How Students and Field Geologists Reason in Integrating Spatial Observations from Outcrops to Visualize a 3‐D Geological Structure

Abstract

Geologists and undergraduate students observed eight artificial "rock outcrops" in a realistically scaled field area, and then tried to envision a geological structure that might plausibly be formed by the layered rocks in the set of outcrops. Students were videotaped as they selected which of fourteen 3-D models they thought best represented the geological structure and then explained their choice. The focus of this paper is on how students reasoned from observations to inferences. Students used observations of outcrops' location, steepness (dip), orientation (strike), stratigraphy, and placement relative to topography to infer whether the structure was convex or concave, deep or shallow, symmetrical or asymmetrical, open or closed, and elongate or circular. On average, science majors produced more than twice as many evidence-supported claims than did non-science majors. Science majors produced more valid lines of reasoning than did non-science majors, and students who selected a correct model produced more valid lines of reasoning than students who selected an erroneous model. Apparent challenges included identifying appropriate observational evidence, combining multiple lines of reasoning, and understanding the scale relationship between candidate models and the full-scale structure.

Spatial Foundations of Science Education: The Illustrative Case of Instruction on Introductory Geological Concepts

“…The photographic record was not sufficient to allow the necessary calculation. There is, however, another investigation that adds credibility to this interpretation: Kastens et al (2009) found that non-experts who were sketching or discussing outcrops like the one used in the current study often failed to distinguish between strike direction and the long axis of the outcrop. Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 20:25 10 October 2014…”

“…The cognitive processes by which field geologists make inferences about the geological structure and draw conclusions about historical change involve both general scientific inferential logic and domain-specific expertise. These higherlevel inferential processes have been studied by Kastens, Agrawal, and Liben (2009). Our focus here, however, is on the processes involved in the more basic tasks of observing and recording information about strike and dip.…”

The Role of Computer Simulation in an Inquiry-Based Learning Environment: Reconstructing Geological Events as Geologists

“…Second, FossilSim decreased the difficulty students faced in data organization and interpretation. While comparing different behaviors in geological exploration, Kastens et al (2009) found that students felt most challenged when identifying appropriate forms of observational evidence, whereas experienced geologists were able to observe key evidence in a short period of time. By displaying fossils in different scales as ''side-by-side contrasts,'' FossilSim makes identifying various features much easier.…”

Drawing on Experience: How Domain Knowledge Is Reflected in Sketches of Scientific Structures and Processes

“…Of course, it is possible that effects of general knowledge or skill will emerge in studies involving different sketching tasks and materials. Further research is needed to address this issue, and to explicitly test the influence of general skills-such as spatial thinking and visualization-that have been associated with attainment in science (Black 2005;Kali, and Orion 1996;Kastens et al 2009;Shea et al 2001;Uttal and Cohen 2012;Wai et al 2009). …”

“…They also learn about the causal processes that create these structures-both local deformation processes that create faults and folds, and large-scale global processes such as tectonic movements. All these topics are intensely spatial Jee et al 2013;Kastens et al 2009;Libarkin and Brick 2002). Consider, for example, the geologic concept of a fault-a fracture in rock along which movement has occurred ( Fig.…”