76 Geoscience Education II: Cognition and Learning in the Geosciences

Monday, 1 November 2010
8:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Room 203

USING QUALITATIVE DATA TO UNDERSTAND STUDENTS' DECISION MAKING STRATEGIES IN THE FIELD

Paper number: 76-15
Program: Technical Sessions
Time: 11:30 AM – 11:45 AM

Authors

Abstract

This study focuses on geology undergraduates as emerging experts and how they solve structural field problems and is a component of our larger study on problem solving in geology field settings and how it’s linked to navigation. Specifically the aim is to understand the specifics of the geologic models or hypotheses that students develop to solve these field problems; how they develop, how many are employed, how they change, and how this relates to success. The development of hypothesis is just one step in problem solving, but is integral to understanding the entire process. Extensive research in the field of cognitive science on problem solving and decision making provides context for this study. To gain explicit understanding on these issues, four undergraduate geoscientists were interviewed while enrolled in a six-week field camp. The interviewers had the students walk them through their field day while referencing their completed geologic maps made during two different independent field exams. Specific interview questions focused on time management, navigation choices, and problem solving strategies. To assist in answering questions, students also looked at GPS data showing their traverse during the independent. Interviews were qualitatively analyzed using traditional coding methods utilized in educational research.

Several themes emerged from the data related to data collection, navigation, and the development of mental models. The abundance of codes within the theme of mental models indicates that there isn’t a simplified framework for geologic model development. Students developed single and multiple models, models changed while others stayed stagnant, models emerged early and some didn’t develop models until the end of the field day. The data indicates that there’s no immediate connection between the specifics of hypothesis development and performance; notably single and multiple geologic models were employed by both low and high performing students. This is not to say that a lack of a geologic model can blindly lead to success, but instead suggests that expert-like behavior, such as the ability to effectively collect and integrate relevant data into these geologic models, is a key factor in determining performance.