinwoody Formation Phosphoria Formation Tensleep Sandstone and Amsden Formation

Parshall flume

Madison Limestone Flathead Ss, Gros Ventre Fm, Gallatin Ls, Bighorn Dolomite

A

Field Site k

dC an re ek

e Cre

nC

rett

yo

r

Re

er

ee

Bar

Ch

r yC

k

Red Can

Sn

ow

Cr

ee

k

De

ep

Cr

ee

k

X

yon Cree

0

k

TNC restoration dam

2

4

6

8 kilometers

In-stream feature Wells and piezometers

0

20

40

60

80

meters

Streams

Figure 4. (A) Bedrock geologic map of the Red Canyon area showing the location of the Red Canyon project site near the intersection of Red Canyon Creek and Cherry Creek. The “X” on the southeast side of the bedrock map is the location from which Figure 3 was photographed, facing northwest. This point is located at 42°36′13″N, 108°35′52″W. (B) Map of the Red Canyon field site showing the distribution of wells and instrumentation on The Nature Conservancy (TNC) property. Fm—Formation; Ls—Limestone; Ss—Sandstone.

144

Bauer et al.

inside the mini-piezometers in the streambed (i.e., the hydraulic gradient) to identify segments of gain and loss along the creek. Students measure discharge along Red Canyon Creek using multiple methods, including stage-discharge relationships around flow-control structures, velocity-area methods of varying complexity, and dilution gauging. By using multiple methods, students learn several techniques commonly used in professional settings, get exposure to a variety of field equipment, and engage in discussion of precision and accuracy of various methods. In 2005, we installed a Parshall flume at the site to measure water height and stream discharge year-round (Fig. 5). Flumes and other similar structures, including weirs, have prescribed rating curves that describe the relationship between water height and discharge. Using these rating curves, student measurements of water height are easily converted to stream discharge in a manner similar to that used by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) at gauging sites across the country. Students then compare the stream flow rate derived from the flume to values derived from current meter measurements and dilution gauging. For the current meter measurements, we use a Marsh-McBirney Flo-Mate 2000, which is a top-of-the-line meter that relies on

electromagnetics for velocity measurements. For dilution gauging, we purchased an Opti-Sciences GFL-1 Flow-through Field Fluorometer to continuously measure the concentration of Rhodamine WT, a fluorescent surface-water tracer, in the stream during tracer tests. The students are exposed to cutting-edge technology and get experience programming, using, and extracting data from these instruments. Students measure hydraulic conductivity from slug tests in the wells, and they use their results, along with hydraulic gradients they measure from their water-table maps, to calculate groundwater discharge (Q) and velocity (v) using Darcy’s law, both horizontally across the stream and vertically up or down through the streambed (from the mini-piezometer data). We address the water-chemistry aspects in both groundwater and surface water by using chemical analysis ampoule kits (Chemetrics). The students measure dissolved oxygen and iron in the field and alkalinity and total and calcium hardness in the laboratory later. They also measure field pH and specific conductance in the field using WTW 340i multiparameter probes. All of these chemical parameters are then used to determine major water-rock interactions through bivariate plots (e.g., based on mass action equation stoichiometry), coupled with reasonable assumptions about the remaining solutes in the waters. The systems we investigate have low concentrations of Na and Cl, for example, and these can either be neglected as a first approximation for much of the analysis, or they can be calculated by charge balance difference from the concentrations of cations and anions we measure. We particularly focus on the way in which organic matter in streambeds and/or groundwater changes the oxidationreduction potential of water and how this changes water chemistry (Siegel, 2008). We use bivariate plots to distinguish gypsum dissolution from calcite dissolution. Geophysics Project

Figure 5. Students measuring stream discharge using the float method (one type of velocity-area measurement), just downstream of Parshall flume.

Students complete their shallow seismic-refraction exercise on the floodplain of Red Canyon Creek adjacent to the hydrology project areas. The broader instructional objective of this exercise is to give all of the students, especially to those who have not had a geophysics course, a basic background in seismic waves and how they can be used to image Earth’s interior (even the shallow subsurface). The local objective is to determine whether seismicrefraction techniques can be used to image the shallow floodplain strata or the groundwater table. The seismic data are collected using a 32-channel Geode Seismic Data Acquisitions system with a sledgehammer as the source. The students are required to design their own seismic profile that will be able to image relatively shallow seismic boundaries (1.5–2 m deep) beneath the floodplain. The students deploy 32 geophones and collect the data entirely themselves. After collecting the data, the students determine the number of layers that the data support using an interactive computer program on laptop computers to determine the traveltime of the first arriving P waves. The students then calculate the velocities

Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options and layer thicknesses for each of the layers in their model using simple ray theory calculations. This technique is presented during the project’s introductory lecture, and the students make this determination without the use of computer software, allowing them to develop a better understanding of principles of seismic wave propagation. After formulating a simple one-dimensional seismic velocity model that best fits the data, the students are required to interpret their velocity model. Because the students are conducting their seismic experiment at the same field site as the ongoing hydrology projects, they can use their measurements of groundwater depth to interpret their seismic velocity models. The water table generally causes the largest velocity change at this site, so the students are typically able to see how the shallow geophysical measurements can be integrated with the hydrology projects that they are also completing. Terrace Mapping The glaciofluvial terraces in Red Canyon, adjacent to the hydrology and geophysics project sites, provide the setting for a surficial mapping project that introduces students to basic aspects of stream geomorphology, to concepts of stream equilibrium and terrace formation, and to concepts of relative age determination in surficial deposits. The project is set up in a consultant-client context in which The Nature Conservancy (the property owner) needs information about the relationship of the local alluvial history to glacial episodes in the alpine headwaters to the west of their Red Canyon Ranch. In order to expand their irrigation system, The Nature Conservancy is particularly interested in identifying and correlating stream terrace deposits across the area. To address these needs, each student field group: (1) identifies and maps the Pleistocene and Holocene stream terraces and modern floodplains associated with the local streams (Cherry Creek, Red Canyon Creek, and Barrett Creek; Fig. 4), (2) describes the lithologies of the terraces, and (3) gathers data on the relative ages of the terraces. The final report, which is completed during a day in the laboratory, includes a map of the terraces, lithologic descriptions, a cross section across the mapped area, and a report discussing a series of questions about the terrace formation history and processes responsible for the terrace development. Structural Analysis Projects The Archean rocks of the South Pass greenstone belt were the site of a gold rush near South Pass City beginning in 1867, and gold was mined intermittently at the Carissa Mine into the late 1940s. The day-long structural analysis study involves two projects in lower-amphibolite-facies metamorphic country rocks and local plutonic igneous rocks that are located near the abandoned Carissa Mine. The students are asked to determine fold geometries and finite elongation orientations that may have locally concentrated gold-bearing veins in the area. The two projects are designed to instruct the students in field data gather-

145

ing and plotting techniques to evaluate: (1) fold geometries, and (2) principal strain orientations using small-scale deformation features and rock fabrics. The project area includes highly folded metagraywacke in the roof area of a peraluminous granite pluton. Data collected for the fold geometry project include the orientations of folded bedding, fold hinge lines, axial plane foliations, and lineations that are all plotted manually on stereographic projections to determine the 3-D fold geometries. Data collected for the principal strain project include the orientations of boudin necks in peraluminous granite veins and a strong foliation that both occur parallel to the pluton–country-rock contact in the roof area. Student groups plot the data manually on stereographic projections using techniques described during a general lecture for the project the evening prior to the field study. The completed projects are due the evening of the field day. The projects reinforce the 3-D perspectives that we emphasize throughout the course and also prepare the students who elect to complete the hard-rock mapping and structural analysis project during the sixth project week. WEEK SIX ADVANCED PROJECTS Philosophy and Logistics We began offering advanced project options during the sixth week of our course during the summer of 2005. This change in our curriculum was made possible through a National Science Foundation grant that allowed us to purchase the equipment required for our advanced projects in hydrology and geophysics. Prior to 2005, the entire sixth week was dedicated to studying deformed igneous and metamorphic rocks (Table 2) and included a simpler version of the hard-rock structural analysis and mapping project that has now become one of our sixth-week project options. With the completion of our fifth-week projects, students have received sufficient instruction and experience in hydrology, geophysics, and structural analysis in metamorphic and plutonic igneous rocks to select and complete advanced projects in any one of these three areas. The principal objective of the sixth-week projects is to allow students to pursue advanced topics in areas that they find most interesting and/or are most consistent with their employment objectives. Many of our students come to our course because of our advanced projects and are already prepared with previous courses in hydrogeology or geophysics or have advanced interests in structural geology. However, some students are not certain which advanced project area they will choose until after completion of the fifth week’s projects, at which point, all students are required to select an advanced project. Over the 4 yr period that we have offered our advanced projects option (2005 through 2008), 25% of the students have chosen the geophysics option, 30% have chosen the structural analysis option, and 45% have chosen the hydrology option. This relative division of the students among the three project options has worked well, but we are somewhat constrained logistically by our transportation capacity. We use 15-passenger vans with a maximum of

146

Bauer et al.

10 occupants per van, and each of the advanced project groups must have independent transportation to their various project sites. Field instrumentation and laboratory computing capacity for completion of the projects have not been an issue, and to date, we have been able to honor all students’ project preferences. Faculty members in charge provide both laboratory and initial field instruction for each of the advanced projects to make sure that all students have the basic background required to complete the project. In addition to advanced subject matter, these projects also have a greater integration of technology. This is particularly true for the geophysics and hydrology projects, which require instrumentation for data acquisition and computer programs for data reduction and analysis, but the students completing the structural analysis project also use laptop computers and fabric analysis software for their data reduction, plotting, and analyses. Upon completion of the sixth-week projects, all students complete an individual final field exam over the material covered during their final project week. These exams make up make up 16.6% (one-sixth) of the student’s grade (equal to the first field exam and a regional geology exam). Advanced Hydrology Projects The sixth-week hydrologic projects vary from year to year depending on circumstances and opportunities that avail themselves. The general objective of these projects is to give our students “real world” problems, often with insufficient data to clearly answer the questions asked. Many of the projects can only be solved by approximation, which is the case in many hydrologic settings in practice. In some cases, the geophysics and hydrology portions of the camp have addressed common problems, but again, we vary each year’s experience somewhat. Despite project and/or site changes from year to year, the same pedagogical and scientific approaches that we use during our more traditional stratigraphic, lithologic, and structural mapping exercises (e.g., our five-dimensional geology approach), are readily integrated into the critical thinking and learning experiences provided by our advanced projects. We have developed several hydrology projects for the sixth week that: (1) teach both data collection and problem-solving skills, and (2) create ongoing discovery by building upon data sets collected during previous camp sessions. Most of the projects involve dynamic geologic systems that allow students to learn from the changes in the systems from year to year in addition to their own data collection and analysis. During the past 4 yr, the students have completed the following projects, several of which are described briefly here: (1) characterizing source waters for Dry Lake, (2) determining the viability of the Lander landfill, (3) siting a landfill near Riverton, Wyoming—the Sand Draw case study, (4) tracing water in the karst system of the Popo Agie River, (5) evaluating the hydrogeology of the Branson Field Camp site, (6) evaluating the hydrology of Cherry Creek meadow, and (7) evaluating variations in the surface-water quality in the Popo Agie River watershed.

The pedagogical format for these projects involves faculty presenting the problem in ~30 min at the beginning of each day, and then the students work in the field in small teams until midafternoon, after which they complete their analysis and written reports by 10 p.m. of the same day. We have students prepare reports in different formats including: two-page letter reports to clients, abstracts in Geological Society of American (GSA) format, and small engineering-style reports. We insist that all reports be typed and prepared professionally and the students usually rise to the challenge. We have also had noncamp lay personnel review reports. For example, the Waste Management Supervisor for Fremont County recently reviewed student reports for clarity from a lay person’s standpoint. Having nonfaculty reviewing reports adds a real-world dimension to the work that captures the students’ attention. We have also had students submit their GSA abstracts for the annual meeting and attend the conference for presentation of that abstract (e.g., Baum et al., 2006). Dry Lake Project Dry Lake (Fig. 6) is located just south of the southern tip of Dallas dome (Fig. 1C) in a valley with sparse surface water other than irrigation drainage ditches. Areas immediately adjacent to the lake include wetlands that attract numerous waterfowl. The lake reportedly creates “quicksand” mud boils on its bottom, which may be discharge zones that sustain the lake, even during drought. A syncline along the southwestern margin of Dallas dome passes through Dry Lake and has a very steep SW limb and a shallowly dipping NE limb that parallels the dip slope coming off of the Wind River Mountains (Fig. 6). The hinge area of the fold is likely to be highly fractured, so it has been hypothesized that the lake receives groundwater flow through this fracture system that is recharged up the rock dip slope to the southwest, where the regional groundwater flow system is replenished. To test this hypothesis, the students prepare a water balance for the lake, based on map data on evaporation and precipitation coupled to measurements of water loss from agricultural ditches that border the lake and to measurements of specific conductance of water in the lake. What they find is that the lake is completely supported by irrigation water, and that ground water is a negligible part of the water budget. Lander Landfill The Lander landfill, located just east of Lander, is a source of local controversy. Landfills are ubiquitous sources of potential groundwater and surface-water contamination, but do they all leak? If so, how significant is the leakage with respect to public health, safety, and welfare? For this project, we have students divide into groups and prepare brief summary reports to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality on behalf of either: Fremont County, the landfill owner, or “Citizens for an Improved Environment,” an advocacy group that wishes to have the landfill closed. In this report, the students give their professional opinion whether leachate contaminates a small stream adjacent to the landfill in a meaningful way. The county would like to see the

Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options

147

Dip slopes in Mesozoic strata dipping off of the uplifted core of the range 42°44′N

42°44′N

108°40′W

N

25

0

0.5

Irrigation ditches

1.0 km

108°40′W

Figure 6. Map of the Dry Lake area along the southern margin of Dallas dome. Topography in the western part of the map is due to the Mesozoic dip slope dipping to the northeast into the Wind River basin. The syncline axial trace through Dry Lake marks the change from this dip slope to the steep southwest limb of Dallas dome. Irrigation ditches flow along the margin of the dip slope into the valley containing Dry Lake.

landfill used for another 30 yr. The citizens want it shut down. The point of this exercise is to understand how the same hydrogeologic and geochemical data can be used to argue toward different aims. Students must stick to plausible science, and be careful not to stretch their interpretations too far. The project can be easily related to projects that the students completed during the first part of the course (weeks 2 and 3) because the landfill was placed, unlined, in the exhumed axis of a dome (Fig. 7), similar to Dallas and Derby domes. The students map the Mesozoic rock units that are deformed by the dome, and they are given water-level elevations and water chemistry from monitoring wells installed at the landfill. They prepare a hydrogeologic cross section oriented normal to the axial trace of the dome and through the landfill cells; the section must include their mapped rock units, equipotential lines, and a few flow lines to document the direction of groundwater flow. These lines are prepared based on the water-table map that the students construct from monitoring well data and their interpretation of the vertical directions of groundwater flow with respect to their mapped rock units. These data and interpretations are the basis for their conclusions in the environmental risk report that they complete. Popo Agie River Dye Tracing Test The Branson Field Camp is located less than 2 km from Sinks Canyon State Park, next to the raging Middle Fork of the

0

100 m

Figure 7. Air photo of the Lander landfill area showing the axial trace of the breached anticline, the location of monitoring wells (white dots), and the landfill. The center of the landfill is located at 42°50′43″N, 108°41′4.5″W.

148

Bauer et al.

Popo Agie River. This steep, alpine river flows at a discharge rate of up to 500 cfs (cubic feet per second) during spring snowmelt over large boulders and glacial erratics that cover the valley floor. Within the state park, the river goes underground into a cave system at the “Sinks.” The cave system is a dissolution feature in the Madison Limestone, and ~400 m downstream from the Sinks, the river resurfaces through a series of springs at the “Rise” (Wilson and Rankl, 1996). There is a long-term U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauging station about a kilometer downstream from the Rise. In August 1983, the USGS completed a dye test through the Sinks Canyon cave system using a fluorescent dye, Rhodamine WT, to establish the hydrologic connection between the Sinks and the Rise (Wilson and Rankl, 1996). They found that the fluorescent dye did appear at the Rise, but it took 2 h for the leading edge of the dye pulse to appear at the Rise and over 6 h for the complete dye pulse to pass through the system. The long traveltimes indicate a complex system of tortuous flow paths through the cave and/or a series of large pools in the system that temporarily store water, increasing residence time (Wilson and Rankl, 1996). The USGS also observed an increase in water temperature and flow rate through the cave, suggesting additional sources of water. For this project, the students repeat the USGS dye tracing test, in conjunction with stream flow measurements up and downstream of the cave and a synoptic sampling of the longitudinal geochemical gradient through the Popo Agie River valley. Details on the first dye tracing experiment at the camp can be found in Lautz et al. (2007). Students inject ~100 g of Rhodamine WT dye (depending on streamflow conditions) into the Popo River just upstream from the Sinks. They monitor the dye concentrations in real-time using the GFL-1 Flow-through Field Fluorometer (OptiSciences) (Fig. 8) that they learned to use during the previous week of instruction (fifth-week project). The collected data are

Figure 8. Two students learning to program the field fluorometer during the Popo Agie dye tracing experiment.

downloaded to a spreadsheet program for analysis. During the dye test, students measure the flow rate upstream of the Sinks using a the Marsh-McBirney Flo-Mate 2000 current meter and measure the stream flow rate downstream of the Rise from the gauging station, which is available online via our internet link. Based on the streamflow rates and the residence time of the test, the students derive the storage volume of the cave. Differences in the discharge rates up and downstream of the cave are used to determine if there is additional water coming out at the Rise. Finally, the students generate a longitudinal profile of specific conductance and the temperature of the river water throughout the canyon to assess the impact of the cave system and the additional sources of water (if any) on the geochemistry of Popo Agie River. The final product of this project is an abstract prepared by each student group for the annual GSA meeting, with supporting materials. GSA abstracts include an introduction to the project, the methods used, the results, and a discussion of the conclusions of the study (similar to a full-length journal article). The students are asked to address unanswered questions about the system, which include: (1) the residence time and storage capacity of the cave under the current flow conditions (early July), (2) whether additional sources of water contribute to the outflow at the Rise, and (3) given the characteristics of the cave system, the way in which water flow through the cave impacts the geochemistry of the Popo Agie River. The abstract is limited to 300 words and must include one supporting figure. The students actually submitted a composite abstract to GSA for the 2006 annual meeting and presented a poster on their work. Advanced Geophysics Projects In order to give the students the broadest possible experience in active source seismology, we arrange the week-long advanced geophysics experiments into two separate projects, one project designed for refraction processing (i.e., time term analysis and refraction tomography) and the other designed for reflection data processing (muting, filtering, and normal move-out corrections). During both of our projects, students learn how to design an appropriate data acquisition schema for a particular target depth, and how to determine whether refraction or reflection data analysis is most appropriate for a given problem. For each project, the students work in two-person groups, and individuals from each group are assigned jobs as part of the seismic acquisition crew. Each project involves one day in the field collecting data and a corresponding day in the laboratory processing the data. From year to year, specific project locations and objectives vary depending on circumstances and opportunities that are available to us. To help the students understand the application of seismic techniques to real field problems, we focus on areas or settings that the students have studied during the earlier part of the course (weeks 2 and 3). We explain how various techniques can be applied to specific problems and how the interpretation of the data collected helps to address problems that are familiar to the students from their previous mapping projects. In the process,

Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options

149

students learn both basic data analysis and seismic survey design methods as well as the basic theory underlying the data processing 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 procedures 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 Dallas and Derby domes. The project for 2008 imaged the bedding 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, indicating 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 velocities for an n-layer model. The students must decide, based upon the observed traveltime, how many layers the data will support. Next, they use a time-term inversion scheme to improve the data 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 both ends of the cross section. This pinching out is most likely an artifact of our acquisition geometry (pinching out at the ends due to less coverage) and is not a reliable feature of the model. The boundary between the first and second layers is probably the top of the water table, while the third layer is probably a distinct lithologic unit (e.g., Frontier Sandstone). The shape of the model is consistent with a synclinal structure. If reliable, these results may

Figure 9. Setting off the Betsy gun for a seismic-reflection experiment.

Figure 10. Time-term inversion for traveltime data collected along the northern shore of Dry Lake. The thickening of sediments is consistent with the existence of a synclinal feature underlying the lake.

affect how we understand folding and faulting in the basin-margin folds adjacent to the Wind River Mountains (Fig. 1). Since the students have already become very familiar with this geologic setting from their mapping projects on Dallas and Derby domes (weeks 2 and 3 in Table 1), they can use this background to form a sound interpretation of the resulting velocity model. Tomographic Analysis Used to Model Traveltime Data. Students run several different tomographic models with different

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 thickening 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 reliable. 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 seismicreflection experimental design, data acquisition, and data processing. 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 advantages 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

common depth point (CDP) gathers. They experiment with different velocity models by applying the normal move-out corrections 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 available; 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 subsurface 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 interlayered 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 sandstone to claystone, or perhaps even the presence of water. Recognition 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 important part of the general learning experience. It helps us reinforce the importance of the “five dimensional” thinking that we promote 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 interpretations from the data that they collect. We have used several different 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.

Figure 11. An example tomographic model using the traveltime data used in Figure 10. Students contrast and compare this approach to modeling their data versus the time-term approach. The different colored raypaths correspond to different shot points and give the students a good idea which part of their model is reliable.

Structural Analysis and Mapping of Metamorphic and Plutonic Rocks The advanced hard-rock mapping and structural analysis project is completed on well-exposed outcrops in the South Pass

Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options

Horizontal distance in meters East 0

100

200

R16

300

400

500

Lenses of sandstone/siltstone?

151

West 600

700

0

Possible water-bearing layer 200 400

800 1000

Depth in meters

600

1200

Figure 12. Common depth point (CDP) stacks using a single stacking velocity with static corrections. The profile was taken along the western edge of the Riverton landfill (Fig. 1). The landfill is located within the Eocene Wind River Formation, which consists primarily of fluvial and terrestrial sediments from the Laramide uplift of the Wind River Mountains. The spacing between each CPD trace shown here is 0.5 m, and the total spread length is 93 m. The R16 location along the profile indicates the location and depth of penetration of the only water well in the area.

greenstone belt, and it builds upon the one-day set of structural analysis projects that all students complete during week five. It is designed to appeal to students who want more extensive mapping experiences as well as students with advanced interests in structural geology or metamorphic and igneous petrology. Most students who select this option have already completed an introductory course in igneous and metamorphic petrology in addition to our prerequisite of structural geology. To make sure that students have sufficient background for the project, we provide further instruction on the origin and crystallization of peraluminous granites, the use of small-scale folds and fabric to map large-scale fold features, and the use of porphyroblast-fabric relations to evaluate thermal-deformation histories in such terranes. The project area includes a thick sequence of folded and faulted Archean metagraywacke intruded by a granodiorite batholith, peraluminous granite/pegmatite, and by a series of mafic dikes. The metasedimentary rocks and some of the intrusive units are deformed by a single large-scale folding event that has associated small-scale folds and well-developed deformation fabrics, including an axial plane foliation and lineations that are subparallel to the associated fold hinge lines. The metagraywacke

contains metamorphic porphyroblasts and mineral assemblages consistent with middle-amphibolite-facies metamorphism, but it still preserves easily recognized bedding planes. The students work in groups of two or three to map the distribution of rock units, bedding orientations, and deformation fabrics and features across a map area of approximately three square miles (eight square kilometers). The mapping is completed at a scale of 1:12,000 on paper topographic base maps with registered orthophoto coverage. Lacking a stratigraphic succession to define fold geometries or relative ages, students must rely on the orientation and geometries of small-scale features and detailed field observations to determine the deformation geometry and geologic history of the area. They collect orientations of bedding, minor fold hinges, axial plane foliation, and both intersection and mineral lineations. Representative field data and minor fold asymmetries are plotted on field maps to assist in defining axial traces of large-scale folds. All orientation data are plotted on stereographic projections to determine the dominant fold axial plane and hinge line orientations. Rather than plotting the data by hand (the method used during the “basic” week five structural exercise), students compile their data in a spreadsheet during the

152

Bauer et al.

evenings and import it into a fabric analysis program for plotting and orientation analysis. The final group project report, completed during a day in the laboratory, includes a completed geologic map, a cross section, a table of all data collected, stereonet plots of the data, and a written report describing the geologic history of the map area. In addition to showing the distribution of all of the rock units and faults, the map contains plotted representative orientation data that constrain the location of fold axial traces. Appropriate axial trace symbols plotted on the map are guided by the orientation data on the map, the symmetry of minor folds, bedding-foliation relationships, and by the concentrations of orientation data on the stereographic projections. The geologic history report includes a description of the 3-D fold geometries in the area, the relative timing of all of the rock units, metamorphism, and deformation affecting the area, and a brief paragraph on processes that may have produced the deduced history of the area. Students are encouraged to support their interpretations with as many as three field photos in their report, which may be submitted digitally or as printed hardcopy. Unlike the advanced hydrology and geophysics projects, which include multiple projects that may vary from year to year, this advanced project relies on a single area with appropriate exposures and level of complexity (e.g., does not involve multiple periods of deformation or metamorphism that confuse the analysis). Such ideal areas are not common, so this project is repeated in subsequent years. Although the project covers some relatively advanced aspects of structural analysis, it is fundamentally part of a traditional field camp program that emphasizes mapping, 3-D interpretations, and geologic history. DISCUSSION The changes to our curriculum during the fifth week of our course were instituted over a 10 yr period (1999–2008), while changes during our sixth week have only been in effect for the past 4 yr (2005–2008). During this implementation period, we have been particularly concerned with: (1) maintaining our philosophy of providing a broad field camp experience that continues to have a strong field mapping component, (2) preparing students for projects that require background beyond our prerequisite courses, (3) student opinions on the value of the advanced projects to their field camp learning experience, and (4) the ways in which our course changes affect how we spend our course resources. To help evaluate the first three issues, we ask the students to complete a very extensive course evaluation toward the end of the sixth week of the course. We have administered versions of this evaluation since 1993, but the responses noted here are only from the 4 yr period that includes our advanced projects. The survey is set up to allow the students to provide a quick evaluation of each of our projects in terms of duration, preparation they received, their interest in the project, the value of the project, and the format and logistics for the project. Students can also add detailed comments about any specific project. To help evaluate student

satisfaction with the breadth of our curriculum, we ask if there are areas of field instruction that they would like to see added/ expanded or deleted/reduced. To further evaluate student satisfaction with our fifth- and sixth-week projects (beyond the project evaluations noted here), we ask the students how important their advanced project was to their overall field camp learning experience (very important, important, somewhat important, not important), and how important the availability of environmental geology/hydrology projects was in selecting a field camp (with the same choices). In general, students are satisfied with our curriculum. The most common suggestion for changing the curriculum is to add another hard-rock project at the expense of one of the sedimentary rock projects. Recall that our sixth-week advance projects replaced a week of structural analysis in metamorphic and igneous rocks, which is now only one of our advanced project options. The evaluation of the preparation that we provide students for our fifth- and sixth-week projects rates high; most rate greater than 3.5 on an ABC grade point scale (A = 4, B = 3, C = 2) and none ranks lower than 3.0. In response to the question about the importance of the advanced projects, the percent of students responding in each category was: 61% very important, 28% important, 9% somewhat important, and 2% not important. The student responses were nearly the same from students participating in each of the three advanced projects. However, the student response to the question about the importance of environmental/hydrology to their field camp choice varied considerably depending on the advanced project they selected. Overall, the percentage of students responding in each category was: 26% very important, 24% important, 11% somewhat important, and 39% not important. As might be expected, a greater percentage of students choosing the hydrology advanced project felt that the availability of environmental/hydrology projects was very important or important to their field camp choice. Nevertheless, 22% of these students felt that such availability was not important to their field camp selection. The way in which this question is asked could be biased by our (University of Missouri) students, who are generally required to attend our field course. The student opinion results indicate that most students recognize the importance of some exposure to environmental/hydrology projects as part of their field camp experience. However, it is clear that the ability to choose advanced projects as part of their field camp experience is important or very important to nearly all of the students (89%). This importance is quite clear in the student’s enthusiastic participation in the advanced projects. Most students are anxiously anticipating the end of field camp by the sixth week of a six-week course, but the chance to participate in a week of projects that are more likely to be interesting for the students clearly helps to sustain their interest in learning and not just finishing the course. Although we feel that our fifth- and sixth-week projects are providing successful student learning experiences, they are expensive experiences to provide in terms of both personnel and equipment. During the last two weeks of our course, four faculty

Integrating hydrology and geophysics into a traditional geology field course: The use of advanced project options members and three teaching assistants are in the field and/or in the laboratory with the students every day (and most evenings), providing a student-instructor ratio of less than six to one. The average of the fifth- and sixth-week faculty salary expenses is nearly twice that of the average for the first four weeks. Most of the expensive equipment that we use for these projects (seismic equipment, total station, fluorometer, pH-conductivity meters, flow meters, pumps, and chemical kits) was purchased with grant funds from the National Science Foundation or with funds available from a field camp endowment made possible by alumni contributions. Our computer equipment is subsidized by the University of Missouri, which provides our laptop computers and standard site licensed software based on a computing fee paid by the students in addition to their tuition. Although our course’s room, board, and transportation costs are operated on a breakeven basis, the university and our endowment provide a significant subsidy for our instructional costs. Our expanded curriculum would not have been possible without these grants and subsidies.

153

Missouri, and alumni contributions to the Department of Geological 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 provided 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 terrace features. We sincerely thank two anonymous referees for their careful and thorough reviews, which helped to significantly improve this paper.

CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES CITED The two-stage expansion of hydrology and geophysics projects for our field course has allowed us to progressively develop projects that are built on the foundation of our four weeks of bedrock geology, geologic mapping projects, and regional geology. Our careful site selection and emphasis on shallow groundwater–surface-water interactions has also allowed us to integrate our hydrology and geophysics projects and accommodate logistical aspects of our fifth- and sixth-week projects. We have taken advantage of our fifth-week projects to provide fundamental instruction and background that allows students to successfully complete hydrology and geophysics exercises during both the fifth- and sixth-week projects without requiring students to have prerequisite courses in these subjects. Although students who have previously completed introductory hydrogeology or geophysics course may already be prepared with fundamental background for our fifth-week projects, such students are still challenged and gain valuable practical experience during our advanced projects in hydrology and geophysics. Our advanced option in hard-rock structural analysis provides an advanced mapping and bedrock geology field experience for students who are more interested in honing their geology skills than expanding their background in hydrology or geophysics. Although we continue to make adjustments to our curriculum, we feel that we are successfully maintaining our program breadth and providing fundamental instruction and experience in geologic mapping even as we provide all students with basic exposure to field aspects of hydrology and geophysics. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding that allowed us to develop our hydrology and geophysics projects was provided by National Science Foundation grant 0410493, the College of Arts and Science of the University of

Baker, M.A., 2006, Status Report on Geoscience Summer Field Camps: Report by the American Geological Institute, Geoscience Workforce, GW-06-003: http://www.agiweb.org/workforce/fieldcamps_report_final.pdf (accessed September 2008). Bauer, R., Siegel, D., Lautz, L., Dahms, D., Sandvol, E., and Luepke, J., 2003, Investigating arid zone hydrologic systems at the local riparian to regional bedrock scale: Multidisciplinary instruction through data analysis at the University of Missouri’s Branson Field Laboratory: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35, no. 6, p. 119. Baum, C.S., Williams, B.P., Allaire, M., Parra, L.A., Ferree, N., Story, C., Lautz, L.K., and Siegel, D.I., 2006, A vanishing act: Understanding the path of the Popo Agie River through the Sinks Canyon Cave: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 38, no. 7, p. 428. Burger, H.R., 1992, Exploration Geophysics of the Shallow Subsurface: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 489 p. Epis, R.C., and Chapin, C.E., 1975, Geomorphic and tectonic implications of the post-Laramide, late Eocene erosion surface in the southern Rocky Mountains, in Curtis, B.F., ed., Cenozoic History of the Southern Rocky Mountains: Geological Society of America Memoir 144, p. 45–74. Fanelli, R.M., and Lautz, L.K., 2008, Water, heat and solute fluxes through the hyporheic zone of small dams: Ground Water, v. 46, no. 5, p. 671–687, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2008.00461.x. Gregory, K.M., and Chase, C.G., 1994, Tectonic and climatic significance of a late Eocene low-relief, high-level geomorphic surface, Colorado: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 99, p. 20,141–20,160, doi: 10.1029/94JB00132. Groshong, R.H., 2006, 3-D Structural Geology: A Practical Guide to Quantitative Surface and Subsurface Map Interpretation (2nd edition): New York, Springer, 400 p. Jones, J.B., Mulholland, P.J., and Thorp, J.H., eds., 2000, Streams and Ground Waters: New York, Academic Press, 425 p. Keefer, W.R., 1970, Structural Geology of the Wind River Basin, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Special Paper 495-D, 35 p. Knoop, P., Mogk, D., Crosby, B., Helper, M., Manone, M., Niemi, N., Snyder, J., van der Pluijm, B., Wawrzyniec, T., and Walker, J., 2007, Using digital information technologies in geoscience field courses: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 7, p. 259. Lautz, L.K., and Fanelli, R.M., 2008, Seasonal biogeochemical hotspots in the streambed around restoration structures: Biogeochemistry, v. 91, p. 85–104, doi: 10.1007/s10533-008-9235-2. Lautz, L.K., and Siegel, D.I., 2006, Modeling surface and ground water mixing in the hyporheic zone using MODFLOW and MT3D: Advances in Water Resources, v. 29, p. 1618–1633, doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.12.003.

154

Bauer et al.

Lautz, L.K., and Siegel, D.I., 2007, The effect of transient storage on nitrate uptake lengths in streams: An inter-site comparison: Hydrological Processes, v. 21, no. 26, p. 3533–3548, doi: 10.1002/hyp.6569. Lautz, L.K., Siegel, D.I., and Bauer, R.L., 2006, Impact of debris dams on hyporheic interaction along a semi-arid stream: Hydrological Processes, v. 20, no. 1, p. 183–196, doi: 10.1002/hyp.5910. Lautz, L.K., Siegel, D.I., and Bauer, R.L., 2007, Dye tracing through Sinks Canyon: Incorporating advanced hydrogeology into the University of Missouri’s geology field camp: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55, no. 3, p. 197–202. McKay, L.K., and Kammer, T.W., 1999, Incorporating hydrogeology in a mapping-based geology field camp: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 47, p. 124–130. Mears, B., Jr., 1993, Geomorphic history of Wyoming and high-level erosion surfaces, in Snoke, A.W., Steadmann, J.R., and Roberts, S.M., eds., Geology of Wyoming: The Geological Survey of Wyoming Memoir 5, p. 608–626. Riihimaki, C.A., Anderson, R.S., and Safran, E.B., 2007, Impact of rock uplift on rates of late Cenozoic Rocky Mountain river incision: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 112, no. F3, p. F03S02, doi: 10.1029/2006JF000557. Roberts, S.M., 1989, Wyoming Geomaps: Geological Survey of Wyoming, Educational Series 1, 41 p. Siegel, D.I., 2002, The rocks rediscovered: Confessions of a die-hard hydrogeologist: August Geotimes, p. 14–15. Siegel, D.I., 2008, Reductionist hydrogeology: The ten top principles: Hydrological Processes, v. 22, p. 4967–4970, doi: 10.1002/hyp.7139. Swanson, M.T., and Bampton, M., 2009, this volume, Integrated digital mapping in geologic field research: An adventure-based approach to teaching new geospatial technologies in an REU Site Program, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical

Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(11). Triska, F.J., Duff, J.H., and Avanzino, R.J., 1993, The role of water exchange between a stream channel and its hyporheic zone in nitrogen cycling at the terrestrial-aquatic interface: Hydrobiologia, v. 251, p. 167–184, doi: 10.1007/BF00007177. Underwood, D., 2007, Near-Surface Seismic Refraction Surveying Field Methods: San Jose, California, Geometrics, Inc., 20 p.; available at ftp://geom .geometrics.com/pub/seismic/Literature/SeismicRefractionSurveying _r4.pdf (accessed August 2009). Whitmeyer, S., Feely, M., De Paor, D., Hennessy, R., Whitmeyer, S., Nicoletti, J., Santangelo, B., Daniels, J., and Rivera, M., 2009, this volume, Visualization techniques in field geology education: A case study from western Ireland, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(10). Willis, J.J., and Groshong, R.H., Jr., 1993, Deformational style of the Wind River uplift and associated flank structures, Wyoming, in Keefer, W.R., Metzger, W.J., and Godwin, L.H., eds., Wyoming Geological Association Special Symposium on Oil and Gas and Other Resources of the Wind River Basin, Wyoming: Casper, Wyoming Geological Association, p. 337–375. Wilson, J.F., Jr., and Rankl, J.G., 1996, Use of dye tracing in water-resources investigations in Wyoming, 1967–94: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report WRI-96-4122, 64 p. Winter, T.C., Harvey, J.W., Franke, O.L., and Alley, W.M., 1998, Ground Water and Surface Water: A Single Resource: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1139, 79 p. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009

Printed in the USA

The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009

Integrating ground-penetrating radar and traditional stratigraphic study in an undergraduate field methods course R.K. Vance C.H. Trupe F.J. Rich Department of Geology and Geography, PO Box 8149, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia 30460, USA

ABSTRACT Georgia Southern University maintains a traditional geology curriculum for both bachelor of science (B.S.) and bachelor of arts (B.A.) degree candidates. Field experiences figure prominently in our curricula, and students have been taught to use traditional means of gathering and recording field data (e.g., Brunton compasses and notebooks with sketches). We have recently introduced high-resolution geophysical investigations that are focused particularly on ground-penetrating radar. A nearby field location, known as Middleground, offers an excellent road cut with sufficient exposure, lithological heterogeneity, and relief to conduct both geological and geophysical investigations. We have shown students how one technique contrasts with the other, and how they can be used to support each other. Student reactions to the Middleground ground-penetrating radar exercise have been positive and enthusiastic, and have led us to formulate new and diverse applications of ground-penetrating radar to assist students in developing their three-dimensional visualization skills and a greater understanding of geophysical techniques in field investigations.

INTRODUCTION The faculty of the Department of Geology and Geography at Georgia Southern University (GSU) have maintained an undergraduate curriculum that includes traditional hard-rock and softrock course sequences. Direct feedback from graduate programs and companies hiring our graduates indicates that the curriculum is effective, and programs that omit these traditional courses (e.g., mineralogy-petrology-structural geology) are putting their students at a disadvantage. Field-based education is a priority (see Bishop et al., this volume) in the preparation of Georgia Southern geology majors. This critical component is addressed through field trips in courses for geology majors, optional national and international extended trips for both geology and geography

majors, a required introductory course in field methods, and a senior requirement for a full, department-approved field camp for those earning a B.S. in geology. Furthermore, most geology senior thesis projects (required for the B.S. degree) involve a field component. A goal of field training is to build fundamental skills in field identification of minerals, fossils, igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks and textures, structural features, weathering features, basic soil horizons, features of economic or environmental interest, and the use of topographic maps, as well as proficiency with the compass and geographic positioning system (GPS) equipment. Exercises that require the practice of these skills should culminate in representation of the study area in stratigraphic columns, cross sections, geologic maps, and

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 Special Paper 461, p. 155–161, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(13). For permission to copy, contact [email protected]. ©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 students, and field exercises build this capability. The GSU Field Methods course emphasizes the basic skills just described, but it has evolved with development of new techniques and equipment, access to this equipment, and the availability of experienced instructors. Students are introduced to the use of Brunton style compasses, and then to basic surveying methods with pace and compass exercises. The traditional plane table and alidade have given way to total station systems. The use of GPS is pervasive and ranges from compact low-cost units with meter-scale resolution to advanced systems with centimeter-scale resolution. Some field programs utilize full digital mapping approaches in the field; however, we still utilize traditional approaches with compass and paper maps supported by GPS. Many Georgia Southern University geology majors are opting for a minor in geographic information systems (GIS), and these students incorporate GIS in their senior thesis fieldwork. Some geophysical tools can be incorporated into introductory field methods courses without requiring the extensive background education in both theory and practice more typical of graduate-level courses. Students can be provided with the basic operational theory and can gain some valuable hands-on experience performing a geophysical survey and interpreting the results of the survey. Learning the limitations of the equipment as applied to interpretation of results is an essential component of this experience. Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is particularly amenable to rapid surveys and is used extensively for geotechnical work and stratigraphic investigations. The practical features and numerous applications of the ground-penetrating radar system, and course time constraints make ground-penetrating radar a good choice of geophysical tools to introduce in a field course. The goal of this project was to integrate ground-penetrating radar and traditional field stratigraphic study to develop the ability of students to interpret and extend data from limited surficial exposure into a three-dimensional view of the local sedimentary rocks.

Figure 1. Georgia Southern University Field Methods course student with cart-mounted MALÅ ground-penetrating radar system composed of a 500 MHz shielded antenna, attached control box, Li-ion battery pack (small black pouch below monitor), and Ramac monitor. The cart includes an odometer attached to one wheel.

THE GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR SYSTEM

Figure 2. Field Methods course students sledding a MALÅ 100 MHz shielded antenna (control box attached) using a shoulder-carried frame for monitor and battery. An odometer wheel is attached to the rear of the antenna.

The Department of Geology and Geography acquired a MALÅ ground-penetrating radar system in 2005 along with a Ramac X3M controller paired with either 100 MHz, 250 MHz, 500 MHz, or 800 MHz antennae. These are shielded antennae that incorporate both transmitter and receiver in one unit. The controller-antenna system can be used in a cart (Fig. 1) or sled mode for the 500 MHz and 250 MHz antenna, but it requires sledding (Fig. 2) for the 100 MHz antenna. Either a laptop computer or the MALÅ Ramac monitor is used to calibrate and configure the system and record data and profile markers. The compact, durable construction and simple operation make the monitor preferable to the laptop for prolonged field use. The system is powered by

a lithium-ion battery that provides ~5 h of use. A second, fully charged backup battery ensures a full day of use. Radar profile distance is recorded internally using a wheel odometer attached to the antenna or cart or by using a hip chain system. A time-triggering mode is also an option if conditions do not allow direct measurement by odometer. Survey data recorded in the monitor can be downloaded to a flash drive or through USB cable to a laptop or desktop computer for processing with MALÅ software. This system was introduced to undergraduates in the field methods course in a campus demonstration prior to integration into a traditional field investigation of local stratigraphy, as described next.

Integrating ground-penetrating radar and traditional stratigraphic study in an undergraduate field methods course INTEGRATING GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR IN A FIELD COURSE Campus Demonstration We incorporated ground-penetrating radar in our field methods class for the first time in the spring 2007 semester and will use this pilot exercise to improve design, implementation, and evaluation for successive courses. The spring 2007 Field Methods class consisted of 20 students and included a mixture of experienced geology majors who had completed most of their upper-level coursework, as well as some for whom field methods was their first upper-level course. The course is generally composed of two distinct segments: exercises that provide training with equipment and techniques make up the first part of the course, and geologic mapping exercises make up the second part. The ground-penetrating radar exercise was introduced in the middle of the semester after the students had done projects on topographic maps, and had used the Brunton compass, total station surveying, and GPS navigation. These exercises were done

157

in teams, and they included evaluation of each student’s field notes along with a graded team product. The students were introduced to ground-penetrating radar with a brief PowerPoint presentation outlining the relative position of GPR within the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationships among, conductivity, dielectric constant, and wave propagation and attenuation were described with respect to sediments, rocks, and man-made materials (Sharma, 2002; Bristow and Jol, 2003; Daniels, 2004; Baker et al., 2007). Wave attenuation by water-saturated sediments and clay was emphasized with respect to regional applications. The final portion of the presentation addressed applications of ground-penetrating radar and system operation (Daniels, 2004). The presentation was followed with a ground-penetrating radar investigation- demonstration outside the geology department building, on campus. The students used the cart system with a 500 MHz shielded antenna and control box operated through the Ramac monitor. The first step was to calibrate the unit for a 30 m distance. The system was then used by several students to generate a suite of profiles (Fig. 3) parallel to the outer wall

Figure 3. Excerpt from a set of three stacked, parallel, 500 MHz ground-penetrating radar profiles run outside the Herty building on the Georgia Southern University (GSU) campus for a class demonstration and practice session. The hyperbolic reflections at ~ 116–122 ft (35.4–37.2 m) and 103–107 ft (31.4–32.6 m) are utility conduits. The heavy reflections at 106–117 ft (32.3–35.7 m) in the uppermost profile are due to a pedestrian walk composed of paving stones. The profile was processed to eliminate most of the ground-air wave, and the time-gain was adjusted to enhance the signal that attenuates sharply at 2–3 ft depth (.6–.9 m) with increasing clay and moisture content. The “X” in the lowest profile is a surface marker for a reference feature noted during the profile. The sharp vertical break in the middle profile represents a point where the student stopped forward motion and rolled the cart backward to locate a reflector, producing a slight “dislocation” in the profile.

158

Vance et al.

of the building and crossing multiple utility features in the subsurface. This class activity allowed the students to gain direct practice with the equipment and introduced a practical application and approach to locating buried utilities and underground storage tanks. The monitor screen scrolls the radar profile as it is produced, allowing immediate observation of anomalous reflections without processing the ground-penetrating radar profile. Surface markers may be added to the profile record to register known surface features and determine their relationship with the imaged subsurface targets. After the demonstration, the profile was downloaded to a flash drive and transferred to a laptop for initial processing and printing. Printouts of the profiles were copied and handed out for review and discussion of features at the next meeting of the class. Group review of profiles introduced students to common components (e.g., ground-air wave signal) of ground-penetrating radar profiles and encouraged interpretation of anomalous features observed on the profile. Signal loss with depth that we observed on printouts prompted discussion of antenna limitations and signal attenuation by clay and moisture. Filtered and unfiltered profiles were displayed to illustrate the role and effect of processing. Field Site Geology The GSU campus is located in Statesboro, Georgia, within the eastern edge of the Inner Coastal Plain of Georgia. As such, topography is typically subdued, and outcrops and road cuts are rare. We are fortunate, however, to have a rather extensive, easily navigated, and lithologically diverse road cut near our campus, and it is this field site that has provided us with an opportunity to merge classic stratigraphic description with a shallow geophysical technique (ground-penetrating radar). Our field site lies ~14 km north of Statesboro, Bulloch County, Georgia (Fig. 4). The small community of Middleground is the nearest geographic feature of note, though the site also lies within the drainage basin of Spring Branch, a minor tributary of the Ogeechee River. Strata in the vicinity of Middleground belong to the Meigs Member of the Miocene Coosawhatchie Formation (Huddlestun, 1988) and are characterized by weakly consolidated, fine- to coarse-grained, locally conglomeratic, clayey sandstones, as well as rhythmically bedded sand and clay couplets (Fig. 5). Preliminary analysis of the units can be found in Bartholomew et al. (2007). The authors and their students have measured and described a series of stratigraphic profiles at the site, recording characteristics of the units at 5 m intervals along a transect that parallels Metz Road, a county road that runs north of Middleground. Initial observations of the Middleground strata revealed fine sands that are typically interbedded with clays and contain discontinuous stringers of hematite-rich sediment. Pebble-bearing horizons are present, as is a large body of cross-bedded sandstone that lies sublateral to, and stratigraphically beneath, the alternating layers of sand and clay. The road cut is, thus, lithologically heterogeneous, but, just as importantly, the sandstones and their interbedded claystones bear ghost shrimp burrows (form genus Ophiomorpha). Thus, all the

Figure 4. Location map for the Middleground field site, Bulloch County, Georgia. The region delineated by dark shading marks the extent of the Coosawhatchie Formation.

Figure 5. Middleground, Georgia, road cut exposure of sand-clay couplets in the Meigs Member of the Miocene Coosawhatchie Formation. Road cut is ~2 m in height.

strata are interpreted to have been deposited at or just below sea level (Rich et al., 2009). The value of this knowledge is considerable as we prepare students to construct three-dimensional representations of the strata based upon the electromagnetic response during their ground-penetrating radar survey. Also worthy of note is the fact that most of the road cut lies near the drainage divide of Spring Branch, so the strata all lie

Integrating ground-penetrating radar and traditional stratigraphic study in an undergraduate field methods course

159

upslope of the local shallow groundwater table. Ground-penetrating radar signals are, therefore, relatively clear and easily read as compared to many sites in the coastal plain where the water table lies very near the surface, contributing to rapid signal attenuation with depth. Three-dimensional visualization of the strata imaged with ground-penetrating radar can be a challenge to many people. Thus, conducting a ground-penetrating radar survey in a location where exposures of the strata are available for direct comparison (ground truth) with the radar image has the potential to facilitate visualization and translation of a two-dimensional image into three-dimensional space. This ideal training situation also allows comparison of the resolution at differing frequencies if multiple antennae are available, and analysis of signal attenuation with changes in composition. Field Exercise In 2007, the ground-penetrating radar exercise was conducted in teams assigned to pair experienced students with those lacking substantial field experience. Preparation for the exercise included the classroom lectures on the physics, capabilities, and limitations of the ground-penetrating radar equipment, the campus demonstration of the MALÅ ground-penetrating radar system, and assigned readings from Compton (1985) and Freeman (1999) to prepare them to describe sedimentary rocks. The Middleground road cut (Fig. 6) was ideal for a local field project because the rock surface at the site is accessible to study, and the ground surface above the road cut is level to gently sloping and has recently been cleared of brush. This surface provides access to run ground-penetrating radar profiles and does not require corrections for topography. This level surface was measured parallel the road cut and flagged at 1 m intervals to provide immediate reference for stratigraphic sketches and ground-penetrating radar profiles. In order to give all students the opportunity to use the equipment, half of the class did their initial fieldwork on a Friday afternoon and the other half began their project on Saturday morning. Students were given the UTM coordinates of the outcrop and a time to meet at the site. The main objectives of the exercise were for each team to: (1) describe an assigned section of the outcrop including rock types, textures, composition, and sedimentary layering, and measure and record planar features such as sedimentary layering and joints; (2) use ground-penetrating radar equipment to obtain a 500 MHz profile plus an additional 250 or 100 MHz profile along the power line right-of-way several meters back from the top of the outcrop; (3) interpret two profiles (different frequencies) for each section, correlating outcrop data with the ground-penetrating radar profiles; and (4) prepare a report explaining how the outcrop data supported the ground-penetrating radar profile interpretation. At the site, the students were introduced to the overall geologic setting of the exposure and began by sketching the entire

Figure 6. Field Methods course students working on field descriptions of the Meigs Member of the Coosawhatchie Formation at the Middleground road cut. The cleared “right of way” visible above the road cut provides excellent access to conduct ground-penetrating radar profiles of the local stratigraphic section.

outcrop with a general description of lithology, textures, and bed forms. Each team was then assigned a 20-m-long section of the road cut for a detailed stratigraphic sketch, including bedding and joint orientations and description. During the Friday and Saturday sessions, each team spent time running groundpenetrating radar surveys immediately above and parallel to the road cut, giving all students some experience collecting data with the ground-penetrating radar system. While one team conducted ground-penetrating radar surveys, the other two teams worked on outcrop descriptions. Additionally, students augered several holes for their assigned section to help them correlate the face of the outcrop with ground-penetrating radar profiles and to check for lateral deviation from the stratigraphy observed on the road cut face. The instructor downloaded the ground-penetrating radar data, performed some minimal processing to eliminate much of the ground-air wave reflection and to enhance the deeper signal, and provided profile printouts for the students to use in the laboratory to compare with field sketches and photos and to use upon return to the field site. The class was given a week to complete the project. Students were encouraged to return to the outcrop as needed to refine their data and interpretations. Assessment of the teams’ products included grading each individual’s field notes and the teams’ interpreted profiles and reports. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The quality and quantity of the field data varied greatly (as expected in early field experiences); some reports included very detailed descriptions of the project, ample data, and had annotated figures and photos (Figs. 7 and 8). Interpretation of profiles was generally good; however, this was not translated to wellmarked correlation of specific reflections on most of the groundpenetrating radar profiles. Student descriptions and comments

160

Vance et al.

Figure 7. (A) A 500 MHz ground-penetrating radar profile of a segment of the Middleground road cut. Field Methods course students have color coded the reflections to mark an upper set of wavy to lenticular bedded, horizontal sand-clay layers (see photo in B) that disconformably overlie an inclined set of Meigs clay-sand couplets (see Fig. 5). Red line denotes detailed section description at 77.5 m. Horizontal and vertical scales are in meters; profile has been processed to remove most of ground-air wave. (B) Portion of the yellow-orange zone of profile 1 (see red marker on 500 MHz profile in A) marking bed forms in the subhorizontal units (from student report). The length of the solid black bar on the photo scale is 5 cm.

indicated the exercise was indeed a step forward in developing 3-D visualization skills and learning some of the applications and limitations of geophysical tools. Comparison of 500 MHz (Fig. 7) and 250 MHz (Fig. 8) profiles demonstrated the differences in resolution and depth of penetration that accompanies change in frequency of the antenna. This was an excellent project for improving their field note-taking skills. Faced with a variety of rock types and sedimentary structures, they had to have

Figure 8. A 250 MHz profile of the same segment of the Middleground road cut; note the position of profile 1 at 77.5 m. Student coding of yellow zone corresponds to yellow-orange package of Figure 7A. All units are in meters; profile has been processed to remove most of ground-air wave. This is a good effort as students are recognizing packages of beds and bounding surfaces between packages. The actual exposure is confined to 1.5–2.5 m.

good notes and sketches to accomplish the project. The student reaction to the experience was very positive, and comments on course evaluations related their enjoyment and appreciation of the hands-on aspect of the course, outdoor activities generally, and an appreciation for very practical knowledge and the techniques they learned. The incorporation of ground-penetrating radar in an undergraduate field exercise was a first-time experience for the teachers; consequently, we have considered numerous ways to improve the project before the next field methods course in the spring of 2009. Enhancements we are considering include the following: (1) a preparation exercise for ground-penetrating radar profile interpretation (perhaps a profile and strata interpretation to discuss in class); (2) more detailed instructions to standardize the method (numeric or color-coding) for correlating key reflections or surfaces on the ground-penetrating radar profile with those on a sketch or photo—the technique could be introduced in the initial campus demonstration; (3) emphasis on major reflections or surfaces or packages of reflections (Hugenholtz et al., 2007); (4) addition of several short ground-penetrating radar surveys oriented at 90° to the long profile that parallels the road cut to obtain a true 3-D perspective to use for generating a block diagram in the field report; (5) a required brief discussion of resolution differences between ground-penetrating radar antennae in the report; (6) a ground-penetrating radar profile conducted in the nearby creek floodplain to look for the water table and compare the stratigraphy between the younger fluvial suite and older

Integrating ground-penetrating radar and traditional stratigraphic study in an undergraduate field methods course marginal marine strata (using an auger to provide ground truth for strata and water table); (7) allow students to do some simple ground-penetrating radar data processing as teams and evaluate the accuracy of the velocity used to generate the profile; (8) require photos with sketches—digital cameras are reasonably priced, and students should get in the habit of photodocumentation of field features; and (9) design and administer an evaluation instrument for this exercise (all major courses are evaluated, but not individual exercises). The overall experience in this initial effort was positive enough to encourage the incorporation of the refinements described here into the second generation effort in 2009. These experiences are learning processes for the instructors as well as the students, and refinement of such exercises is continuous. This pilot project did not include a specific evaluation to test the improvements in student visualization of local geology. A specific evaluation instrument will be employed in the next field class to gauge the success of this effort through a questionnaire on the site geology, administered on site after initial traditional road cut study, followed by a postcourse questionnaire to determine changes in interpretation of site geology after integration of ground-penetrating radar surveys. The use of ground-penetrating radar in geotechnical work and stratigraphic studies and the resulting literature continues to expand; consequently, incorporation of this geophysical tool in field courses is a very practical experience for geologists. An understanding of the limitations of the technique and the challenges of interpretation is an important part of the experience. We are already using ground-penetrating radar in several senior thesis research projects, and we have been encouraged by the trial run described here to continue the introduction of this tool in our field methods course. SUMMARY Field methods course students received limited instruction on theory and basic operation of ground-penetrating radar systems before hands-on training on campus conducting surveys that demonstrated the effectiveness of the instrument for locating buried utilities. The campus exercise also demonstrated depth of penetration limits imposed by the attenuation of ground radar energy by clay and water. This training was extended to stratigraphic investigation of a local road cut, which integrated traditional field observation and measurements with the geophysical survey. The students embraced the use of ground-penetrating radar, extending their “view” of the stratigraphy into the subsurface, while learning that deeper radar energy penetration at lower antenna frequency is accompanied by diminished resolution of stratigraphic features. This pilot project successfully integrated classroom instruction, campus

161

fieldwork, local stratigraphic investigation, and valuable training with a versatile geophysical tool. The project provided the instructors with a foundation to build upon and improve the field exercise through the use of additional ground-penetrating radar surveys that will allow construction of block or fence diagrams, and that will enhance the development of 3-D visualization and representation skills by students. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the improvement of the manuscript resulting from the constructive reviews of Steve Leslie, Ilya Buynevich, and Steve Whitmeyer and the acceptance of roadside project activity by residents of the Middleground community and the Georgia Department of Transportation. REFERENCES CITED Baker, G.S., Jordan, T.E., and Pardy, J., 2007, An introduction to ground penetrating radar (GPR), in Baker, G.S., and Jol, H.M., eds., Stratigraphic Analyses Using GPR: Geological Society of America Special Paper 432, p. 1–18. Bartholomew, M.J., Rich, F.J., Lewis, S.L., Brodie, B.M., Heath, R.D., Slack, T.Z., Trupe, C.H., III, and Greenwell, R.A., 2007, Preliminary interpretation of Mesozoic and Cenozoic fracture sets in Piedmont metamorphic rocks and in coastal plain strata near the Savannah River, Georgia and South Carolina, in Rich, F.J., ed., Guide to Fieldtrips: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, 56th Annual Meeting, Southeastern Section, p. 7–38. Bishop, G.A., Vance, R.K., Rich, F.J., Meyer, B.K., Davis, E.J., Hayes, H., and Marsh, N.B., 2009, this volume, Evolution of geology field education for K–12 teachers from field education for geology majors at Georgia Southern University: Historical perspectives and modern approaches, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(19). Bristow, C.S., and Jol, H.M., eds., 2003, Ground Penetrating Radar in Sediments: Geological Society of London Special Publication 211, 366 p. Compton, R., 1985, Geology in the Field: New York, John Wiley and Sons, 398 p. Daniels, D.J., 2004, Ground Penetrating Radar (2nd edition): Institution of Electrical Engineers Radar, Sonar, Navigation and Avionics Series 15 (series editors: N. Stewart and H. Griffiths): Bodwin, Cornwall, UK, MPG Books Limited, 726 p. Freeman, T., 1999, Procedures in Field Geology: Malden, Massachusetts, Blackwell Science, 95 p. Huddlestun, P.F., 1988, A Revision of Lithostratigraphic Units of the Coastal Plain of Georgia, the Miocene through Holocene: Georgia Geological Survey Bulletin 104, 162 p. Hugenholtz, C.H., Moorman, B.J., and Wolfe, S.A., 2007, Ground penetrating radar (GPR) imaging of the internal structure of an active parabolic sand dune, in Baker, G.S., and Jol, H.M., eds., Stratigraphic Analyses Using GPR: Geological Society of America Special Paper 432, p. 35–45. Rich, F.J., Trupe, C.H., III, Slack, T.Z., and Camann, E., 2009, Depositional and ichnofossil characteristics of the Meigs Member, Coosawhatchie Formation (Miocene), east central Georgia: Southeastern Geology, v. 46, no. 2, p. 85–92. Sharma, P.V., 2002, Environmental and Engineering Geophysics: Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 475 p. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009

Printed in the USA

The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009

Twenty-two years of undergraduate research in the geosciences— The Keck experience Andrew de Wet Department of Earth and Environment, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17604, USA Cathy Manduca Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota 55057, USA Reinhard A. Wobus Department of Geosciences, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts 01267, USA Lori Bettison-Varga President, Scripps College, Claremont, California 91711, USA

ABSTRACT The Keck Geology Consortium is an 18-college collaboration focused on enriching undergraduate education through development of high-quality geoscience research experiences for undergraduate students and faculty participants. The consortium projects are year-long research experiences that extend from summer project design and fieldwork, through collection of laboratory data and analysis during the academic year, to the culminating presentation of research results at the annual spring symposium. The Keck experience incorporates all the characteristics of high-quality undergraduate research. Students are involved in original research, are stakeholders and retain intellectual ownership of their research, experience the excitement of working in group and independent contexts, discuss and publish their findings, and engage in the scientific process from conception to completion. Since 1987, 1094 students (1175 slots, 81 repeats) and over 121 faculty (410 slots, multiple repeats) have participated in 137 projects, providing a substantial data set for studying the impact of undergraduate research and field experiences on geoscience students. Over 56% of the students have been women, and since 1996, 34% of the project faculty have been women. There are now 45 Keck alumni in academic teaching and research positions, a matriculation rate three times the average of U.S. geoscience undergraduates. Twenty-two of these new faculty are women, indicating remarkable success in attracting women to and retaining women in academic geoscience careers.

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 Special Paper 461, p. 163–172, doi: 10.1130/2009.2461(14). For permission to copy, contact [email protected]. ©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, Colorado, Franklin and Marshall, Pomona, Smith, Whitman, Williams, and The College of Wooster. Funding was provided by the W.M. Keck Foundation, hence the name of the consortium. Trinity and Washington and Lee Universities were added in 1989. In 2006, six more institutions were added: Colgate, Macalester, Mt. Holyoke, Oberlin, Union, and Wesleyan. The idea for the consortium originated with Bud Wobus at Williams College. It was patterned after the National Science Foundation (NSF)–supported WAMSIP Consortium of four of the current Keck colleges (Williams, Amherst, Mt. Holyoke, and Smith) in the 1970s, a collaboration that was nucleated by Wobus at Williams and Mel Kuntz at Amherst (Wobus, 1988). Their idea to support undergraduates as collaborators with faculty in original field-based research was inspired by the historic and highly successful field course at Stanford, where they had been graduate students. The basic concept of the consortium was to bring together a group of small liberal arts colleges that had traditionally produced a disproportionately large share of the Ph.D.’s granted in the earth sciences (Manduca and Woodward, 1995). The consortium was to fund, and support in various ways, research projects by faculty and students from the consortium member institutions (Manduca et al., 1999). The first three projects in 1987–1988 covered carbonate sedimentology (Bahamas), volcanology (Colorado), and paleohydrology and clastic sedimentology (Montana), and they were directed by faculty from Williams, Amherst, and Smith who had been part of the earlier NSF-supported WAMSIP consortium. Providing a diversity of projects has been one of the ongoing goals of the consortium, along with broadening coverage of geoscience subfields as the consortium grows.

The Keck “Nuts and Bolts” Call for proposals: spring and fall

Project approval: spring (symposium) and fall (GSA Annual Meeting)

Projects advertised online at keckgeology.org: November-January

Student application process: deadline early February

Student selection process: notification in March-April

Presummer interactions among students, project faculty, and research advisors/sponsors: spring

Summer research experience: field and/or lab (4 weeks)

Student independent research project: fall and spring

Short contribution draft: March

Project workshops

Annual Keck Geology Research Symposium: April symposium - poster and oral presentations; field trip; project meetings

Publication of symposium proceedings - keckgeology.org: summer

Other presentations and publications

Figure 1. The basic components of the Keck Geology Consortium.

BASIC COMPONENTS OF THE KECK GEOLOGY CONSORTIUM Project Selection The basic structure of the consortium has stayed the same since the beginning (Fig. 1). Each new research cycle begins with the director’s call for proposals. Guidelines for proposals are available at the Keck Web site. Projects must involve one or more Keck faculty, but non-Keck faculty participation is welcome. Typically, projects have a faculty to student ratio of 1–3, and most projects have 6 to 9 student participants. Just 5 of 137 projects have involved only one faculty member. Faculty representatives from all the member institutions discuss the merits of each proposal and select the strongest ones for the upcoming summer. Proposals for the following year are reviewed at the annual Keck Symposium in April, and at the Keck meeting during the Geological Society of American (GSA) Annual Meeting each fall.

Selection of projects is based on a number of criteria, including the scientific value of the project, its scientific focus, the quality of the proposed student projects, geographical location and logistics, and the viability of the budget. Once the proposals are approved by the representatives, the call goes out for student participants. The Keck Web site is the primary source of information about upcoming projects, and the Keck member schools ensure that their students are aware of the summer’s Keck projects. Non-Keck students are attracted through advertising in various online venues such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), Council for Undergraduate Research (CUR), and Northeast Environmental Studies Group (NEES). E-mails and flyers are sent to geoscience departments across the United States, and word-of-mouth remains an important method of locating new applicants. Student from underrepresented groups are strongly encouraged to apply.

Twenty-two years of undergraduate research in the geosciences—The Keck experience Student Selection Interested students (current juniors) apply online to the Keck Consortium. They must secure a recommender and a research advisor at their home institution before applying. The students are encouraged to select three projects in order of preference; however, students almost always receive their first preference (43 of 45 students got their first choice in 2007). Each Keck institution is restricted to five applicants in order to provide some flexibility in the selection process, but it is unlikely that more than two students from any one Keck member school will be selected, since the consortium attempts to distribute the available slots equitably among the member institutions. Under the present funding model, ~30% of the student participants come from outside the Keck Consortium. There are no restrictions on the number of applications from non-Keck schools. Students are selected by the 18 Keck representatives, in consultation with the Keck director and the project faculty, via an online selection process in February and early March. At present, the consortium supports ~45–50 students, but the number of student participants has ranged from 24 in 1988 to a high of 85 in 1997 (when sophomore projects were still offered). Selection is based on the faculty recommendation, student academic background (course prerequisites and performance), motivation for doing the project, membership in underrepresented groups, and equitable distribution across the Keck member schools. Selection is highly competitive (overall grade-point average [GPA] for students selected in 2008–2009 was 3.48, with 3.68 in major courses). The consortium requires students to complete the summer field-based portion of the project, but they also commit to completing their research during the academic year as a senior independent study research course at their home institution. One of the strengths of the Keck experience is that all students are guided by a research advisor from their home institution in addition to their project director. Ideally, this home research advisor will have expertise in the student’s project topic. Joint publications by the project director, student, and home institution research advisor are not uncommon. Clear and frequent communication among all parties is crucial in making this arrangement successful. Most faculty from the Keck member schools are fully aware of the expectations of the research advisor, while non-Keck faculty may require additional guidance. Research advisors are encouraged to visit their students in the field and to attend the Keck Research Symposium in the spring. The project director provides background readings and prepares a preliminary synthesis of what is known about the field site, but individual students are expected to craft their own research proposal and goals. The project director may have a sense of the overall research questions that guide the project, but students must be able to articulate the value of their individual contributions. Historically, there have been two categories of student projects, those for eligible sophomores who had completed their first

165

two years of college and had taken at least one or two geology courses, and those for rising senior geology majors who were between their junior and senior year of college. Sophomore projects were phased out over the past few years, so all projects are now geared toward rising senior students. Summer Research The actual research project may have three distinct phases, beginning with a 4 wk field experience and continuing through summer laboratory and/or sample preparation into research at a student’s home institution during the academic year. In the field phase, students identify a specific project and gather samples, make field observations and measurements, and/or complete mapping projects. As with any research program, the particular methodologies used are matched to the project goals. In some cases, the 4 wk period is divided between the field and laboratory so that students can begin processing samples prior to returning to their home campuses. Pre-fieldwork might include the use of geographic information systems (GIS) to prepare field maps, or training of students in the use of field equipment. Field-based projects involve a wide variety of pedagogical approaches depending on the nature of the project and the preferences and experience of the faculty. Each Keck experience ensures that individual students will have their own research objective within the overall project. In addition, funding for student field-related expenses, and often for analytical data collection, is assured. The field phase is not just data collection; invariably, friendships develop, and a sense of common purpose and community grows. This group identity motivates students during the field season and supports them through their independent study the following academic year. Shared challenges, goals, and experiences help integrate the students into a strong research group. Project faculty employ a number of strategies to engage the students; for example, some students work first in a single large group, or go through a systematic rotation of different roles (lead investigator, field assistant), and others involve students in small teams (three to four students) or assign permanent research partnerships. Regardless of approach, a sense of community is built quickly through student-to-student interactions. Additionally, students are housed together on projects, and the experience of living, socializing, and working together enhances the sense of camaraderie developed during the field season. Many project faculty require their students to complete short project proposals before finalizing the details of the projects. The project faculty, may, in consultation with the student and home institution research advisor, determine the specific project before starting the field season, but usually project selection occurs in the first few days of the summer fieldwork. Many field-based projects include a laboratory component during the summer phase of the project. Laboratory work may occur before, during, or after the field phase. The summer laboratory work may only involve sample preparation, such as cutting

166

de Wet et al.

rock chips for thin sections, while the actual observations or analytical work will be done at the student’s home institution during the academic year. In other cases, the laboratory work needs to be completed over the summer because of the nature of the samples or because the necessary analytical equipment is not available at the student’s home institution. Since the students involved in the Keck projects are required to continue their research as an independent project at their home institution after the summer, the expectations for each project are high. The students need to leave the summer season with a viable independent project that will lead to further research that can be accomplished in an academic year time frame. Academic Year Independent Research While the Keck 4 wk summer experience is shorter than the time frame for many NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) projects, we have found that continuing the student’s research into the academic year has proven successful in many ways. Maintaining momentum through the academic year, while challenging, is one of the most successful aspects of the Keck experience. Shared goals and the commitment of the on-campus faculty research advisor, combined with regular communication and attention by the project director, are fundamental to success during the academic year. Goals are set at the project and program levels. Research plans and deadlines developed by the project directors are in keeping with the project’s overall objectives. In many cases, the student’s project is tailored to the expertise and analytical resources available at the student’s home institution. In other situations, students may analyze their samples at another institution during the academic year. One of the great strengths of the Keck Consortium is that students have access to equipment at other Keck or collaborating institutions. This enriches the students’ research experience and enhances the scientific value of the research. Some projects have effectively used course management software to facilitate communication and data sharing during the academic year. Some projects involve coordinated laboratory work at one institution, or a collaborating research laboratory, during the academic year. For example, the Keck projects directed by Tekla Harms, Jack Cheney, and John Brady in the Tobacco Root Mountains of Montana have involved a midyear workshop at Amherst College, where students meet to discuss their results to date and collect additional analytical data. The 2005 Minnesota project took advantage of laboratory facilities at Washington State University in January 2006. Annual Symposium and Proceedings Volume The annual spring Keck Geology Research Symposium is the culminating event of the Keck research experience. Prior to the symposium, students submit a six-page research paper with illustrations and references reporting the results of their research. These “short contributions” are reviewed by the research advisors and

project directors, edited by the technical editor for consistency in organization and geoscience style, and published as a proceedings volume. Past volumes are archived on the Keck Web site (www .keckgeology.org). Since the 2004–2005 program year, the production of the annual proceedings volume has moved to electronic publication to reflect a process similar to professional publications. A draft version of the proceedings volume is printed for distribution at the symposium, during which groups have time to reconnect, reflect, and share data, often resulting in revisions to their papers. The students are thus exposed to the ongoing process of writing, editing, and manuscript submittal. All students also present a poster of their results at the Keck Symposium. The posters follow standard professional meeting formats. The final online publication becomes available on the Web site in late spring (www.keckgeology.org/publications). The annual symposium is hosted by one of the Keck Consortium members (except in 2001, when it was hosted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration at the Goddard Space Flight Center). The symposium typically involves a 1 d field trip highlighting the local geology near the host institution. The field trip serves several purposes, such as reinforcing the idea that field observations are a critical part of the science of geology, increasing the students’ knowledge of regional geology, and providing an opportunity for social and scientific interactions leading to the development of a geoscience community. The evening after the field trip is devoted to project meetings, which involve final editing of the short contributions, reviewing the posters, and fine-tuning the presentations for the following day. The second day is devoted to the presentation of the research results. Given time constraints, only a subset of the students give oral presentations; however, all students present posters on their research. Each project is assigned a certain amount of time for oral presentations based on the number of participants in the project. Project faculty typically give a short introduction to their project before handing the podium over to the student presenters. The oral presentations are interspersed with poster sessions. This presentation of results in a supportive but professional environment builds the students confidence and provides them with valuable professional experience. Many students also present their results in other forums. For example, the 2005 Dominican Republic project resulted in two presentations at the national meeting of GSA (2005) and nine additional presentations at regional GSA meetings. It is also not uncommon for Keck students to present their research at a national GSA or American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in the year following their graduation. While the consortium encourages presentation of student work at appropriate national and regional venues, the Keck Symposium is an important and substantive part of the Keck research experience because of the collaborative nature of the program. The annual symposium is much more than a place to present results. It is the capstone of the program, serving a number of additional and critical functions. The symposium fosters a sense of “Keck” community for students, project faculty, and sponsors. The presymposium field trip, shared meals, and shared science

Twenty-two years of undergraduate research in the geosciences—The Keck experience

Breadth and Depth in Research Projects The consortium strives to provide a wide variety of projects from which students can choose, ranging from traditional subdisciplines such as igneous and metamorphic petrology, volcanology, structural geology, sedimentology, and paleontology, to interdisciplinary studies such as climatology, geoarchaeology, and environmental geology. In some cases, when the overall theme of a project is not interdisciplinary, the individual student projects within it involves several subdisciplines, reflecting the varying interests and expertise of the faculty and students on the project. Of the 137 projects funded since 1987, 15 have focused on metamorphic petrology, 11 on volcanology, 10 on igneous petrology, 10 on structural geology, 9 on glacial/Quaternary geology, 8 on environmental geology, 8 on tectonics, 7 on geophysics, 6 on carbonate sedimentology, 6 on geomorphology, 5 have been interdisciplinary, 5 have focused on hydrology, 4 on sedimentology, 4 on experimental petrology, 4 on climate, 4 on paleontology/sedimentology, 2 on planetary geology, 2 on soils, 2 on geoarchaeology, 1 on remote sensing, 1 on GIS, and 1 on mineralogy. The remaining projects were broadly interdisciplinary. Over the years, there has been a slight shift toward interdisciplinary and environmental projects, reflecting the changing interests of the participating faculty and students. However, it remains an important goal of the consortium to continue to offer research opportunities in a wide variety of subdisciplines of the geosciences. Of the 137 Keck projects since 1987, 128 have been completely or largely field-based projects, and nine have been laboratory-based projects (experimental petrology, remote sensing, planetary geology, and GIS). Ninety-nine projects have been located in the United States (29 states and U.S. territories), and 38 have been conducted overseas in 15 different countries (Fig. 2). Canada has accounted for 11 projects, while Mongolia, Greece, and the Bahamas have accounted for four projects each. Other countries have included Australia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Mexico, Spain, and Switzerland. Domestic and overseas projects follow the same general structure and have the same oversight. KECK ADMINISTRATION Program Administration and Funding Since its inception, the consortium has been led by a coordinator or director (Fig. 3). Until 1996, this position was a vol-

90 % Non-U.S. projects

80 70

% per year

all act to stimulate the sense of programmatic belonging that is so valuable to all participants. It is at the symposium that faculty meet to discuss future collaborations and develop project ideas. Interaction among all project faculty and sponsors at the symposium is responsible for the strong interconnection among the faculty, and it is a vehicle for including faculty from other schools in the geoscience community. They learn about us as we learn about them, to the benefit of future projects.

167

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year

Figure 2. Percentage of projects based outside the United States and its territories.

Keck Emergency Response Team

Keck Office: Keck director Keck administrative assistant

Keck Member Institutions (18) Keck representatives council - 18 members: (1 faculty from each member institution) Meets twice a year: Spring - Symposium Fall - Annual GSA

Keck Projects: 5-8 per year

Keck Executive Committee (3 faculty from Keck member institutions)

Keck nonmember institutions Project faculty Project students

Project director Project faculty

Student research advisors

Project students Student research advisors

Other collaborators

Figure 3. The Keck Geology Consortium administrative structure.

untary, part-time position held initially by Bill Fox at Williams and then by Hank Woodard at Beloit. Considerable logistical support was provided by their respective departmental administrative assistants. As the complexity of running the consortium increased, the demands on the director increased, and full- or part-time directors were hired who were not teaching faculty. In 2004, as a cost-cutting measure, the consortium returned to the original model of having a faculty member at one of the consortium institutions direct the program. The consortium director is now a one-third time position, with a part-time administrative assistant, both of which are funded by contributions from the member institutions. The Keck office administers the finances,

168

de Wet et al.

maintains the Keck Web site, solicits project proposals, manages the student selection process, deals with safety and insurance issues, edits and publishes the annual symposium proceedings volume, assists in the organization of the annual symposium, seeks funding, and maintains the records of the consortium. The Keck director is supported in his/her work by an executive committee (three faculty members with substantial experience in directing consortium projects) and a group of representatives, one from each institution (Fig. 3). The consortium has two annual meetings of the executive committee and representatives: one at the annual Geological Society of America (GSA) meeting in the fall and the other during the Keck Symposium in the spring. Along with the general business of the consortium, the representatives plan the program for the coming year at these meetings. The slate of summer projects for the following year is finalized at the fall representatives meeting at GSA. The project directors administer the individual project budgets and, together with the other project faculty, are responsible for the logistical and scientific aspects of the individual projects. The funding model for the consortium has evolved over the years. The W.M. Keck Foundation provided most of the funding for the first 10 yr, with decreasing contributions for the subsequent 5 yr. Since then, funding has been obtained from a variety of sources, including the Keck member institutions, NSF, ExxonMobil Foundation, and the National Geographic Society. Presently, ~50% of the funding for the consortium is provided by the Keck Member institutions, and 50% is provided by NSF (NSF grant EAR-0648782). Safety and Other Issues (Keck Policies) The Keck Geology Consortium is not incorporated, but it is a “consortium” or affiliation of 18 colleges. All participants in the consortium abide by the policies of their home institution and of the institution housing the Keck office and director. In many cases, however, the member institutions may not have explicit guidelines or policies, or there may potentially be conflicting policies. In order to clarify any ambiguities, the consortium has placed an increasing emphasis on safety as the overarching principle governing policy decisions. Over the years, it has become increasingly important to be explicit about policies and procedures concerning field safety, sexual assault and harassment, nonfraternization, alcohol and illegal drug use, publication and authorship of results, and student dismissal from a project. Keck policies are clearly described in a series of handbooks that are tailored to the student participants, faculty members, and project directors. The handbooks are updated annually and are provided to every participant. Project faculty are required to review all the Keck policies with the students at the first meeting of the project participants in the summer. These policies have been largely successful in preventing problems by being clear and proactive. Safety is the top priority for all projects. Throughout the program, the consortium has implemented numerous practices

to optimize the safety of all participants. Medical and other information is collected by the Keck office and distributed to the project faculty prior to the start of the summer research. Access to medical care while in the field is determined prior to departure. While it is not required, many faculty have emergency medical training, and, in some cases, a medical doctor has accompanied the project in the field. Communication in the field has become more important: two-way radios, cell phones, and, in more remote areas, satellite phones are used. Typically, students work in pairs in the field. While the consortium strives to accommodate any special needs of students, some projects have unusual requirements, even for geological fieldwork. For example, scuba certification was required for the 2007 Saint Croix project, while training in the use of kayaks was required for many projects on Vinalhaven Island, Maine. Bears and other natural hazards are a concern in many locations, and, in some situations, specialized training is provided. Dietary flexibility is particularly necessary on the Mongolia projects, and some overseas projects require extensive vaccinations. The consortium has an emergency response team that includes the Keck director, several administrators from the host institution (at present: Franklin and Marshall College), and faculty or administrators from the member institutions. This team is available to respond to any serious issues that might arise during the field season or during the academic year (Fig. 3). Depending on the type of emergency, it is not inconceivable that members of the team might need to travel to the project location in order to most effectively deal with the situation. To date, the Emergency Response Team has not been activated. Assessment and Feedback An ongoing assessment and evaluation effort is used to continually improve the program. The Keck office maintains basic statistics about the projects and the faculty and student participants, including the size and disciplinary focus of the projects, Keck and non-Keck student and faculty participation, gender, and participation by underrepresented groups. All student participants anonymously complete a project assessment at the annual symposium in the spring. These responses cover not only the overall structure of the Keck experience but also the details of the individual projects. This information is then compiled by the Keck office and distributed to the project faculty. The consortium office keeps these records and uses past responses to guide the next program cycle. There was a 90% completion rate for student evaluations for the 2004–2005 and 2005–2006 projects. Of those, 100% of student participants reported the educational value of their Keck experience to be a 4 or 5, and 84% of those ranked the experience as excellent (5). Evaluations include Likert scale responses to seven questions, including the effectiveness of communication prior to the summer experience and during the academic year, as well as open-ended responses to a variety of questions related to experience.

Twenty-two years of undergraduate research in the geosciences—The Keck experience Finally, the Keck office gathers information about Keck alumni, either directly or through the member institutions. Results from alumni surveys indicate that the Keck experience enhances fundamental scientific and geoscience skills, but it also positively impacts student enthusiasm for science (Lauer-Glebov and Palmer, 2004). The assessment results indicate that the preparation students receive in their Keck undergraduate research experiences translates into skills relevant for their careers. ENDURING LESSONS The Keck Geology Consortium was founded with two primary objectives: to provide high-quality undergraduate research opportunities for liberal arts students, and to energize and support faculty with new opportunities for research and a new network of colleagues. The program design addressed both of these goals simultaneously by using collaborative research projects that involved students and faculty from multiple institutions. Twentytwo years later, this basic program design is still in place. Perhaps the greatest strength of the Keck Consortium experience is that students work in collaborative research groups directly with faculty who have dedicated their lives to the synergy of research and teaching that permeates the undergraduate environment within the consortium institutions (Manduca, 1996; Palmer, 2002; Bettison-Varga, 2005). The Keck faculty know, from significant individual and collective experience, what undergraduates are capable of accomplishing in the field and laboratory when properly supported and mentored during the summer and academic year. The guiding principle among faculty in the consortium is their commitment to high-level undergraduate research (Manduca, 1996; Knapp et al., 2006). Although the consortium is primarily a research-oriented entity, collaborations, camaraderie, further education, and mentoring have invariably become integral aspects of the consortium’s philosophy. The Keck Consortium is not prescriptive in its approach to studentfaculty collaborations, but rather it provides a framework in which faculty have the freedom to design projects based on their own experience and expertise. Right from the beginning, it was recognized that students would benefit from exposure to the complete research experience, from the development of scientific questions, fieldwork and sampling, sample and data analysis, to the publication of results (Elgren and Hensel, 2006). The use of cross-institutional faculty teams supports professional development in both research and teaching, and the project groups provide a rich environment for students to integrate and apply their geoscience knowledge, to develop as geoscience researchers, to meet students from across the country who share their research interests, and to test their interest in pursuing further study in geoscience. Faculty and students at the member institutions and beyond relish the opportunity to participate in “Keck projects.” Apart from a few projects that have focused on topics like planetary geology or experimental petrology, all Keck projects have had a significant field component. This reflects the fact that

169

most aspects of the geosciences are firmly rooted in fieldwork and that field experiences are a crucial aspect of the training of a geoscientist. Consortium projects involving fieldwork are distinct from other field-related experiences, such as traditional field camps, because they emphasize original research, and not necessarily learning a full compendium of field skills. This takes the faculty and students into uncharted territory, which is both exciting and unpredictable. While almost all Keck faculty would agree that exposure to fieldwork such as completion of a traditional field camp is desirable before a student starts a Keck project, this is not always possible. Many Keck institutions do not require field camp, but most encourage students to complete a field camp before graduation. Students without prior fieldwork usually require some field training during the Keck project. Generally, faculty support the idea that a typical Keck project is complementary to a traditional field camp but does not fully replace the broad range of skills learned through that experience (Baker, 2006). The required completion of an independent research project based on the summer research and the associated “short contribution” is also an important aspect of the program. Keck faculty firmly believe that student writing is a crucial aspect of engaging in successful research. Many project faculty require the students to complete numerous writing exercises during the summer research season including a research proposal, fieldwork reports, and a fieldwork summary. The consortium continues to invest considerable resources in the reporting of the results of the research through participation in the annual symposium and the publication of the annual proceedings volume. For many years, the consortium funded numerous academic year workshops for students and faculty geared toward the ongoing research projects, or workshops for Keck faculty to introduce new techniques, pedagogy, or equipment that could benefit future projects. Faculty workshop topics have included computer applications, remote sensing, teaching geomorphology, and teaching paleontology. Many of these topics are being perpetuated by the NSF-sponsored “On the Cutting Edge” workshops today. Funding challenges have meant that workshops can no longer be supported by the consortium. Given the widespread enthusiasm, particularly for the research workshops, reinstating these workshops should be a priority for the consortium. RESULTS To date, the consortium has supported 1094 undergraduate students (1175 slots, 81 repeats) from more than 80 schools across the nation (Fig. 4). The 137 research projects sponsored by the consortium have involved over 121 faculty (410 slots, many repeats) representing more than 46 different colleges, universities, governmental agencies, and businesses. Participants in the program are diverse. Women students have always been attracted to the program, filling 661 (56%) of the 1175 student positions that have been offered to date. Female participation on projects has remained remarkably stable over

170

de Wet et al. 80

90

% Female faculty

Faculty Students Projects

80

% Female students

70

% Female BA degrees (all U.S.)

70 60

50

50

%

Number per year

60

40 30

40 30

20

20 10

10 0 1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year

Figure 4. Faculty and student participants in Keck projects and number of Keck projects over time (data compiled from the Keck records and the annual symposium proceedings, available at www.keckgeology.org).

22 yr (Fig. 5). This overall participation rate is significantly higher than the rate at which women have been receiving geoscience baccalaureate degrees from all U.S. institutions over the same period (AGI, 2008). Female faculty participation is lower, reflecting the lower proportion of women in faculty positions. Initially, female faculty participation averaged 3% (7 out of 203), but since 1996, the average participation rate has been 34% (71 out of 207), significantly higher than the 17% (2003 ratio) of female geoscience faculty in U.S. B.A. and B.S. degree-granting institutions (Holmes and O’Connell, 2004). Increasing the participation of underrepresented groups was a consortium goal from the outset. An early grant from the National Science Foundation specifically targeted minority participation, including the development of 6 wk projects for sophomores. The sophomore projects were designed to give students, particularly minority students, an early research experience to encourage their completion of a geology major. Once the initial program was established and successful, funding was put in place to expand participation beyond the original institutions (which had been specified by the Keck Foundation). Opening up participation was an important goal from both the student and faculty perspectives. Faculty were interested in the highest quality research experiences possible with an expanding circle of colleagues who shared their research and teaching interests. It was clear that funding that enabled broader participation would strengthen the scientific base of the projects—what were the odds that 12 liberal arts colleges would have the right mix of expertise to address any specific problem?—while allowing new perspectives, new colleagues, and new discussion to enter the consortium faculty community. Similarly, drawing students from a broader community would enrich the student cohort while expanding the opportunities for motivated students to participate in research

0 1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year

Figure 5. Percentage female faculty and student participation through time. The rate at which women have been receiving geoscience baccalaureate degrees from all U.S. institutions over the same period is from AGI (2008).

(at the time, undergraduate research experiences were not as readily available as they are today). Expanding involvement in the program proved to be rewarding for all, broadening the pool of excellent students and faculty involved in projects, and providing increased access to resources and advanced facilities at other colleges and universities. The number of faculty and students from nonmember institutions has continued to increase (member institutions contribute toward the funding of the program) (Fig. 6). To date, non-Keck students have occupied 161 out of 1175 student slots, or 13.7%. More recently the Keck Consortium is committed to ~25%–30% nonKeck student participation as required by the NSF REU 0648782 grant for 2007–2010. In 2007, 28% of students were from 13 nonKeck institutions. In 2008, the portion of non-Keck students was 29% from 11 non-Keck institutions. A key to success in this area has been a strong advertising and recruiting effort, coupled with mentoring of faculty new to the program to help them become familiar with the educational goals and best practices developed through the years. Alumni records indicate that well over 50% of Keck alumni have attended graduate and/or professional schools, and the vast majority have received advanced degrees in the geosciences. Since 1988, Keck students and faculty have presented over 340 multi-authored papers at professional conferences and published over 70 articles in peer-reviewed journals, including a GSA Special Paper (Brady et al., 2004). Since the Keck Consortium has been in existence for such a long time, it is now possible to assess the long-term impacts of the Keck experience on students. Keck alumni can be found in a wide variety of occupations, including K–12 teaching, consulting, industry, state and federal agencies, and academia. Recently,

Twenty-two years of undergraduate research in the geosciences—The Keck experience 60 Non-Keck faculty Non-Keck students

50

% per year

40

30

20

10

0 1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year

Figure 6. Percentage of non-Keck faculty and student participation.

we compiled information on alumni who entered academia (visiting, tenure-track, and tenured) as a career. This information is instructive in evaluating claims that high-quality research experiences lead students to choose a career involving research and teaching. Since on average there is about a 7 yr delay between completing a B.A. degree and achieving a Ph.D., the following information reflects the students that participated in Keck projects in the 1980s and 1990s. Presently, there are over 44 Keck alumni, out of 710 Keck students from 1988 to 1999, in faculty positions (visiting, tenuretrack, and tenured) in U.S. colleges and universities. This represents a yield of ~6%. When only junior projects are considered (42 out of 44 Keck alums in academia completed a junior project, which involved a senior research project during the academic year), the yield is even higher, 42 out of 503 junior students for a yield of 8%. For comparison, an average of 3138 earth science bachelor’s degrees were awarded in the U.S. between 1989 and 2000 (National Science Board, 2008). Taking into account the approximately 7 yr delay between the B.A. and the Ph.D., and looking at the years between 1997 and 2005, an average of 420 doctoral degrees were awarded in the United States (National Science Board, 2008). Around 15%–25% (~84) of Ph.D. graduates enter academia (Keelor, 2005; National Science Board, 2008) resulting in a 2%–3% yield of bachelor degree students in geology moving into academic careers. This number is almost certainly even lower, considering that many academic positions in the United States are occupied by graduates who completed their undergraduate degree outside the United States. According to the National Science Board (2008), 26% of all geoscience Ph.D.’s in 2003 were foreign-born. Based on these data, Keck alumni that completed a junior project are at least three times more likely than average to obtain a faculty geoscience appointment.

171

Additionally, 22 out of 44, or 50%, of Keck alums in faculty positions are women. This is comparable to the proportion of women participating in Keck junior projects between 1989 and 1999, which was 54% (58% for sophomore projects). This is a yield of 93%. Compare this to the fact that in the United States around 40% of bachelors degrees are awarded to women, while only 21%–22% of assistant professors are women, and we observe a nearly 50% attrition rate (Holmes and O’Connell, 2004; AGI, 2008). Proportionally, female Keck alumni are almost twice as likely as other female geology undergraduates to enter college and university teaching, so there is effectively no “leaky academic pipeline” for Keck female alumni. While we cannot be certain that Keck participation was the dominant reason for the success of these students in pursuing an academic career, it is certainly true that for most of them, the Keck research experience was their most significant exposure to doing research as undergraduates. Highly selective liberal arts colleges have long been well regarded for their success in producing geoscience Ph.D.’s, and in many ways the Keck Geology Consortium has expanded and enhanced the successful student mentoring activities of the participating geoscience departments prior to Keck’s inception in 1987. Since successful research skills and experience are crucial for success at the Ph.D. level, and ultimately for entering academia, is not unreasonable to suggest that the Keck experience positively impacted these students. As participation in the consortium expands to many non-Keck institutions, it will be informative to see if the success of the program can be duplicated. FUTURE CHALLENGES Despite past successes, the consortium faces numerous challenges. One of the biggest challenges is maintaining the integrity of the program while expanding participation to non-Keck students and faculty. The program relies on the full commitment of all the participants, including the project faculty, students, and research advisors. Senior faculty at the Keck institutions have extensive experience with the workings and goals of the consortium and actively mentor their junior faculty. Students and faculty from outside the consortium must quickly come up to speed with these requirements to realize the program’s full benefits. Another challenge involves increasing the participation of students from underrepresented groups. For years, the consortium had an excellent track record of involving woman in the program; however, women are no longer underrepresented at the undergraduate and graduate levels in the geosciences. Over several years, the consortium ran sophomore projects that specifically targeted students from underrepresented groups. This funding is no longer available and the participation of students from underrepresented groups in rising senior projects continues to be a challenge. Recently, the consortium has received funding from the ExxonMobil Foundation that provides several “enhanced grants” for students from underrepresented groups. We anticipate that the successful recruitment of increasing numbers of students

172

de Wet et al.

from underrepresented groups into the Keck program will have lasting effects on the geoscience community. CONCLUSION The Keck Geology Consortium has an extremely strong record in engaging undergraduate students in meaningful research. It exposes students to a wide spectrum of the scientific research endeavors, providing them with skills, self-confidence, and sense of ownership in the scientific process. This is a process that has long-lasting, positive consequences, as shown by the very high percentage of Keck alumni who have come full circle and are now teaching geology, many in undergraduate institutions similar to those they graduated from. Fieldwork has remained one of the core components of almost all the Keck projects. Participation in a Keck project invariably increases the appreciation of the students for field-based observations and skills. The Keck experience demonstrates that a carefully crafted, well-organized, field-based research project may be a key component in retaining students in the geosciences and in providing a vehicle for the continuation of undergraduates, particularly women, into a wide variety of geoscience-related careers, including academia. REFERENCES CITED AGI, 2008, Female participation in the academic geoscience community: Geoscience Currents, v. 9, 1 p. Baker, M.A., 2006, Status Report on Geoscience Summer Field Camps: American Geological Institute Geoscience Workforce Report GW-06-003, 8 p. Bettison-Varga, L., 2005, Learning through research: Best practices from the Keck Geology Consortium: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 7, p. 492.

Brady, J.B., Burger, H.R, Cheney, J.T., and Harms, T.A., eds., 2004, Precambrian Geology of the Tobacco Root Mountains, Montana: Geological Society of America Special Paper 377, 256 p. Elgren, T., and Hensel, N., 2006, Undergraduate research experiences: Synergies between scholarship and teaching: Peer Review, v. 8, no. 1. Holmes, M.A., and O’Connell, S., 2004, Where are the women geoscience professors?: Report on the National Science Foundation/Association for Women Geoscientists Foundation Sponsored Workshop: Lincoln, Nebraska, 40 p., available at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/geosciencefacpub/86/ (accessed 19 August 2009). Keelor, B., 2005, Earth and Space Science Ph.D. Class of 2003, Report Released: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 86, no. 31, doi: 10.1029/2005EO310004. Knapp, E.P., Greer, L., Connors, C.D., and Harbor, D.J., 2006, Field-based instruction as part of a balanced geoscience curriculum at Washington and Lee University: Journal of Geological Education, v. 54, no. 2, p. 103–108. Lauer-Glebov, J.M., and Palmer, B.A., 2004, Knowing what we know: Assessing the Keck Consortium’s core outcomes from a historical perspective: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 5, p. 156. Manduca, C.A., 1996, The value of undergraduate research experiences: Reflections from Keck Geology Consortium alumni: Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, v. 16, no. 3, p. 176–178. Manduca, C.A., and Woodard, H.H., 1995, Research groups for undergraduate students and faculty in the Keck Geology Consortium: Journal of Geological Education, v. 43, no. 4, p. 400–403. Manduca, C.A., Grosfils, E., and Wobus, R.A., 1999, Working together for our best interests: Sustainable collaboration in the Keck Geology Consortium: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 80, no. 46, p. F111. National Science Board, 2008, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Two Volumes): Arlington, Virginia, National Science Foundation (volume 1, NSB 08-01, 588 p.; volume 2, NSB 08-01A, 575 p.). Palmer, B., 2002, Lessons from the Keck Geology Consortium: Benefits and costs of large collaborations: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35, no. 6, p. 601. Wobus, R.A., 1988, Interinstitutional collaboration in undergraduate geological research: The consortium approach: Council on Undergraduate Research Newsletter, v. 9, no. 2, p. 32–35. MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009

Printed in the USA

The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009

Field glaciology and earth systems science: The Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP), 1946–2008 Cathy Connor Department of Natural Sciences, University Alaska Southeast, Juneau, Alaska 99801, USA

ABSTRACT For over 50 yr, the Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP) has provided undergraduate students with an 8 wk summer earth systems and glaciology field camp. This field experience engages students in the geosciences by placing them directly into the physically challenging glacierized alpine landscape of southeastern Alaska. Mountaintop camps across the Juneau Icefield provide essential shelter and facilitate the program’s instructional aim to enable direct observations by students of active glacier surface processes, glaciogenic landscapes, and the region’s tectonically deformed bedrock. Disciplinary knowledge is transferred by teams of JIRP faculty in the style of a scientific institute. JIRP staffers provide glacier safety training, facilitate essential camp logistics, and develop JIRP student field skills through daily chores, remote camp management, and glacier travel in small field parties. These practical elements are important components of the program’s instructional philosophy. Students receive on-glacier training in mass-balance data collection and ice-velocity measurements as they ski ~320 km across the icefield glaciers between Juneau, Alaska, and Atlin, British Columbia. They use their glacier skills and disciplinary interests to develop research experiments, collect field data, and produce reports. Students present their research at a public forum at the end of the summer. This experience develops its participants for successful careers as researchers in extreme and remote environments. The long-term value of the JIRP program is examined here through the professional evolution of six of its recent alumni. Since its inception, ~1300 students, faculty, and staff have participated in the Juneau Icefield Research Program. Most of these faculty and staff have participated for multiple summers and many JIRP students have returned to work as program staff and sometimes later as faculty. The number of JIRP participants (1946–2008) can also be measured by adding up each summer’s participants, raising the total to ~2500. INTRODUCTION Ralph Waldo Emerson believed in “the education of the scholar by nature, by books, and by action” (Emerson, 1837). He was probably the first North American philosopher to advocate for the education of students using a pedagogy with emphasis on direct student involvement and experience relative to bibliomania. Over the last half century, the Juneau Icefield Research

Program (JIRP) has created a singular summer field experience founded on Emerson’s educational doctrine (Fig. 1). Southeast Alaska’s maritime rain forest and Coast Range Mountains provide the extraordinary glacier laboratory that has guided the program’s founder and director, Maynard M. Miller, with his application of Emerson’s philosophy by “bringing the students into nature” (Miller, 1994, personal commun.). Each summer, JIRP students travel to Juneau, Alaska, and receive an extensive,

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 [email protected]. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

173

174

Connor

Figure 1. The Juneau Icefield Research Program’s pedagogy is based on Ralph Waldo Emerson’s (1837) Philosophy.

on-site synthesis of Alaska’s coastal geology, glaciology, climatology, geomorphology, ecology, meteorology, hydrology, geophysics, and other landscape information. They are trained in the acquisition of discipline-specific data from nunatak base camps located on bedrock ridge tops across the 3176 km2 glacierized U.S.-Canada border region in the Coast Mountains of southeastern Alaska and northwestern British Columbia (Fig. 2). Students are required to develop a research experiment and the data collection methodology and analysis to address it. Since initial research on this glacier system beginning in 1946, Miller and his JIRP faculty colleagues have incorporated geoscience education and student training into their own Juneau Icefield summer research program, inspiring generations of earth system science students. At the 2002 meeting of the International Glaciological Society held in Yakutat, Alaska, a straw poll of the audience revealed that over 50% of the attendees, a broad spectrum of the world’s working and highly respected research climate scientists and their graduate students were JIRP alumni. Evolution of a Glacier Science Education Program: A Brief JIRP History Since its inception, research on the Juneau Icefield has been directed toward the understanding of temperate coastal glacier change under the influence of climate. Following World War II and into the Cold War, U.S. strategic interests included Arctic sea-ice research and measurements of ice thickness to assess effects on missile trajectories beneath the ice. The Taku Glacier in the Juneau Icefield system, located in the southeastern Alaska

panhandle, was identified as a more accessible and economical outdoor laboratory for cold regions research. Beginning in 1946, reconnaissance of the Juneau Icefield enabled planning for studies of Taku Glacier’s mass balance (Heusser, 2007). The “Project on the Taku Glacier” (The Project), a 10 yr contract with the Office of Naval Research to the American Geographical Society of New York, led to eight field seasons beginning in 1948 through the International Geophysical Year (IGY, 1957–1958). During the IGY, researchers also measured and monitored Juneau Icefield’s Lemon Creek Glacier, one of nine glaciers selected for its global climatic significance (Marcus et al., 1995) and the location of JIRP Camp 17 (Fig. 2). Members of the Project on the Taku Glacier also investigated icefield-wide glacier processes, the relationships between hydrology and ice-terminus positions, their links to climate, and the paleoclimate records in adjacent landscapes through their glacier and bog sediments (Miller, 1947, 1950, 1954, 1956–1957, 1957, 1961, 1963; Field and Miller, 1950; Miller and Field, 1951; R.D. Miller, 1973, 1975; Heusser, 2007). Glacier studies in the Juneau region were built upon the work of Cooper (1937), Field (1947), and others referenced in Connor et al. (2009), who worked extensively on the post–Little Ice Age recessional glacier terminus positions in nearby Glacier Bay. The nonprofit Foundation for Glacier and Environmental Research (FGER) was established in 1955 to support the Juneau Icefield Research Program, which followed the termination of the Project on the Taku Glacier, and which has continued for the last half century with student training in mountaineering techniques, glaciology, and extensive field studies of the Taku Glacier region (Miller, 1976, 1977, 1985; Pelto and Miller, 1990; Marcus et al.,

Field glaciology and earth systems science: The Juneau Icefield Research Program

175

Figure 2. Location map of the Juneau Icefield with selected research camps referenced in text. Basemap is by Bowen (2005).

1995; McGee et al., 1996–2007; Adema et al., 1997; Sprenke et al., 1999; Miller and Molnia, 2006; Pelto et al., 2008). A seminal date for support of the early JIRP program was 3 November 1957, the launch by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of the first satellite, Sputnik. This event intensified the space race (1957–1975) between the United States and Russia and resulted in massive infusions of U.S. federal funding for science education. From 1960 through 1975, as selected U.S. elementary students were abruptly switched into learning the “new math,” to find the next generation of engineering students, the JIRP program’s basic research mission included the education of graduate students. Support came in part from National Science Foundation (NSF) awards to the Institute of Glaciological and Arctic Environmental Sciences, which transferred from Michigan State University to the University of Idaho in 1975. Miller’s wide ranging interests in glacier processes and mountaineering led to his participation in the first American ascent team of Mount Everest in 1963, following

Sir Edmund Hillary’s achievement in 1953, and included Miller’s analysis of tritium isotopes in firn pack stratigraphy collected at 7470 m (Miller et al., 1965). His annual Camp 10 (Fig. 3) summer evening recount of this expedition has inspired generations of JIRP participants to combine their mountaineering and scientific interests. In 1979, eight undergraduates were included in the JIRP program for the first time. With support from the NSF Research for Undergraduates (REU) program (1987–1995), 98 undergraduates hailing from 74 different universities were JIRP alumni by 1997. High school students joined JIRP program through the NSF Young Scholars Program (YSP). Beginning in 1996, the University Alaska Southeast (UAS) began offering National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)–Alaska Space Grant Scholarships to JIRP students annually (Table 1), and by 1998, the UAS Environmental Science Program offered university credits to JIRP students. Since the beginning of the JIRP program, ~1300 students, faculty, and staff have participated in a Taku Glacier

176

Connor mer semester JIRP credits toward their respective university field camp requirements or for their degree program’s breadth course requirements. Students come from countries throughout the world to participate in the JIRP program. Summer JIRP student numbers have varied over the years, ranging from between 15 and 50, depending on funding resources and faculty and staff availability. In-service K–12 science teachers have also participated in JIRP, deeply enhancing their climate science teaching. Teacher training methods developed by the JIRP program have provided a template for other glacier-based, science education efforts for Alaska’s K–12 teachers and students (Connor and Prakash, 2008). Introduction of JIRP Students to Alaskan Glaciers in a Maritime Rain Forest

Figure 3. Matt Beedle (JIRP [Juneau Icefield Research Program], 1995) atop Taku B (1461 m) east of Taku Glacier Camp 10. View is westward showing Taku Towers in background. This peak is the focus of an annual JIRP program hike to look at Neoglacial moraine locations, Last Glacial Maximum striations, the Juneau Icefield Peaks, and for JIRP students to practice their “plunge step” descent back to camp (photo by Alf Pinchak).

summer field experience. Program support has also come from thousands of hours donated by the Miller family, summer JIRP faculty (university and agency researchers), and JIRP staffers. Many JIRP alumni have also contributed financially to FGER to help sustain the program through time. DEVELOPING EARTH SCIENCE CONCEPTS THROUGH INQUIRY METHODS ON GLACIERS JIRP Students To create a lasting understanding of the physical processes that have shaped southern Alaska’s coastal alpine regions, JIRP students spend their 8 wk summer learning the questions to ask about the tectonic and climate history of the region (Huntoon et al., 2001) while making quantitative and qualitative observations of glacier ice, mountaintop geomorphology, and the complex bedrock spatial distribution as they travel across this landscape. They journey an average of 320 km on foot, skis, or crampons, across the Lemon Creek, Taku, Llewellyn, and the smaller glaciers of the Juneau Icefield (Fig. 2). Safety is a primary program concern for all JIRP participants, and much of the early part of the program is dedicated to safety training. JIRP students are typically undergraduates majoring in geology, environmental geology, environmental science, physical geography, or allied disciplines (Table 1). They come from urban and rural universities, range widely in their athletic abilities, and include ski racers, rock climbers, studio dancers, hockey players, tractor drivers, and kite fliers (useful skills for deploying low-budget, remotesensing instruments on ice). Many students apply their 3–9 sum-

Students begin their first week in Juneau receiving daily, discipline-specific lectures and engaging with the region through introductory sea-level field trips. They learn about the tectonic history of this contractional orogenic belt (Stowell and McClelland, 2000) and observe its record in local metamorphic and plutonic bedrock outcrops and in the area’s extensive gold mineralization. JIRP students hike through Tongass National Forest’s temperate rain forest ecosystem and learn how patterns of soils and vegetation have developed on this intensely glaciated landscape. They observe the coastal geomorphic evidence for sealevel dynamism and post–Little Ice Age crustal uplift (Arendt et al., 2002; Larsen et al., 2005). Throughout this time, JIRP students test their glacier field gear and their own physical stamina. They also learn to make palatable and nutritious food in cooking groups, to share in camp maintenance chores, to develop wilderness first-aid skills, and to become adept at tying the essential knots that will be needed for glacier rope teams and successful crevasse investigations. For many years, JIRP students have marched in synchronized rope teams in the annual Juneau Fourth of July Parade, distributing Mendenhall Glacier ice to the locals and forming one of the program’s important links with the Juneau community. This community service activity also aids JIRP students in the development of the teamwork skills and logistical planning that will be needed later in the summer as they travel across glaciers in small field parties over crevassed terrain. Landscape Traverses and Spatial Thinking The first week of the program provides JIRP faculty and staff with the opportunities to assess JIRP students’ physical and mental abilities. This facilitates the selections of viable field travel groups for overall team strength and skill set diversity. After this first round of intensive and initial training, JIRP students detach from Juneau’s hydropowered electrical system and ascend 1200 m from sea level to Camp 17, the nearest icefield camp to Alaska’s capital city. To access the first JIRP camp, students, guided by experienced JIRP staffers, climb steep slopes vegetated by devils club, spruce, and hemlock,

Field glaciology and earth systems science: The Juneau Icefield Research Program TABLE 1. 1996–2008 JUNEAU ICEFIELD RECIPIENTS OF NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA) ALASKA SPACE GRANT SCHOLARSHIPS–UNIVERSITY ALASKA SOUTHEAST Year Student University Major 1 2008 Nicholas Chamberlin Appalachia State University Environmental Geology 2 2008 William Honsaker University of Cincinnati Geology 3 2008 Benjamin Kraemer Lawrence University Environmental Studies/Biochemistry 4 2008 James Menking Tulane University Geology/Spanish/Latin American Studies 5 2008 Wilson Salls Vassar College Earth Science 6 2007 Seth Campell University of Maine Earth Sciences 7 2007 Corinne Griffing University of Nevada Geoscience 8 2007 Ruth Heindel Brown University Geology-Biology 9 2007 Marie McLane Smith College Geology 10 2007 Megan O’Sadnick Wheaton College Physics/Minor Astronomy 11 2007 Brooks Prather Central Washington U.* Geology 12 2006 Peter Flynn U. of Alaska Southeast Environmental Science 13 2006 Lauren Adrian Whitman College Geology 14 2006 Alana Wilson University of North Carolina Environmental Science 15 2006 Xavier Bruehler Western Washington U. Environmental Geology 16 2006 Dan Sturgis University of Idaho Geology 17 2005 Linnea Koons Cornell University Science of Earth Systems 18 2005 Orion Lakota Stanford University Geology 19 2005 Janelle Mueller Portland State University Geology/Earth Science 20 2005 Mathew Nelson U. of Alaska Southeast Environmental Science 21 2005 Nathan Turpen University of Washington Earth and Space Science † 22 2004 Evan Burgess University of Colorado Boulder Physical Geography/GIS 23 2004 Keith Laslowski Brown University Geology/Geomorphology 24 2004 Erin Wharton University of Washington Earth/Space Sciences 25 2004 Kate Harris University of North Carolina Geology and Biology 26 2004 Aaron Mordecai University of Utah Glaciology 27 2003 Lisa Chaiet University of Idaho Geoscience/Environmental Science 28 2003 Emilie Chatelain University of San Diego Environmental Science/Physical Geology/Geography 29 2003 William Naisbitt University of Utah PhysGeog/Geomorph/Remote Sensing/GIS 30 2003 Andrew Thorpe Brown University Geology 31 2003 Heather Whitney Colorado State University Chemistry 32 2002 Ari Berland Pomona College, California Geology Environmental Science 33 2002 Liam Cover U. of Alaska Southeast Geology 34 2002 Ryan Cross U. of Alaska Fairbanks 35 2002 Anna Henderson Brown University Geology 36 2001 Eleanor Boyce Colby College, Maine Geology 37 2001 Chris Kratt Plymouth State College Physics and Geology § Geology/Geomorphology 38 2001 Evan Mankoff SUNY Oneonta, New York 39 2001 Colby Smith University of Maine Geology/Geomorphology 40 2001 Haley Wright U. of California Santa Cruz Geology/Environmental Science 41 2000 Michael Bradway University of Idaho Geology 42 2000 Danielle Kitover Alaska Pacific University Environmental Science 43 2000 Brady Phillips Oregon State University Environmental Science 44 2000 Jeanna Probala Western Washington U. Geology Physical Geography 45 1999 Matthew Beedle Montana State University Environmental Science 46 1999 Julian Deiss U. of Alaska Southeast Geology 47 1999 Hiram Henry Western Washington U. 48 1999 Kevin Stitzinger U. of British Columbia Geography 49 1998 April Graves U. of Alaska Southeast Environmental Science 50 1998 Hiram Henry Western Washington U. Geology 51 1998 David Potere Harvard University Geology 52 1998 Joan Ramage Cornell University Geology 53 1997 Matthew Beedle Montana State University Earth Science 54 1997 Joan Ramage Cornell University Geology 55 1996 Adam Hopson Wesleyan College Environmental Science 56 1996 Johanna Nelson Stanford University Earth Systems Science Shad O’Neel 57 1996 University of Montana Geology 58 1996 Brett Vanden Heuval Hope College Geology 59 1996 Erin Whitney Williams College Chemistry/Geophysics Note: This table provides a snapshot of the diversity of U.S. institutions that have sent their students to the Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP). Participation by international JIRP students from Canada, the UK, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and South America is not reflected in this table, since non-U.S. citizens do not qualify for NASA Space Grant scholarships. *U.—University † GIS—global information system § SUNY—State University of New York

177

178

Connor

transitioning through tree line into alpine elevations covered by mosses and heath family shrubs. Students end this first ascent with a final climb up the Ptarmigan Glacier (Fig. 2), walking directly on the firnpack, which still covers the lower glacier ice in the early summer. This vertical traverse develops students’ observational skills and begins to familiarize them with the effects of elevation on synoptic weather patterns and surface hydrologic processes. Important weather and climate concepts such as insolation, albedo, sensible and latent heat transfer, and land surface radiation in high mountain environments begin to make sense during this initial climb up onto the icefield. Adjacent to the northeastern Pacific, the Juneau area receives frequent storms generated by the Aleutian Low. JIRP students quickly make the connection between the high rates of precipitation and the location of Alaska’s temperate glacier systems along this southeastern mountainous coast. The JIRP camps provide crucial shelter for learning and working in this wet glaciated environment and facilitate safe access to and from the glaciers’ surfaces. Climbing up and down the icefield nunataks, students begin to make the links between longer-term climate and landscape development over geologic time scales that are relatively recent (Herbert, 2006). This physically challenging introduction to the rain forest and alpine glacier systems lingers for a lifetime in JIRP student memories and provides them with important ground-truth experiences for the information they have received earlier in discipline-specific lectures (Huntoon et al., 2001). Students move onto and off of the glacier surfaces from these bedrock glacial refugia. They soon are adept at camp life, can self-arrest with their ice axes on steep, ice-covered slopes, and are able to rescue their colleagues from crevasses. They are skillful at running diesel generators, ColemanTM lanterns, gas cooking stoves, creating walk-in freezers in snow banks, and safely loading and unloading helicopters. Students are also trained in the daily collection of meteorological data at each camp. These data are used to complement long-term temperature records collected by a network of temperature sensors and data loggers located across the icefield (Pelto et al., 2008). Icefield camps are strategically located about one day’s travel apart. This requires development or refinement of student skills in skiing with heavy packs, map and global positioning system (GPS) navigation, cold wet weather survival, and the identification of crevasse types. After much glacier and camp safety training, students are assessed as “ice-safe” by ever-watchful JIRP staff safety trainers. They are next able to begin glacier massbalance data collection through the digging of surface snow pits. Snow stratigraphy, structure, and density are measured in snowpit profiles at a network of annually studied sites. Through these glacier surface activities, JIRP students become adapted to life in this environment. They learn to ski safely across glacier surfaces and navigate in bad weather. These activities are a prelude to longer-distance, multiday glacier travel across the Lemon Creek, Taku, and Llewellyn Glaciers, which rise up to 1980 m in their uppermost snowfields (Fig. 2).

BEDROCK AND GLACIER ICE STRUCTURAL DEFORMATION: CONNECTING TECTONICS AND CLIMATE The location of JIRP camps on emergent bedrock ridges provides students with the opportunities to also study the glacially polished exposures of the Yukon-Tanana and Stikine terranes, the Sloko volcanics, and the plutonic rocks of the Coast Range batholith. Many interesting geologic structures and petrologic and mineral assemblages can be easily observed on these Juneau Icefield nunataks. JIRP students can compare their observations with other geologic regions they have familiarity with. These isolated bedrock exposures surrounded by glacier ice, also provide JIRP faculty with many outcrop-scale, field mapping exercise opportunities. Students evolve their spatial analysis and mapping skills as they interpret the forces that have formed and exposed local geologic structures. This understanding links them with the published tectonic interpretations for the region (Ernst, 2006). As JIRP students create outcrop-scale geologic maps, they also develop insights into the linkages between orogenic continental margin development as recorded in the bedrock and the forces that have sculpted the landscape surfaces under the influence of changing climate (Anders et al., 2008). The uplift and intense deformation of the region is mirrored in the near real-time formation of extensional and compressional crevasses in the glaciers. Fast-flowing, warm glaciers are noisy as they actively deform with ice flow. Their brittle upper surfaces contrast with their plastically deformed, sheared, and folded basal ice and provide an important rheological contrast. Students can observe these ice deformation features and understand the stresses that formed them. Higher-order thinking allows them to apply this glacier ice deformation knowledge to observed bedrock structures that locally have recorded plastic deformation structures such as the ptygmatic folds of deeply exhumed Yukon-Tanana terrane gneisses that underlie the western regions of the icefield (Kastens and Ishikawa, 2006). Developing Authentic Student Research Projects With its focus on earth systems science education, especially with respect to climate, the JIRP summer program has welcomed many U.S. and international university faculty and researchers from a wide range of disciplines, as well as in-service secondary science educators. Faculty participants overlap their tenure on the icefield, moving by helicopter on and off the ice throughout the 8 wk field program. They provide basic information to JIRP students through in-camp lectures and also through the guided collection of data and its interpretation. JIRP faculty cumulatively expose students to published research data in glacier mass balance, ice physics and ice velocity, ice thickness, nunatak structural geology, firnpack and supraglacier stream hydrology, alpine meteorology, nunatak botany, and firnpack ecology over the course of their 8 wk summer experience. They often give evening programs about their own current research.

Field glaciology and earth systems science: The Juneau Icefield Research Program Students keep lecture and field notes in waterproof Rite in the RainTM notebooks for permanent and portable records of their daily observations and experiences. These durable archives are also used for student research project data, gear lists, and other pertinent information. Students can later refer to their camp lecture notes as they review for their comprehensive final exam given during the fall semester following their JIRP summer field experience. This discipline-specific information, coupled with their field observations, helps to prime JIRP student thinking and guides the development of modest, short-time-scale research projects. Students also evolve data collection plans and identify appropriate analytical methods for data reduction with help from the resources of the JIRP camp libraries. Field project logistics are organized by JIRP staff around each student’s geographic requirements. Once research plans are developed, students are subdivided into synergistic research groups. Students assemble their final research abstracts and reports on laptops at Camp 18 prior to the final descent of and departure from Llewellyn Glacier at the end of the program (Fig. 1). To complete their JIRP field experience, students leave Camp 18 and traverse across the high ice plateau region that forms the Alaska–British Columbia border (Sprenke et al., 1999). This segment of the Continental Divide forms the headwater boundary of the 847,642 km2 Yukon River watershed and separates the south-flowing Taku Glacier system from the north-flowing Llewellyn Glacier. JIRP students ski northward up the Taku and Matthes Glaciers and cross the International Border, following the Llewellyn Glacier’s north-directed meltwater into Lake Atlin, British Columbia (Fig. 2). Students leave the firnpack on the upper Lewelleyn Glacier and hike using crampons over the blue bubbly Llewellyn Glacier ice to Camp 26 (Fig. 2). They continue descending down the glacier, exit onto the southern shoreline of Lake Atlin, and cross the 133 km lake by boat, returning to civilization in Atlin, British Columbia (population 400). In Atlin, JIRP students refine their project results and present their work in a specially convened annual JIRP Science Symposium for local Atlin residents and visitors alike. At the end of their JIRP summer experience, the students are generally transformed individuals. They have gained great confidence and maturity from their research experiences, from their enhanced capabilities in remote-site field logistics and glacier survival, and, most importantly, from the cohort bonding resulting from their shared understanding of the processes operating in this wild, sometimes dangerous, glaciated environment. Such experiences early in an undergraduate’s education can often change a student’s way of thinking about their long-term interests and may redirect their career paths.

179

(IPY) 2007–2009, JIRP faculty and their students have expanded their research area footprint beyond the Juneau Icefield to other Alaskan glaciers, as well as glaciers in the Canadian Arctic, the European Alps, Asia, South America, Greenland, and Antarctica. The long duration of the program has created an extensive network of student and faculty alumni, including internationally known glaciologists, climatologists, geophysicists, geologists, physical geographers, mineralogists, palynologists, physicians, barristers, economists, photographers, educators, and politicians who have published a cornucopia of information related to the Juneau Icefield region and other Alaskan glaciers (see bold-faced author names in the References Cited section). This ever-growing knowledge base provides an important starting point for each summer’s incoming JIRP students. JIRP student observations over the past 60 yr across the Juneau Icefield have documented (1) a rise in the minimum winter temperatures over the past 20 yr on the source névés, 1–3.8 °C above temperatures recorded 30–50 yr ago, (2) a rise in the elevation of the icefield’s regional freezing level, resulting in a substantial increase in snowfall on the higher névés, and (3) the marked thinning and retreat of several low-elevation distributary glaciers (Lemon Creek, Mendenhall, Herbert, Eagle, Norris) relative to the continued and even accelerated advance of the Taku Glacier, with its high elevation source area and currently shoaled tidewater status (Pelto et al., 2008). Over the past 30 yr, mass-balance studies utilizing JIRP student data in the Llewellyn Glacier region have documented a rise in minimum average temperature from −30 °C to −10 °C (Miller and Molnia, 2006). JIRP Student Scholarship and Career Pathways Table 2 provides a summary of the scholarship that develops out of JIRP summer research. JIRP student projects have ranged from structural maps of the bedrock, petrography, and mineralization of Taku Glacier nunataks (Abrams et al., 1990, USF senior thesis) to studies of the valley geomorphology of the glacially carved Gilkey trench (Fig. 2). Students have provided ground-truth data for remote-sensing imagery by examining the relationships among snowpack, surface geochemistry, and synoptic weather patterns (Ramage and Isacks, 2003). They have charted the changing distribution of nunatak flora and fauna with warming climate (Bass, 2007, Ph.D. thesis, University of Georgia) and identified the cryobiologic elements living in the firn pack atop glacier ice. JIRP students have dug countless snow pits to measure the mass balance of the Lemon Creek and Taku Glaciers and skied many hundreds of kilometers implementing global positioning system (GPS) surveys

JIRP STUDENT PROJECT OUTCOMES Adding Value to the Climate Research Community Spanning the 50 yr between the International Geophysical Year (IGY) 1957–1958 through the International Polar Year

TABLE 2. JUNEAU ICEFIELD RESEARCH PROGRAM STUDENT SCHOLARSHIP, 1958–2008 Senior/honor’s Master’s Ph.D. Peer-reviewed paper thesis thesis thesis authors (1995–2008) 35 41 25 21+

180

Connor

to determine glacier surface ice velocities (Pelto et al., 2008). JIRP student glacier-hydrologists have calculated discharge of supraglacial streams and firn packs and studied the annual ogives at the base of the Vaughn Lewis Icefall (Henry, 2006, M.S. thesis, Portland State University, Oregon, PSU). JIRP alumni have adapted seismological tools to identify avalanches and crevassing events and have determined the great ice thickness of the Taku Glacier above its underlying bedrock (Nolan et al., 1995). Student project results are first presented to their peers and interested citizens of Atlin, British Columbia, at the end of the summer program. Student reports are archived as open-file reports of the Glaciological and Arctic Sciences Institute, University Idaho, and stored in JIRP camp libraries and in the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) Egan Library. Some of this student work has been further developed into abstracts and presented at Geological Society of America (GSA), American Geophysical Union (AGU), and International Glaciological Society (IGS) meetings in poster and oral formats. Some work has evolved further into journal articles and has been published in peer-reviewed publications (Table 2). Some examples of recent JIRP student publications are cited in the references section (Molnia, 2008; Cross, 2007; Deiss et al., 2004; Hocker et al., 2003; Currie et al., 1996; Nolan et al., 1995). JIRP student alumni can be found carrying out research on Arctic sea ice or Alaskan, Antarctic, and Greenlandic glaciers; working for mineral exploration companies; practicing environmental law; carrying out oceanographic research; working overseas in the U.S. Peace Corps; employed by the National Weather Service; guiding the Mars Rover projects; working on programs in geodynamic research (Kaufman et al., 2006); working for government resource agencies or in the National Parks; interpreting satellite imagery to monitor global ice loss; earning medical degrees and practicing medicine; teaching the next generations as college and university earth science faculty (Copland et al., 2003); and working in high schools as science teachers. The value of this research-based field experiences is evident in the accomplishments of its alumni and has been widely documented for other field-camp experiences (Huntoon et al., 2001). Since the program’s inception, ~1300 students, faculty, and staff appear on the participants’ lists. Many of those listed have returned for additional JIRP summers, raising the sum of annual participants to ~2500 (Foundation for Glacier and Environmental Research, 1997; unpublished JIRP participant lists 1994–2008). Long-Term Value of the JIRP Field Experience: Six Alumni Case Studies From 1996 to 2008, the University Alaska Southeast, through the Alaska Space Grant Program, has provided scholarships to partially support 59 JIRP students through their 8 wk JIRP summer (Table 1; Fig. 3). Six of these awardees are profiled here as they continued their Juneau Icefield studies into related graduate studies. The synopses serve as longitudinal surveys with which to track the long-term value of the JIRP experience.

Matt Beedle: JIRP (1995)–Doctoral Candidate (2008) Juneau Douglas High School graduate and Alaskan Matt Beedle completed his first JIRP summer in 1995 while still a high school student (Fig. 3). As an undergraduate at Montana State University, he returned to the program as a JIRP staff member in various forms in 1997 and 1999. He received his B.S. in earth science in 2000. He returned to JIRP during the summers of 2003, 2004, and 2005, working as a Manager of Field and Safety Operations and leading the mass-balance data collection effort. Matt began a master’s program in geography at University of Colorado (CU)–Boulder in 2004, working as a research assistant with the National Snow and Ice data center in the Glacier Land Ice Measurement from Space (GLIMS) program. Portions of his work included identification of the boundaries of southeast Alaskan glaciers from satellite imagery. Beedle’s M.A. thesis focused on the relations between the Lemon Creek and Taku mass-balance records and North Pacific climate variability (Beedle et al., 2005; Pelto et al., 2005). Beedle received his M.A. in geography in 2005 from CU along with a Graduate Certificate in Environment, Policy and Society. He also completed a project on Alaska’s Bering Glacier (Beedle et al., 2008; Raup et al., 2007). Beedle is presently a doctoral student in natural resources and environmental studies at the University of Northern British Columbia. He is working with Brian Menounos and Roger Wheate on measurements of volume change of British Columbia glaciers and their relationships with climate as part of the Western Canadian Cryospheric Network. Matt is a member of the Alaska–Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS) community and provides data updates on the St. Elias, Glacier Bay, Juneau, and Stikine Icefields. Shad O’Neel: JIRP (1996)–Research Glaciologist (2008) Shad O’Neel (Fig. 4B) participated in the 1996 JIRP during the summer preceding his senior year in the Geology Department of University Montana (UM), from which he received a B.A. in environmental geology in 1997. Like many JIRP students, Shad had previous mountaineering and glacier travel experience in Alaska before joining the JIRP program. Such skills are very useful as trail parties move from camp to camp. Groups of 10–12 JIRP students, staff, and faculty make their way across the Lemon Creek, Taku, and Llewellyn Glaciers carrying their own food and sleeping in tent camps directly on the firn pack. Following graduation from UM, Shad began graduate work at the University Alaska–Fairbanks, under Professors Keith Echelmeyer (JIRP faculty 1974), Will Harrison, and Juneau-based Roman Motyka, in the Glaciology Group at the Geophysical Institute. He received his M.S. in 2000. Initially collecting data on Juneau’s Mendenhall Glacier (Motyka et al., 2002), O’Neel’s master’s research migrated to a study of tidewater glacier calving retreat at North America’s southernmost tidewater glacier (LeConte Glacier) near Petersburg, Alaska (O’Neel et al., 2001; 2003; Connor, 1999). He next worked as a geodetic engineer with University NAVSTAR Consortium (UNAVCO), assisting in NSF-funded glacier research projects in Antarctica, Alaska,

Field glaciology and earth systems science: The Juneau Icefield Research Program and Iceland. O’Neel began his doctoral work at the University of Colorado–Boulder under Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) Professor Tad Pfeffer, returning to work on Alaskan tidewater glacier calving retreat dynamics, this time at the Columbia Glacier in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Shad’s JIRP training paid off when, from 2004 to 2005, he was in charge of field logistics for the Columbia Glacier seismic project, including scheduling helicopter, organizing all personnel, supplies, and instrumentation, including a blasting campaign. He received his Ph.D. in 2006 and has published his Columbia Glacier research, as well as other work, including seismic studies on the Bering Glacier (O’Neel et al., 2005, 2007; Anderson et al., 2004; Harper et al., 2006; Meier et al., 2007; Pfeffer et al., 2008). He completed two postdoctoral research fellowships at University of Alaska–Fairbanks and at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University California–San Diego. He is currently employed as a research geophysicist at the U.S. Geological Survey Alaska Science Center in Anchorage, where he works on glacier-climate interactions and sea-level rise. Shad is also affiliated with the Glaciological Group at the Geophysical Institute at University Alaska–Fairbanks. Erin Whitney: JIRP (1996)–Researcher, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2008) A graduate of Service High School in Anchorage, Alaskan Erin Whitney (Fig. 5A) first participated in JIRP in 1996 while an undergraduate at Williams College. Interested in chemistry as an undergraduate, she later worked as a researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory, completed her M.S. at University Colorado– Boulder in 1999, and returned to JIRP as a staff member in 2004. She continued her graduate work in Boulder and earned her Ph.D. in 2006 in physical chemistry under Dr. David Nesbitt. She was initially interested in studying the chemical processes occurring above the icefield and in the upper atmosphere. For her doctoral research, she used high-resolution infrared spectroscopy to study the structures of slit jet-cooled gas-phase halogenated methyl radicals, as well as quantum state-resolved reaction dynamics in atom + polyatom systems (Whitney et al., 2005, 2006). Now employed at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Whitney’s research focuses on the synthesis and characterization of novel nanostructured materials for the storage of hydrogen in next-generation automobiles, as well as the development of new electrodes for lithium-ion batteries. This work will lead to solutions to our global fossil-fuel dependency and its consequences. Joan Ramage Macdonald: JIRP (1997–1998)–University Professor (2008) Joan Ramage (Fig. 5B) began her interaction with JIRP in 1997, at the beginning of her doctoral research at Cornell University under geology department professor Bryan Isacks. At that time, she had already earned a B.S. in geology from Carleton College (1993) and an M.S. from Pennsylvania State University

181

Figure 4. (A) 2008 Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP) student and NASA Alaska Space Grant Awardee Nicholas Chamberlain of Appalachia State University pictured at the Herbert Glacier terminus (photo by Connor). (B) JIRP 1996 student Shad O’Neel deploys an ice velocity survey tetrad on LeConte Glacier near Petersburg, Alaska, in 1999 (photo by Connor).

Figure 5. (A) 1996 Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP) student Erin Whitney poses in front of the JIRP program’s first Camp 17 building, the 1954-vintage Jamesway, before skiing about 25 miles from Lemon Creek Glacier to Taku Glacier’s Camp 10 in typical temperate coastal rainforest weather (photo by Connor). (B) Joan Ramage Macdonald on the Taku Glacier circa 1998 (courtesy of Joan Ramage Macdonald).

(1995). In her second JIRP field season in 1998, she guided 16 other students, staff, and faculty through delineation of the 1998 glacier ablation surface characteristic to provide ground truth for glacier zones detected from Synthetic Aperature Radar imagery of the icefield. She and her team recorded many measurements

182

Connor

of wetness, roughness, grain size, and meteorological observations of the snowpack as it metamorphosed and roughened over the summer season. She earned her Ph.D. from Cornell in 2001 using these microwave observations of Juneau Icefield glaciers to study its snow and glacier melt characteristics (Ramage et al., 2000; Ramage and Isacks, 2002, 2003). Joan has held faculty positions at Union College, New York, Creighton University, Nebraska, and Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, where she is presently an assistant professor in the Earth and Environmental Science Department. She teaches courses in remote sensing, and her research interests have taken her beyond the Juneau Icefield into the Yukon Territory, Canada, the loess hills of Nebraska, and the Peruvian Andes and the Patagonian Icefields of South America. Most of her research centers on observation of spatial and temporal variability of seasonal snowpacks and past and present mountain glaciers. Hiram Henry: JIRP (1999)–Geo-Environmental Engineer (2008) Juneau Douglas High School 1992 graduate, Alaskan Hiram Henry (Fig. 6A) received his B.S. in geology from Western Washington University. During his first summer with JIRP in 1999, his research project involved descending 300 m down the bedrock cleaver below Camp 18 onto the Gilkey Glacier (Fig. 2), where he measured diurnal flow stage relationships in its supraglacial streams. Hiram returned to JIRP in the summers of 2000 and 2001 as a senior staff member and teaching assistant. During the winter of 2000, he worked in Antarctica. In 2004, he began a graduate program in glacier hydrology and engineering at Portland State University in Oregon under Christine Hulbe (JIRP student in 1989). He finished his study of firn pack hydrology and meltwater production (Henry, 2006)

and earned two degrees in geology and civil engineering from Portland State University, Oregon, in 2007. Henry worked for Golder Associates, an international environmental and ground engineering company, in Anchorage, Alaska. His firm recently worked on a study for the Alaska Department of Transportation. Hiram helped to delineate the geologic hazards along a proposed Juneau access road corridor in northeastern Lynn Canal, bordering the western edge of the Juneau Icefield (Golder Associates, 2006). Henry has since returned to Juneau to work on bridge engineering with the Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Eleanor Boyce: JIRP (2001)–Geodetic Project Engineer (2008) Alaskan Eleanor Boyce, a graduate of Haines High School at the northwestern end of Lynn Canal and the Juneau Icefield, participated in JIRP in 2001 while an undergraduate at Colby College in Maine. For her JIRP summer project, she looked at strain rates in the wave-bulge (ogive) zone of the Vaughan Lewis Glacier, a tributary of the Gilkey Glacier. She received her B.S. in geology in 2003. She began her graduate work at University Alaska–Fairbanks under Roman Motyka, Martin Truffer, and Keith Echelmeyer of the Geophysical Institute’s Glaciology Group. Working with University Alaska Southeast environmental science student undergraduates in 2004, she carried out a study of flotation and terminus retreat of the Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau (Boyce et al., 2007). Since completing her M.S. in geophysics, she has worked as a UNAVCO project engineer on the Plate Boundary Observation (PBO) Nucleus project, facilitating geodetic research across western North America and the Afar Triangle through maintenance of high precision GPS networks (Boyce appears in Fig. 6B; Blume et al., 2007). CONCLUSIONS The JIRP summer field program places students directly into a dynamic glacial environment and gives them the tools to observe and understand local ice and landscape processes and discover the linkage with the global cryosphere. The 8 wk length of the program allows time for a pedagogy that blends faculty instruction and mentoring with student field studies and authentic research in the context of a challenging wilderness glacier expedition. The success of the program can be partially measured by the scholarly work of its alumni and by their career pathways. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Figure 6. (A) Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP) 1999 student Hiram Henry returns to the program in 2000 as a staffer (photo by Connor). (B) JIRP 2001 student Ellie Boyce surveys U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey monuments for uplift measurements in Glacier Bay National Park circa 2004 (photo by Roman Motyka).

The extraordinary efforts of Maynard M. Miller, Joan W. Miller, Ross Miller, and Lance Miller have put students on ice for more than 50 yr and provided the spark for generations of climate research scientists. Without them, this paper would not be possible. Thanks also go to Dave Mogk and Steve Whitmeyer for organizing this valuable Geological Society of America Special Paper.

Field glaciology and earth systems science: The Juneau Icefield Research Program REFERENCES CITED (JIRP faculty and student alumni authors are given in bold type.) Abrams, R.H., Miller, M.M., Leadbeater, J.M., and Vrooman, A., 1990, Petrogenesis of Migmatite Complex on Vantage Peak Nunatak, Juneau Icefield, Alaska: San Francisco, Glaciological and Arctic Sciences Institute, University of Idaho, Open-File Report 1990 (Abrams’ senior thesis: University of San Francisco). Adema, G.W., Sprenke, K.F., and Miller, M.M., 1997, Inferred bed morphology from seismic depth profiles of the Taku Glacier, Juneau Icefield, Alaska: Program with Abstracts: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union) v. 98, abstract H31A-27. Anders, A.M., Roe, G.H., Montgomery, D.R., and Hallet, B., 2008, Influence of precipitation phase on the form of mountain ranges: Geology, v. 36, no. 6, p. 479–482, doi: 10.1130/G24821A.1. Anderson, R.S., Anderson, S.P., and MacGregor, K.R., O’Neel, S., Riihimaki, C.A., Waddington, E.D., and Loso, M.G., 2004, Strong feedbacks between hydrology and sliding of a small alpine glacier: Journal of Geophysical Research–Earth Surface, v. 109, p. F03005. Arendt, A.A., Echelmeyer, K.A., Harrison, W.D., Lingle, C.S., and Valentine, V.B., 2002, Rapid wastage of Alaska glaciers and their contribution to rising sea level: Science, v. 297, p. 382–386, doi: 10.1126/science.1072497. Bass, P., 2007, Nunataks and Island Biogeography in the Alaska-Canada Boundary Range: An Investigation of the Flora and Its Implications for Climate Change [Ph.D. thesis]: Athens, Georgia, University of Georgia, 225 p. Beedle, M.J., Pelto, M.S., and Miller, M.M., 2005, Drivers of glacier mass balance in southeast Alaska in the second half of the 20th century, in Climate and Cryosphere (Clic) First Science Conference Program with Abstracts, 11–15 April 2005: Beijing. Beedle, M.J., Dyurgerov, M., Tangborn, W., Khalsa, S.J.S., Helm, B., Raup, R., Armstrong, R., and Barry, R.G., 2008, Improving estimation of glacier volume change: A GLIMS study of Bering Glacier system, Alaska: The Crysosphere, v. 2, p. 33–51. Blume, F., Meertens, C., Anderson, G., Erikson, S., and Boyce, E.S., 2007, PBO Nucleus Project status: Integration of 209 existing GPS stations in the Plate Boundary Observatory, in Southern California Earthquake Center Annual Meeting Program with Abstracts, September 9–12, 2007: Palm Springs, California. Bowen, W., 2005, Alaska Panoramic Map Atlas: http://130.166.124.2/alaska _panorama_atlas/index.html (accessed 2005). Boyce, E.S., Motyka, R.J., and Truffer, M., 2007, Flotation and retreat of lakecalving terminus, Mendenhall Glacier, southeast Alaska, USA: Journal of Glaciology, v. 53, p. 211–224, doi: 10.3189/172756507782202928. Connor, C.L., 1999, LeConte: A Tidewater Glacier in Calving Retreat: Juneau, University Alaska Southeast Media Services, 11 min DVD, (http://www .uas.alaska.edu/media/productions/index.htm?collection=Miscellaneous). Connor, C.L., and Prakash, A., 2008, Experiential discoveries in geoscience education: The EDGE program: Journal of Geoscience Education, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, v. 56, no. 2, p. 179–186, www.edge.alaska.edu. Connor, C.L., Streveler, G., Post, A., Monteith, D., and Howell, W., 2009, The neoglacial landscape and human history of Glacier Bay, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, southeast Alaska, USA: The Holocene, v. 19, no. 3, p. 381–393, doi: 10.1177/0959683608101389. Cooper, W.S., 1937, The problem of Glacier Bay, Alaska: Geographical Review, v. 27, p. 37–62, doi: 10.2307/209660. Copland, L., Sharp, M., and Dowdeswell, J., 2003, The distribution and flow characteristics of surge-type glaciers in the Canadian High Arctic: Annals of Glaciology, v. 36, p. 73–81, doi: 10.3189/172756403781816301. Cross, R.S., 2007, GPS-Based Tectonic Analysis of the Aleutian Arc and Bering Plate [M.S. thesis]: Fairbanks, University of Alaska–Fairbanks, 100 p. Currie, L.D., Carter, D.T., Cooper, J., Gunter, M.E., and Connor, C.L., 1996, Geology of the northeastern end of the Juneau Icefield Research Program Camp 26 nunatak, northwestern British Columbia: Geological Survey of Canada, Current Research 1996-E, p. 77–86. Deiss, J., Clover, D., D’Amore, D., Love, A., Menzies, M., Powell, J., and Walter, M.T., 2004. Transport of lead and diesel fuel through a peat soil near Juneau, AK: A pilot study: Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, v. 74, p. 1–18. Emerson, R.W., 1837, American Scholar: From Addresses Published as Part of Nature: Addresses and Lectures, An Oration Delivered before the

183

Phi Beta Kappa Society at Cambridge, 31 August 1837: http://www .emersoncentral.com/amscholar.htm (accessed 1 October 2009). Ernst, W.G., 2006, Geologic mapping—Where the rubber hits the road, in Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, p. 13–28. Field, W.O., 1947, Glacier recession in Muir Inlet, Glacier Bay, Alaska: Geographical Review, v. 37, p. 369–399, doi: 10.2307/211127. Field, W.O., and Miller, M.M., 1950, The Juneau Ice Field Research Project: Geographical Review, v. 40, p. 179–190, doi: 10.2307/211279. Foundation for Glacier and Environmental Research, 1997, 50th Anniversary Directory of Participants 1946–1996, The Juneau Icefield Research Program: Seattle, Washington, Foundation for Glacier Research and the Glaciological and Arctic Sciences Institute, University of Idaho, 88 p. Golder Associates, 2006, Lynn Canal Highway Phase I, Zone 4 Geotechnical Investigation State Project Number: 71100 Final Report: Juneau Access Road for Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Southeast Region: Anchorage, Alaska, Golder Associates, 361 p., www .golder.com. Harper, J.T., Humphrey, N.F., Pfeffer, W.T., Fudge, T., and O’Neel, S., 2006, Seasonal evolution of subglacial water pressure: Annals of Glaciology, v. 24, no. 6, doi: wiley.com/10.1111/j.1502-3885.2008.00079.x. Henry, H., 2006, A study of the role of firn in the melt season hydrology of temperate glaciers [M.S. thesis]: Portland, Portland State University. Henry, H.M., and Hulbe, C., 2005, The role of firn pack in melt season drainage from temperate glaciers: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 86, p. 52. Herbert, B.E., 2006, Student understanding of complex earth systems, in Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, p. 95–104. Heusser, C., 2007, Juneau Icefield Research Project (1949–1958): A retrospective, in Van der Meer, J.J.M., ed., Developments in Quaternary Science 8: Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Elsevier Press, 232 p. Hocker, C., Schwarz, T., and Carstensen, R., 2003, The Streamwalker’s Companion: Juneau, Alaska, Discovery Southeast, 60 p. Huntoon, J.E., Bluth, G.J.S., and Kennedy, W., 2001, Measuring the effects of research-based field experiences on undergraduates and K–12 teachers: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, no. 3, p. 235–248. Kastens, K., and Ishikawa, T., 2006, Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences: A cross-disciplinary look at the intersection of the two fields, in Manduca, C.A., and Mogk, D.W., eds., Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, p. 53–76. Kaufman, A.M., Freymueller, J.T., Miura, S., Cross, R.S., Sato, T., Sun, W., and Fujimoto, H., 2006, ISEA (International Geodetic Project in Southeastern Alaska) for rapid uplifting caused by glacial retreat. 2: Establishment of continuous GPS sites (CGPS): Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 87, p. 52. Larsen, C.F., Motyka, R.J., Freymuller, K.A., and Ivins, E.R., 2005, Rapid viscoelastic uplift in southeast Alaska caused by post–Little Ice Age retreat: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 237, p. 548–560, doi: 10.1016/j .epsl.2005.06.032. Marcus, M.F., Chambers, F., Miller, M.M., and Lang, M., 1995, Recent trends in the Lemon Creek Glacier, Alaska: Physical Geography, v. 16, no. 2, p. 150–161. (Scale 1:10,000 Lemon Glacier Map by Juneau Icefield Research Program.) McGee, S.R., Welsch, W., and Lang, M., 1996–2007, Geodetic Activities during Various JIRP Field Seasons (with contributions by Welsch, W., and Lang, M.): Münich, Germany, Universitat der Bundewehr (also available as Foundation for Glacier and Environmental Research [FGER] OpenFile Reports, http://crevassezone.org/). Meier, M.F., Dyurgerov, M.B., Rick, U.K., O’Neel, S., Pfeffer, W.T., Anderson, R.S., Anderson, S.P., and Glazovsky, A.F., 2007, Glaciers dominate eustatic sea-level rise in the 21st century: Science, v. 317, no. 5841, p. 1064–1067, doi: 10.1126/science.1143906. Miller, M.M., 1947, Alaska glacier studies, 1946: American Alpine Journal, v. VI, p. 339–343. Miller, M.M., 1950, Preliminary Report of Field Operations: The Juneau Icefield Research Project, 1949 Season: Office of Naval Research Task Order N9, p. onr-83001.

184

Connor

Miller, M.M., 1951, Englacial investigations related to core drilling on the Upper Taku Glacier, Alaska: Journal of Glaciology, v. 1, no. 10, p. 579–580. Miller, M.M., 1954, Glaciothermal studies on the Taku Glacier southeastern Alaska: L’Association Internationale d’Hydrologie Publication 39, p. 309–327. Miller, M.M., 1956–1957, Glaciological Investigations on the Juneau Icefield, Alaska with Special Reference to the Taku Anomaly [Ph.D. thesis]: Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University. Miller, M.M., 1957, The role of diastrophism in the regimen of glaciers in the St. Elias District, Alaska: Journal of Glaciology, v. 3, p. 292–297. Miller, M.M., 1961, A distribution study of abandoned cirques in the AlaskaCanada Boundary Range, in Raasch, G.O., ed., Geology of the Arctic: Toronto, University of Toronto Press, p. 833–847. Miller, M.M., 1963, The Vaughan Lewis Glacier, Juneau Icefield, Alaska: Journal of Glaciology, v. 4, p. 666–667. Miller, M.M., 1964, Glaciology and geology of the Mount Everest region, central Nepal: Chap 16, in Ullman, J.R., ed., Americans on Everest: New York, J.D. Lippincott Co., p. 401–412. Miller, M.M., 1976, Comments on the thermo-physical characteristics of glaciers: Toward a rational classification: Journal of Glaciology, v. 16, p. 297–300. Miller, M.M., 1977, Quaternary erosional and stratigraphic sequences in the Alaska-Canada Boundary Range, in Mahaney, W., ed., Quaternary Stratigraphy of North America: New York, John Wiley and Sons, p. 492–563. Miller, M.M., 1985, Recent climate variations, their causes and Neogene perspectives, in Smiley, C.J., ed., Late Cenozoic History of the Pacific Northwest: Interdisciplinary Studies on the Clarkia Fossil Beds of Northern Idaho: San Francisco, Pacific Division for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, p. 357–414. Miller, M.M., and Field, W.O., 1951, Exploring the Juneau Ice Cap: Research Reviews, April, p. 7–15. Miller, M.M., and Field, W.O., 1951, Exploring the Juneau Ice Cap: Office of Naval Research, Department of the Navy, Report NAVEXOS P-510, p. 7–15. Miller, M.M., and Molnia, B.F., 2006, Extreme global warming impacts on Alaskan coastal glaciers shown in long-term mass balance records from the Juneau Icefield: European Geosciences Union: Geophysical Research Abstracts, v. 8, p. 10,363. Miller, M.M., Levanthal, J.S., and Libby, W.F., 1965, Tritium in Mt. Everest ice: Annual accumulation and climatology at great equatorial altitudes: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 70, no. 16, p. 3885–3888, doi: 10.1029/JZ070i016p03885. Miller, R.D., 1973, Gastineau Channel Formation, a Composite Glaciomarine Deposit near Juneau, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1394-C, 20 p. Molnia, B.F., 2008, Glaciers of North America–Glaciers of Alaska, in Williams, R.S., Jr., and Ferrigno, J.G., eds., Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1386-K, 525 p. Motyka, R.J., O’Neel, S., Connor, C.L., and Echelmeyer, K., 2002, 20th century thinning of Mendenhall Glacier, Alaska, and its relationship to climate, lake-calving, and glacier runoff: Journal of Global and Planetary Change. v. 35, p. 93–112, http://uas.alaska.edu/envs/publications/pubs/ motyka_etal.2002.pdf. Nolan, M., Motyka, R.J., Echelmeyer, K.A., and Trabant, D.C., 1995, Icethickness measurements of Taku Glacier, Alaska, U.S.A., and their relevance to its recent behavior: Journal of Glaciology, v. 41, no. 139, p. 541–553. O’Neel, S., Echelmeyer, K.A., and Motyka, R.J., 2001, Short-term flow dynamics of a retreating tidewater glacier: LeConte Glacier, Alaska,

USA: Journal of Glaciology, v. 47, no. 159, p. 567–578, doi: 10.3189/ 172756501781831855. O’Neel, S., Echelmeyer, K.A., and Motyka, R.J., 2003, Short-term variations in calving of a tidewater glacier: LeConte Glacier, Alaska: Journal of Glaciology, v. 49, no. 167, p. 587–598, doi: 10.3189/172756503781830430. O’Neel, S., Pfeffer, W.T., Krimmel, R.M., and Meier, M.F., 2005, Evolving force balance at Columbia Glacier, during its rapid retreat: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 110, F03012, 18 p., doi: 10.1029/2005JP000292. O’Neel, S., Marshall, H.P., McNamara, D.E., and Pfeffer, W.T., 2007, Seismic detection and analysis of icequakes at Columbia Glacier, Alaska: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 112, p. F03S23, doi: 10.1029/2006JF000595. Pelto, M.S., and Miller, M.M., 1990, Mass balance of the Taku Glacier, Alaska from 1946–1986: Northwest Science, v. 64, no. 3, p. 121–130. Pelto, M.S., Beedle, M., and Miller, M.M., 2005, Mass Balance Measurements of the Taku Glacier, Juneau Icefield, Alaska, 1946–2005: Juneau Icefield Research Program: http://www.nichols.edu/departments/Glacier/taku .html (accessed 2 July 2009). Pelto, M.S., McGee, S.R., Adema, G.W., Beedle, M.J., Miller, M.M., Sprenke, K.F., and Lang, M., 2008, The equilibrium flow and mass balance of the Taku Glacier, Alaska 1950–2006: The Cryosphere, v. 2, p. 275–298. Pfeffer, W.T., Harper, J.T., and O’Neel, S., 2008, Kinematic constraints on glacier contributions to 21st-century sea-level rise: Science, v. 321. no. 5894, p. 1340–1343, doi: 10.1126/science.1159099. Ramage, J.M., and Isacks, B.L., 2002, Determination of melt onset and refreeze timing on southeast Alaskan icefields using SSM/I diurnal amplitude variations: Annals of Glaciology, v. 34, p. 391–398, doi: 10.3189/ 172756402781817761. Ramage, J.M., and Isacks, B.L., 2003, Interannual variations in snow melt and refreeze timing on southeast Alaskan Glaciers: Journal of Glaciology, v. 49, no. 164, p. 102–116, doi: 10.3189/172756503781830908. Ramage, J., Isacks, B.L., and Miller, M.M., 2000, Radar glacier zones in southeast Alaska: Field and satellite observations: Journal of Glaciology, v. 46, no. 153, p. 287–296, doi: 10.3189/172756500781832828. Raup, B.H., Kaab, A., Kargel, J.S., Bishop, M.P., Hamilton, G., Lee, E., Paul, F., Rau, F., Soltesz, D., Khalsa, S.J.S., Beedle, M., and Helm, C., 2007, Remote sensing and GIS technology in the Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS) Project: Computers and Geosciences, v. 33, p. 104–125, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2006.05.015. Sprenke, K.F., Miller, M.M., McGee, S.R., Adema, G.W., and Lang, M., 1999, The high plateau of the Juneau Icefield, B.C.: Form and dynamics: The Canadian Geographer, v. 43, no. 1, p. 99–104, doi: 10.1111/j.1541 -0064.1999.tb01363.x. Stowell, H.H., and McClelland, W.C., eds., 2000, Tectonics of the Coast Mountains, Southeastern Alaska and British Columbia: Geological Society of America Special Paper 343, 289 p. Whitney, E.S., Zolot, A.M., McCoy, A.B., and Nesbitt, D.J., 2005, Quantum state-resolved reactive scattering of F + C2H6 à HF(v,J) + C2H5: Journal of Chemical Physics, v. 122, p. 124310-1 to 124310-10. Whitney, E.S., Dong, F. and Nesbitt, D.J., 2006, Jet-cooled infrared spectroscopy in slit supersonic discharges: Symmetric and antisymmetric CH_ {2} stretching modes of fluoromethyl (CH_{2}F) radical: The Journal of Chemical Physics, v. 125, no. 5, p. 054303(10). MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009

Printed in the USA

The Geological Society of America Special Paper 461 2009

Long-term field-based studies in geoscience teaching Noel Potter Jr.* Jeffrey W. Niemitz Peter B. Sak Department of Geology, Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, USA

ABSTRACT Multiyear measurements of geologic processes with slow rates of change can provide valuable data sets for student learning in the classroom and opportunities for undergraduate independent research. Here, we describe three projects for which data have been collected for 34, 20, and 10 yr, respectively: the erosion of a small meandering stream, the weathering of limestone cubes, and local stream hydrology/chemistry, including discharge, dissolved and suspended load, and major ion chemistry. These data have been used at all levels of the curriculum in various ways, from visualizing basic geologic principles in introductory courses to sophisticated statistical analysis and interpretation in upper-level courses, always in a context of student research leading to discovery about Earth systems. Depending on the project and the schedule for data collection, students have played a major role in the data collection, synthesis, and interpretation while also learning valuable analytical and statistical skills. Because the data sets are the product of many classes of students, there is a strong sense of ownership of the data and thus significant quality control, making the data sets useful as baseline studies for future projects. Where the study requires frequent and time-sensitive sampling, it is more difficult for students to collect data or make measurements. They may, however, have a hand in analyzing the samples collected in order to learn analytical and interpretive techniques. In some cases, these projects have expanded to include new long-term data sets that augment the original studies. INTRODUCTION The use of long-term data sets to elucidate slow natural processes is not unique to us in either type or length of project. Our limestone weathering cubes project was the result of the convergence of ideas derived from two experiments: one from the long-term erosion of Plexiglas rods and cubes by wind in the Coachella Valley, California (Sharp, 1964), and another from the study of tombstone weathering in New England (Rahn, 1971). More recently, studies by Godfrey et al. (2008) and Matsukura et al. (2007) have examined geomorphological processes similar *retired

to our studies but, in one case, for an even longer period of time. Long-term studies are not solely the domain of geology. Fieldbased ecological studies are typically long standing, such as the various Long-Term Ecological Research sites (e.g., Greenland et al., 2003) and the well-known Hubbard Brook study in New Hampshire (Likens and Bormann, 1995). Long-term projects with field components that involve undergraduate students in data acquisition and analysis, however, can be a valuable part of a geoscience education. Like many geoscience programs, the Dickinson College curriculum is built around a core of field-based experiences. A key factor that makes the Dickinson curriculum unique is that some of these experiences involve local site studies and data collection over decadal time scales to solve

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 [email protected]. ©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 literacy at all levels of the curriculum. The three projects described in this paper share several commonalities: (1) they all require accumulation of data over time—short-term measurement will produce little or no useful data; (2) they have produced data sets that are used across the curriculum, from introductory to advanced courses, with varying levels of sophistication expected; and (3) all of these projects have served as the topics for independent student research projects. At Dickinson, we attract two types of geology students, some of whom go to graduate school and others who proceed directly into environmental consulting careers. These field-based projects serve both groups well. Two of the projects have continued beyond the retirement of the faculty member who initiated them. A project need not end upon a faculty member’s retirement, nor is the data set useless if the field study ceases. There are several learning goals common to the three projects. Each project demonstrates that imperceptible change adds up over time, emphasizing an understanding of geologic time and rates of change. In these projects, we are able to quantify geologic rates with student-collected data sets that are useful across a wide range of courses in the geoscience curriculum. Unlike contrived or laboratory-based projects, students see the variability in natural systems, and they see that they are part of something larger. With a continually growing data set, they recognize the need for quality control, and they feel a sense of ownership toward the growing data set. Most errors in data collection and processing become obvious when compared to previous measurements. Students must face the issue of what to do with these errors. These kinds of projects counteract the Crime Scene Investigators (CSI) mentality and enable students to see that solutions are not readily apparent and that, frequently, a new set of questions arises every time a new addition to the data set is acquired. Students can ask “how could we (or a future group) do better next time?” This mentality allows new methodologies and analytical techniques to be developed midstream. These types of projects allow for

77°30′W

40°N

expansion by integrating other long-term data sets into the existing ones. Engagement with these data sets enhances students’ systems-based critical thinking skills by searching out concrete connections between different but related types of data. These data sets have also been used as baselines for student independent research projects. This paper describes three examples of local long-term projects used across our curriculum at Dickinson College (Fig. 1). The projects are described in chronological order (by the date of inception). The “Meanders Project,” started in 1974 and continuing, measures meander migration of a small stream and is used in the geomorphology and field geology courses. The “Weathering Cubes” experiment, started in 1989 and continuing, is used in multiple introductory geology courses, geomorphology, and sedimentology and stratigraphy courses. The Yellow Breeches Creek Project produced a data set of discharge and suspended and dissolved sediment data collected over a 10 yr period from 1993 to 2003. These data are used in introductory geology, geomorphology, geochemistry, environmental geology, and hydrogeology. The projects fall into two categories: those with flexible and/ or less frequent sampling intervals (Meanders and Weathering Cubes) and one, the Yellow Breeches Creek Project, where frequent sampling is necessary. The former are more amenable to data collection by students. In the latter, the faculty collected the samples, but students were responsible for much of the sample analysis. We describe these projects and the transition of the “Meanders Project” to adoption by a new member of the department upon the retirement of the faculty member who initiated it. MEANDERS In spring 1974, two students in Potter’s geomorphology class surveyed four high-resolution topographic profiles across three meanders on a small unnamed stream NW of Carlisle, Pennsylvania (Fig. 1). At normal flow, the stream is only ~10 cm deep

77°W

0

5 10

20 km

77°30′W

77°W

40°N

Figure 1. Map of the Conodoquinet Creek and Yellow Breeches Creek Watersheds in the Cumberland Valley, Pennsylvania, showing the locations of three study areas. Symbols: thick black line—drainage divide between the Conodoquinet (to the north) and the Yellow Breeches (to the south); star— location of Weathering Cubes Project (on the Dickinson College campus); northern open dot—Meanders Project study site; southern open dot—Yellow Breeches Watershed sampling site.

Long-term field-based studies in geoscience teaching 0.2

A

Elevation (m)

0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6 1974 1979 1985

-0.8

6

10

8

1994 2004 2008

12

14

Distance (m) 0.2

Elevation (m)

and 30–40 cm wide, but it rises to nearly 1 m deep at bankfull after heavy rain. These profiles were not resurveyed until 1979. The second survey demonstrated that the meanders were actively migrating. Over the past 34 yr, we have reoccupied the profile lines 15 times. We have been fortunate to have the same landowners as hosts for the entire time, which is something to consider when choosing long-term survey sites. Early surveys were simple. The ends of profiles were marked with steel rebar or pins driven flush with the ground. We established a level line with a transit and used a tape to measure horizontal distance and a surveying rod for vertical measurement. One of the pins became the reference for all future surveys. Since the earliest surveys, this project has involved collecting data in the field, generating topographic profiles, and interpreting the temporal changes between surveys. The mechanics of generating the topographic profiles has become less tedious with the advent of computers, leaving more time for data analysis and interpretation. In-depth data interpretation ensures the integrity of the growing data set while simultaneously providing an opportunity to trouble-shoot problem measurements. By examining data collected in previous years, students recognize little to no change in elevation at the ends of the profiles on the floodplain (Fig. 2). When the students superimpose their data on the recent surveys they are typically surprised by the general agreement in profile shape. However, it is not uncommon for problems to become apparent. Typically, these errors fall into three categories: (1) transposing numbers when entering the data into the spreadsheet, (2) nonsystematic errors within the data set and, (3) systematic errors that increase along the length of the profile. Transposed numbers are the most straightforward to correct by having students carefully compare data tables and graphs. The origins of an errant point along a given profile may be more difficult to determine, although it does provide an opportunity to emphasize the importance of detailed note taking. For example, the surveying rod may have been placed on a rock or log. If the students had noted such a detail in the field, it might explain the anomalous point. In contrast, systematic errors that grow larger along the length of the profile provide an interesting dilemma for the students. With some discussion, students typically arrive at the conclusion that this type of error occurs when the surveying equipment becomes unlevel. After the group has assessed the quality of the data collected during the first survey, they must determine if it is of adequate quality or if additional surveying is necessary. In our experience, these discussions have been particularly rewarding because this is when the class typically takes a sense of ownership in the project. They are concerned that their data is not up to the standards of the previous surveys. Even in cases where the overall surveys are of high quality, students typically want to return to clean up a few errant points. During these class debates, some students will mention a desire to maintain the overall integrity of the data set for future classes. This is an important lesson for students planning to continue with scientific research and for those considering careers in the environmental consulting industry.

187

0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8

1974 2008

B 0

5

10

15

20

Distance (m)

Figure 2. Profiles across a meander showing 34 yr of migration. (A) Selected years in the channel (10× vertical exaggeration [VE]). (B) Beginning and end years for entire profile (7.3× VE).

Since, its inception in 1974, the Meanders Project has expanded. In 1988, we realized that one of the meanders was migrating downstream from beneath our profile. At that time, we established a grid over that meander and did a series of profiles so that we could remap the whole meander system every few years (Fig. 3). We also inserted four meter-long rods horizontally into the cutbank in order to measure retreat of the bank easily and frequently (Fig. 4). Periodically, we have had to reset the rebar by driving the rods horizontally into the cutbank. We now have a 20 yr record of cumulative bank retreat across the cutbank (Figs. 3 and 4). In 1992, the department obtained an electronic total station (ETS), and we switched to doing some of the profiles with the total station. The drawback to using the ETS was that only a few people were needed for the measurements, so we continued to use the old transit-tape-rod method with students switching instruments and methods so that all had experience with both methods. In 2008, we began surveying with a tripodmounted laser range finder (LRF). When we introduced the LRF,

188

Potter et al.

Figure 3. Low-altitude, high-resolution aerial photograph of a segment of the Meanders Project area (modified after Roth and Helmke, 2006). Locations of the profiles (white lines), the location of erosion rods W, X, Y, and Z (red dots), and stream channel (blue polygon from the 22 March 2001 Potter et al. [2001 survey]) are superimposed on this image. The base image was collected on 22 January 2005. Note that in the nearly 4 yr interval between the survey and the aerial photograph, the channel has migrated southward, so the former positions of the erosion rods X and Y are in the middle of the 2005 channel.

the students designed an experiment to assess the precision of the LRF (both vertical and horizontal position) and provide a recommendation for its use in subsequent surveys. This simply designed project illustrates nicely the degree of student learning about streams and research methodologies. In both our field methods and geomorphology courses, students participate in a research project in which they see results and get to add to the body of data. They also enjoy working with surveying instruments. This project has resulted in a series of publications (Potter et al., 2001, and references therein; Allmendinger et al., 2005). WEATHERING CUBES In 1989, we revised the laboratory exercises for our introductory physical geology course by including a three-laboratory landscape development module. Each of these laboratory exercises emphasized the scientific method, including quantitative analysis of data and analytical writing (Niemitz and Potter, 1991). In one laboratory based on a paper by Rahn (1971), we planned to take students to a local cemetery to gather data on tombstone weathering, relating date of death to the differential weathering rates based on tombstone rock type. We quickly realized that it would be difficult to truly quantify the rates of weathering. The weathering cube project was an outgrowth of the need to quantify the process.

Figure 4. Cumulative erosion on four rods placed in the cutbank of a meander. Locations are labeled W through Z in Figure 3.

To quantify the rate of local limestone weathering, we collected a large block of local micritic limestone, cut several cubes of limestone, and put them out on the roof of a campus building to weather. Six limestone cubes have now been weathering for 19 yr, except for one week a year, when they are brought inside to be dried and weighed. The average cube weighed 177 g at the inception of the experiment. Each exposed cube has lost over 3 g since they were put outside (Fig. 5). An unexposed and thus unweathered control cube is weighed to establish the continuing veracity of the experiment. Each year we dry the cubes, and students weigh them. They are asked to calculate the rate of weathering in g yr–1, and to estimate how long it would take the average cube to weather away using that rate. This exercise is fine for an introductory class, but, of course, as the cubes weather away, their surface area decreases, the surface chemistry of the cubes changes, and presumably the rate will slow over time. This change of weathering rate suggests other studies for upper-level courses. For example, we have asked our geomorphology classes to determine the surface area of the cubes, and determine a bare-rock surface weathering rate. That rate, based on the cube weathering, is ~8 m Ma–1 (Potter and Niemitz, 2001a). When we discuss the local landscape, we contrast the valley underlain by limestone to the adjacent ridges underlain by sandstone. This is a nice way to illustrate the distinction between weathering of carbonate and silicate rocks in a wet temperate climate. When we first put the limestone cubes out to weather, it

Long-term field-based studies in geoscience teaching

Figure 5. Average weight loss of six limestone cubes weathering over 20 yr of measurement.

did not occur to us that it would be good to let some sandstone cubes also weather for contrast. We have since added six cubes of sandstone to the experiment, and we are now convinced that they are not changing. For future study, more local rock types could be added to the suite of weathering cubes, and we could bury cubes to study regolith formation. Another way we could expand these weathering experiments is to have enough cubes to be able to sacrifice some over the years. For example, we could cut a thin section every five years for scanning electron and optical microscopy to determine changes in mineralogy and mineral composition. These samples could be the basis for experiments in carbonate weathering kinetics for the geochemistry course. YELLOW BREECHES WATERSHED PROJECTS Unlike the first two, more narrowly focused projects, this project was faculty-initiated, and the field data are collected by faculty rather than students in classes. It and its spin-offs started out of a desire by faculty to determine denudation rates in a carbonate terrain in comparison with rates measured in other terrains (e.g., Sevon, 1989). In 1993, Potter began collecting stream discharge measurements and dissolved and suspended load in the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed (YBCW), one of the two major streams that drain the Great Valley near Carlisle, Pennsylvania (Figs. 1 and 6). Faculty collected weekly liter-sized water samples and measured stream stage height over a 10 yr period from 1993 to 2003. A wireline gauge on a bridge at the site made measurement of stream stage simple. High-flow events were often sampled twice daily over several days. By the time we stopped

189

measurements (Potter was about to retire and Niemitz was on a 2 yr leave in the UK from 2004 to 2006), over 1000 measurements of discharge and ~720 water samples had been obtained (Fig. 6). The water samples were used to determine total suspended and dissolved load. We filtered sediment from a 100 mL sample for geochemical analysis, and the rest was filtered, dried, and weighed to obtain the suspended sediment mass. Geochemical analysis included measurement of pH, and analysis for Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, and K+ by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Over a 7 yr period, we obtained a total dissolved load denudation rate of 13.4 m Ma–1 and a suspended load denudation rate of 3.0 m Ma–1 (Potter and Niemitz, 2001c). Significantly, the dissolved load denudation rate compares favorably with the barerock denudation rate from the weathering cubes of ~8 m Ma–1. In the YBCW, Reuter (2005) estimated a long-term average total denudation rate of 19 m Ma–1 based on cosmogenic 10Be accumulations. This rate is similar to the rate of regolith formation of 16.4 m Ma–1 based on the watershed solute flux normalized to the geometric surface area expressed as unit regolith area. The agreement of these rates supports the assumption of a steadystate regolith profile. Thus, the total denudation rate is commonly equated with the rate of bedrock transformation to regolith, where the weathering rate is assumed to be constant. Although unintended, the combination of the weathering cube study with the decade-long YBCW denudation rate results yields evidence of steady state. As so often happens, one experiment leads serendipitously to other teaching and research applications for the accumulating data set. It became evident that by simply taking an aliquot of the weekly water sample and measuring pH and the major ion chemistry, we could begin to explore the relationships among elements of the hydrologic cycle in the watershed. The YBCW traverses karstic limestone terrain. The stream discharge is therefore a product of overland flow and groundwater effluence to the stream. The annual weather cycle dictates the precise mix of these end-member sources. Two years into the denudation study, we were able to add long-term groundwater level and watershed rainfall data collected at our water well field located ~0.4 km from the discharge and stream sampling site and at three rain gauges located in the upper reach of the watershed (Figs. 7 and 8). The long-term data set of discharge, stream chemistry, and weathering parameters has encouraged critical thinking in the introductory and upper-level classes at different levels of sophistication. For example, in introductory courses that study the hydrologic cycle, students can easily grasp the effect of rainfall on discharge, but they go on to understand that in a karst terrain, the influence of groundwater discharge and overland flow on stream discharge and chemistry provides a more complete picture of the local system. The long-term trend of pH helps students differentiate between unbuffered overland flow from winter snowmelt versus water brought to the stream via well-buffered limestone-based groundwater the remainder of the year. The long-term record of discharge (Fig. 7) mirrors climate variability, where some years have significant rainfall and higher than normal

190

Potter et al. 77°15′ W

77°00′W

40°15′N

Figure 6. Location map of the Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, noting locations of primary and secondary discharge sites for long-term studies and research projects, rain gauges, the college well field, and the sole U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge in the watershed. 40°00′N

Figure 7. The weekly 10 yr discharge record on the Yellow Breeches Creek collected at discharge site 1 (Fig. 1) with rainfall data. The record shows major discharge events as well as the effects of overall wet and dry years on the discharge of the stream. Note that large rain events, particularly in the summer, do not always produce large discharge events, showing the underlying complexity of relationships in the system. Water years begin on October 1.

Long-term field-based studies in geoscience teaching

Figure 8. Calendar year 1997 record of Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed (YBCW) discharge and stream chemistry as total carbonate rock–sourced elements (Ca2+, Mg2+) and silicate rock–sourced elements (K+, Na+) compared to groundwater level and rainfall. Note the examples of high correlation of longer time periods (1, 2) or specific events (3) of high rainfall with discharge and groundwater-level responses. The rapid response of groundwater to rainfall is most likely the result of stream discharge increases infiltrating the bedrock and increasing groundwater level than the result of direct recharge of rain to the groundwater table. A data gap exists between water days 1273 and 1295. CFS—cubic feet per second (ft3/s).

discharge and other years show the effects of drought conditions. These discharge and chemical trends can be highly correlated with groundwater level and local rainfall over short time intervals (Fig. 8). There is a very high correlation between the stream discharge and chemistry, particularly carbonate-sourced ions like Ca2+ and Mg2+. When the discharge is low, groundwater with full exposure to the karst limestone bedrock makes up much of the stream water flow, with high Ca2+ and Mg2+ concentrations in evidence. When discharge is elevated, usually in association with a storm event, the stream chemistry reflects more water with low total dissolved solids being added by overland flow relative to the groundwater contributions. This stream water may have higher

191

concentrations of K+ and Na+ from soil erosion or runoff from the noncarbonate bedrock regions. Students quickly recognize that groundwater level follows the stream discharge quite closely. Upon closer examination, however, they see that the spikes in the groundwater level show a very short lag to rainfall events. This may be an indication that the discharge in the stream is pushing water into the groundwater table and raising the level rather than the level being elevated by direct local recharge through the vadose zone. These kinds of in-depth data analyses are done by students in the environmental geology, hydrogeology, and geochemistry courses. Each class has added to the stream chemistry data set through the analysis of a small subset of the stream samples taken during that semester. Much like the Meander Project, where previous class data sets are available, students quickly identify anomalies in the context of the overall trends in the data set to date. If outliers occur, the students are compelled to retrace their steps by checking the instrument’s proper operation, reconstructing the calibration curves, and/or simply rerunning the samples in question. If the results come out the same, then they must assess their interpretation of the data by either changing or modifying the working hypothesis. For undergraduates in introductory or second-year electives, this is good training for later research, teaching them to be critical of instrumental “black box” data, and to maintain good scientific methodologies. There are important lessons learned regarding the need for duplicate and replicate samples and statistical error. Each class approaches and uses the long-term data sets differently. The environmental geology class is mainly populated by environmental studies majors who do not have the opportunity to analyze water samples for more than pH, alkalinity, and nutrients. One class project is an environmental geochemical assessment of the state of the YBCW, whereby discharge, pH, carbonate alkalinity, nutrients, and major ion chemistry, including Cl– and SO42– and those mentioned earlier, are collected at several locations along the stream’s reach covering forested, agricultural, and urban-industrial land use. The data from this oneday study are added to data sets from similar studies done by previous classes and are placed in the context of the variability of discharge and chemistry introduced by seasonal weather and the extent of human impact on the watershed over time. Merging a single-day longitudinal study (upper watershed to confluence with the Susquehanna River; Fig. 7) with a larger, longer-term data set can be challenging for students. However, the results of this exercise provide students with the big picture of a mixed land-use watershed and recognition of the changes that can occur over time due to human impacts. The hydrogeology course uses the YBCW discharge and chemistry and the long-term water well field data sets (groundwater static level and rainfall) for studies of the chemical and physical interactions between stream flow over karst terrain and the seasonal groundwater effluence to and influence from the water table. Here, we can examine the local hydrologic cycle from rain to soil moisture to groundwater to stream discharge within a

192

Potter et al.

1 km2 area. Pump tests from the water wells allow calculation of average linear velocity to understand the amount of time it takes the groundwater in storage to approach chemical equilibrium. The geochemistry course is required for the geology major. Students are taught more of the theory behind the instrumentation used to produce the chemical data from the water samples. These analyses are given more statistical scrutiny than in other classes, and more in-depth analyses of degree of saturation and water facies types are produced from limestone and sandstonemetavolcanic lithofacies, as well as shale and Fe-rich sandstone found in other parts of the watershed. We have been fortunate to have obtained grant money to instrument the well field and watershed. However, it is not necessary to have a drilled water well for monitoring in order to collect these kinds of data, nor is it unreasonably expensive to obtain and use data loggers (