T284 Increasing Engagement and Improving Learning Outcomes for Geology Students: Using Cognitive Science to Inform Geoscience Teaching and Learning I

Wednesday, 28 September 2016
8:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Mile High Ballroom 4EF

IMPROVEMENTS IN PENETRATIVE THINKING DURING FIELD AND STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY COURSES: IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING INTERVENTIONS

Paper number: T284-7
Program: Technical Sessions
Time: 9:30 AM – 9:45 AM

Authors

Abstract

Penetrative thinking is an important skill in structural geology, and is trainable. However, it would be useful to know the extent to which students’ skills improve during a typical course, without the use of additional exercises. This study provides baseline information about improvements in the Geologic Block Cross-sectioning Test (GBCT) in a two-course sequence (sophomore Field Methods and junior Structural Geology).

The GBCT was given as pre- and post-tests to students in Geologic Methods (n = 40) and Structural Geology (n = 50) in Fall 2014 and Fall 2015. On average, GBCT scores (out of 16 possible points) improve in both courses (95% confidence intervals: 3.1 ± 1.8 points for Geologic Methods and 2.2 ± 1.4 points for Structural Geology). Distribution of correct scores becomes more skewed through the sequence of tests; 7 (18%) Methods and 12 (24%) Structure students showed no improvement between the beginning and the end of the course.

The GBCT includes several categories of distractors that can be used to understand the types of misconceptions faced by students. The most common incorrect choice for both courses was the “parallelogram” response – an exact copy of the perspective drawing shown in the question. A parallelogram response suggests that students are not thinking about the interior of the object. It is possible that students need to understand what is wrong with the parallelogram responses before they can solve the most complicated GBCT problems.

Although parallelogram scores decreased during each course (2.0 ± 1.2 in Geologic Methods; 0.9 ± 0.7 in Structural Geology), the decreases are smaller than the increases in correct scores (p = 0.04 for Geologic Methods; p = 0.002 for Structural Geology). This suggests that students switch to correct answers more often than they switch from parallelogram to other types of responses (such as the structure shown on a parallel face of the block).

There are no clear indications from the pre-tests about which students will be least likely to improve their GBCT scores during the course. In Geologic Methods, students who did not improve started with slightly lower pre-test scores and higher parallelogram scores; however, given the small sample size of students who did not improve, the differences are not statistically significant.

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 48, No. 7

doi: 10.1130/abs/2016AM-283443

© Copyright 2016 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to the author(s) of this abstract to reproduce and distribute it freely, for noncommercial purposes. Permission is hereby granted to any individual scientist to download a single copy of this electronic file and reproduce up to 20 paper copies for noncommercial purposes advancing science and education, including classroom use, providing all reproductions include the complete content shown here, including the author information. All other forms of reproduction and/or transmittal are prohibited without written permission from GSA Copyright Permissions.