Teachers Doing Science: An Authentic Geology Research
Experience for Teachers
Deb Hemler
Geoscience Education, Fairmont State University, 1201 Locust Ave., Fairmont,
WV 26554, [email protected]
Tom Repine
West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, 1 Mont Chateau Rd.,
Morgantown, WV 26507, [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Fairmont State University (FSU) and the West Virginia
Geological and Economic Survey (WVGES) provided a
small pilot group of West Virginia science teachers with a
professional development session designed to mimic experiences obtained by geology majors during a typical
summer field camp. Called GEOTEACH, the program
served as a research capstone event complimenting the
participants' multi-year association with the RockCamp
professional development program. GEOTEACH was
funded through a Improving Teacher Quality Grant administered by the West Virginia Higher Education Policy
Commission. Over the course of three weeks, eight
GEOTEACH participants learned field measurement
and field data collection techniques which they then applied to the construction of a surficial geologic map. The
program exposed participants to authentic scientific processes by emphasizing the authentic scientific application of content knowledge. As a secondary product, it
also enhanced their appreciation of the true nature of science in general and geology in particular. After the session, a new appreciation of the effort involved in making
a geologic map emerged as tacit knowledge ready to be
transferred to their students.
The program was assessed using pre/post
instruments, group interviews, journals, artifacts
(including geologic maps, field books, and described
sections), performance assessments, and constructed
response items. Evaluation of the accumulated data
revealed an increase in participants demonstrated use of
science content knowledge, an enhanced awareness and
understanding of the processes and nature of geologic
mapping, positive dispositions toward geologic
research, and a high satisfaction rating for the program.
These findings support the efficacy of the experience and
document future programmatic enhancements.
INTRODUCTION
Experiential learning, authentic science, and "teacher as
researcher" have been used to characterize K-12
educators engaged in the scientific process.
The
American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) (1989), the National Science Teachers
Association (NSTA) (Siebert and McIntosh, 2001), the
National Research Council (NRC) (1996), and more
recently the American Geological Institute (AGI)
(Barstow et al., 2002), have supported and promoted the
use of inquiry in the classroom. These endorsements
encompass student modeling of "real" science processes
or "science learned as science is done." Consequently,
having participated in science activities, students should
develop "abilities necessary to do [science and develop]
an understanding about scientific inquiry." Content
Standard A of the National Science Education Standards
(1996) recommends students not only do science but
formulate an understanding of science and the nature of
science. The nature of science entails "the values and
assumptions inherent to science, scientific knowledge,
Hemler and Repine - Teachers doing Science
and/ or development of scientific knowledge"
(Lederman, 1992). Contrary to this highly promoted
criterion, we have found many of the teachers interested
in our professional development experiences are unable
to document any prior efforts targeting their
appreciation of the nature of the geologic scientific
enterprise. Because they have not had a "down-to-earth"
opportunity to modify their beliefs through experiences,
their marginal understanding of the nature of science
clouds their ability to identify, design, conduct, and
engage in the type of inquiry-based geologic research
that might significantly enhance their classroom
discussions and lessons.
Lederman (1992) summarized teachers' experiences
with the nature of science by stating:
(1) science teachers do not possess adequate
conceptions of the nature of science, irrespective
of the instrument used to assess understandings;
(2) techniques to improve teachers' conceptions
[of the nature of science] have met with some
success when they have included either historical
aspects of scientific knowledge or direct attention
to the nature of science; (3) academic background
variables are not significant related to teachers'
conceptions of the nature of science.
Lederman, as well as others, recognized that the role
of the teacher in the conveyance of the nature of science
could not be ignored. The nature of science cannot be
learned through text-based instruction. More
importantly, the issues raised by Lederman began to be
addressed in teacher education programs. By the mid
1990's, teacher enhancement programs responded to the
need for improving science teaching (Jacob, et. al., 1991
and Saunders, et. al., 1994), the need for incorporating
authentic assessments (Collins, 1994; Davis, 1990; Herr,
et. al., 1995), and the need for increased reflective
assessment (Rosenthal 1991; Spiegel, et. al., 1995; Davis
1990). As a result of these initiatives, teacher education
programs have made advances in documenting science
inquiry and the nature of science. However, deficiencies
remain. The few science courses that elementary science
or general science education candidates experience
persist as survey or introductory courses focused on
pure content transfer using a traditional lecture/lab
format. Few would argue that the process of science is
developed in the advanced course work of a major.
However, elementary teachers rarely experience science
beyond the introductory survey courses. In many areas,
the unrecognized status of the geosciences means this
situation also affects the training received by pre-service
secondary science education majors. Within the last two
decades, a limited number of teacher institutes have
begun to speak to this deficiency by accentuating the
understanding of scientific inquiry and the nature of
science (Carpenter, et. al., 1993; Haakonsen, et. al., 1993;
Hines and Mussington, 1996; Peterson, et. al., 1996;
Spiegel, et. al., 1995). From such work has emerged the
collaborative and apprentice (or facilitated) research
professional development approach.
93
Collaborative-type programs assign the learner
(whether student or teacher) to direct work experiences
with a scientist. Project ISIS (Haakonsen, et al., 1993)
placed teachers (or "fellows") in research facilities for two
weeks while they conducted research in conjunction
with approved protocols. Science FEAT placed middle
school teachers in collaborative research settings with a
poster presentation concluding two weeks of work
(Spiegel, et al, 1995). The CO-LEARNERS (Collaborative
Opportunities-Learning Experientially and Research
uNiting Educators and Researchers of Science) Program
allowed students to choose from a list of research topics
and work at state, national, and academic laboratories
under the direction of a laboratory scientist (Gilmer, et al,
2002).
In comparison, apprenticeship (facilitated) models
invest in the learner as an apprentice scientist. In this
environment, the cooperating scientists serve as resource
agents and are not involved in directing the learner's
research. This approach has been incorporated into
teacher preparation and certification programs
discussed by Schwartz, et. al. (2000) and Westerlund, et.
al. (2001). Another example of this approach is the
University of Tennessee Apprentice Model "Teaching
Science-Just Do It" (Brown, et. al., 2003). Since 1987, the
National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in
Green Bank, WV has been conducting facilitated
preservice and inservice teacher institutes. DiBiase
(1995), Hemler (1997), and Govett (2002) have discussed
the success this program has had in placing teachers in a
two week residential program where participants
research an assigned problem using a 40-foot radio
telescope. In keeping with the facilitated program
design, NRAO staff scientists serve only as resource
agents.
RockCamp, a K-12 professional development
program, has engaged teachers primarily in content and
pedagogy enhancement opportunities. The program is a
cooperative venture of the West Virginia Geological and
Economic Survey (WVGES), the West Virginia
University (WVU) Department of Geography and
Geology, and the Geoscience Education Program of
Fairmont State University (FSU). Now in its second
decade of operation, the program has directly and
cooperatively conducted 7, 397 teacher experiences for
West Virginia K-12 educators. (A teacher experience is
defined as one teacher engaged in one professional
development experience of any kind.)
Repetitive
(recurrent) participation by many individuals is
commonplace. Thus, it is appropriate to describe
RockCamp as providing a multi-tiered program where
participating teachers have the opportunity to advance
through progressive stages. Under this scenario, each
new stage emphasizes increasingly complex content be
accompanied by an corresponding increase in the
participant's dedication to field experiences, classroom
activity development and publication, and presentations
at state, regional, and national science and education
conferences. Repine, Hemler, and Behling (2002) looked
at a small cohort of recurrent participant who have
attended every RockCamp opportunity. Their study
suggested that the observed recurrent participation
mirrored that of a "journeyman" crafter on the lookout
for increased applicable skills knowledge. Using this
metaphor, the teachers became involved in advanced
level experiences that they, not the program, deemed
useful for improving their classroom skills. More
importantly, they revealed that the final step, being
provided a chance to "...learn more about how geology is
actually done..." had not been provided. The
94
"journeyman" metaphor was clearly a call for traditional
content education to be enhanced with "...experiencing
geology as a field geologist."
Thus, a participant appetite for new experiences and
a corresponding wish by the authors to "raise the bar" by
providing K-12 educators with realistic situated learning
experiences addressing the true nature of geologic
research became the impetus for the grant which funded
this study. By placing teachers in an "authentic" research
environment we hoped they would more accurately
convey to their students a better understanding of the
processes and nature of geologic science. The goal of our
GEOTEACH study became a determination of what
science process skills, content knowledge, dispositions,
and understanding of the nature of science developed
after conducting the work of a field geologist.
THE PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS NAD
STAFF
GEOTEACH participants were teachers with multiple
RockCamp experiences. Using the RockCamp database,
twenty participants were selected. Selections were based
on the level of involvement (a minimum of RockCamp I
and II), content competency, collaboration skills, and
physical ability. Of the twenty invited teachers, ten
teachers (8 females and 2 male) responded by submitting
applications indicating a willingness to meet the
GEOTEACH time commitments. All ten were accepted.
Group demographics revealed four high school teachers,
three middle school teachers, and three upper
elementary educators. Given our prior experience with
these teachers, we were able to divide them into small
field teams based on previously demonstrated
leadership skills and geologic knowledge.
Program staff included three field geologists from
the West Virginia Geological & Economic Survey. These
scientists provided several days of orientation to field
techniques. Adhering to an apprenticeship/facilitated
programmatic mode, these scientists then proceeded to
serve in a resource agent-only capacity. The evaluation
staff consisted of the WVGES Education Specialist and a
Fairmont State University geoscience education
professor.
THE FIELD EXPERIENCE
The GEOTEACH program involved 3 weeks of direct
contact with teachers over an eight month period (Table
1). It is important to note that this was not a trivial time
investment for the participating teachers. As a result, the
time commitment required by this program initially
limited the number of applicants.
Eventually, it
contributed to the attrition of two teachers (the only
males) due to family and medical emergencies. The
entire program, and the time dedicated by the
participants, was directed to experiences that would
culminate in the production of teacher-produced
geologic maps. All field lodging expenses were paid by
the grant and teachers received a modest stipend upon
successful completion of their work. Vans supplied
transportation to and from field sites. Teachers were
responsible for providing their own meals and
transportation to the state park lodge which served as
their home base during field mapping. The following
paragraphs provide a sequential look at the operational
schedule.
Pre-workshop Review - One month prior to the first
field efforts, reading materials were sent to the
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 2, March, 2006, p. 93-102
Session
Day
3
4
5
Canaan Valley field data provided, topographic maps.
artifcat: described section, CR
check
Construct a map of Canaan Valley.
artifact: geologic map
Data collection.
group interview
group interview.
artifacts: field book, geologic
map
Journals, post-test and final
questionnaire, concept map,
Likert instrument
1
2
3
Application 1 (May)
1-2
Introduction to
Mapping Session
(Early June)
Application 2 (Late
June)
1-4
Field Work and
Mapping (July)
Feedback Meeting
(October)
Evaluation
Read through material on field work.
Ensure familiarity with vocabulary.
Orientation, dissemination and construction of field
materials.
Measuring techniques in the plateau: instruction on
measuring sections (thickness of beds), describing
sections (rock type and description), collecting
samples, drawing sections, clarifying vocabulary (such
as describing grain size).
Introduction of dip: using a Brunton compass to
determine angle, correlation of beds between sections
miles apart.
Collect data from a local outcrop.
Draw and describe the section.
Describing rocks and using Brunton compasses in
areas where rocks are dramatically dipped.
Use new tools to describe a section.
Describe section using fossils.
Pre-workshop
Review (March)
Introduction to Field
Work Session (April)
Activity
5
Individual map construction of Greenland Gap area.
1
Evaluation and discussion of program.
Pretest Questionnaire, Concept
Map
artifact: described section,
Constructed Response (CR)
check
artifact: described section
Table 1. Overview of program: Three week project conducted over an eight month period.
participants. Materials included Procedures in Field
Geology (Freeman, 1999) and a vocabulary sheet
including terms typically used for data collection.
Participants were asked to acquire a solid understanding
of assigned materials prior to their first workshop day.
Introduction to Field Work - Two and a half days in
April were spent in Morgantown, WV. The nearly
flat-lying sedimentary rocks of the Appalachian Plateau
Province were used to introduce participants to basic
mapping skills. Teachers were provided with field bags
containing rock hammers, compasses, folding rulers,
hand lenses, field books, safety glasses, grain
comparators, acid bottles, first aid kits, and waterproof
pens. After constructing homemade Jacob staffs, they
practiced measuring and describing sections, collecting
representative rock samples, diagraming sections, and
correlating strata. Participants were then introduced to
the Brunton compass.
Application 1: Describing a Section - During the May
break between meetings, teachers were given
"homework." This assignment required the teachers to
individually measure and describe a section near their
homes. The results were reviewed and discussed at the
next meeting.
Introduction to Mapping - In early June, teachers
participated in a five-day session. Base site was Canaan
Valley State Park.
Participants were exposed to
non-horizontal strata. Dip suddenly had real meaning
and the function of the Brunton Compass became
Hemler and Repine - Teachers doing Science
relevant. The geologist-staff focused their attention on
increasing participant proficiency in measuring and
plotting strike and dip, utilizing fossils as correlative
tools, recording data on topographic base maps, and
techniques in constructing geologic maps and cross
sections.
Application 2: Constructing a Map - The geologic
setting of Canaan Valley State Park includes a heavily
weathered but structurally simple large-scale breached
anticline. Using their own data, the teachers were asked
to draw a geologic map of the area. Additional data were
provided by the geologists to fill in areas not visited by
the teachers during their data collection forays.
Independent Participant Field Work and Mapping Two weeks later, we all reunited at Blackwater Falls State
Park Lodge. The session began with a discussion of the
maps the teachers had constructed over the intervening
break. A group interview was also conducted by the
project evaluators. A significant portion of the morning
was dedicated to revisiting the practice of using
topographic maps to determine location and concluded
with a discussion of safety issues. Lunch marked the end
of their instruction and direction by the geologists. The
participants were driven to a nearby, but remote area.
Three small field teams were distributed over various
portions of the area. Remaining in the resource agent
mode, the staff geologists used a vehicle to periodically
check on the safety of each team. Policies, procedures,
techniques, and all other mapping decisions were left to
the teachers. This routine was repeated for the next three
95
days. The teachers worked in the field from 8:00 AM
until 4:30 PM describing and measuring sections as they
saw fit. They spend each evening compiling and
recording and plotting data using their field notes. They
also spent enormous amounts of time discussing
(arguing!) alternative data interpretations. All of this
work culminated in the construction of individual
geologic maps and cross sections of the assigned
geographic area.
work, their daily safety-checks on the participants'
physical situation did produce observations of
importance to the project evaluators.
Pre-post Instrument - A pre and post constructed-response questionnaire was administered. The
three instrument questions were designed to provide
data on content mastery, familiarity with scientific processes, conceptual understanding, and changes in perceptions of the nature of science. The questions asked
Feedback Meeting - Several months later, all of the staff were
and participants met at a centrally located high school.
This day was dedicated to review, reflection, discussions
1.The job of a professional geologist is...
and post-workshop evaluations. Graduates (all eight)
2. Explain the following: strike, dip, stratigraphic
received copies of Simon Winchester's The Map that
column,
fossil
assemblage,
stratigraphic
Changed the World.
correlation, geologic map, contact recognition,
and lithology
3. React to the following statement: "When a
METHODOLOGY
geologist collects information in the field about
the stratigraphy of an area he/she can construct a
During the course of the eight months, the program
map which is a true representation of the rock
evaluators' objective was the determination of emergent
units of that region."
themes generated by the participants' maturing
understanding of content, process, and the nature of
science. A combination of qualitative and quantitative Concept Maps - Concept maps on geologic mapping
evaluations was employed in this study to provide a were constructed by participants prior to beginning the
robust understanding of teacher enhancement. A brief introduction to field techniques session and during the
These diagrams proved
discussion of the various methods used to extract data to final feedback meeting.
important in illustrating changes in conceptual
facilitate our understanding of this process follows.
understanding of the process of geologic mapping. The
Group Interviews - Two communal interviews were maps were scored quantitatively using ideas and
conducted. One of these was prior to the field mapping methods established by Novak and Gowin (1984) and
session and the second was a post-program interview. Novak (1998).
Interviews were taped and transcripts typed.
Response
Checks
and
Final
Emergent-theme analysis (Lofland and Lofland, 1995; Constructed
Glense and Peshkin, 1992; Hammersley and Atkinson, Assessment - Following the April and June sessions
1995) was employed by each evaluator. Individual brief constructed response questionnaires were
administered to gauge concepts learned and concepts
interpretations were discussed and reconciled.
not yet understood. Participants responded to two
Participant-Constructed Artifacts - During the course questions:
of the institute, many products were constructed by the
1. "Something I learned, which had never
participants. These included three major items: field
occurred to me before, is...."
books, two geologic maps and accompanying structural
2. "I am still a little confused about...."
cross sections, and numerous lithologic descriptions of
measured sections. Each item was reviewed to identify
Because the staff geologists were still directly
measures of performance, search for evidence of content
comprehension, and look for changes in the participants' involved with the participants in these sessions, the
responses provided them an opportunity to review what
appreciation of the nature of their task.
they had taught and presented. It also identified both
Participant Journals - Participants were required to group and individual participant needs and wants that
keep personal reflective journals. During the field had to be addressed. The final assessment included
mapping session they were specifically asked to add questions on improving the program, program meeting
reflections on being "dumped" in a remote part of the expectations, usefulness to teachers, benefits to students,
West Virginia with the realization they, without outside and questions that remained unanswered.
assistance, were responsible for mapping it. At the
conclusion of the field portion of the program, a final Likert Instrument - A twenty-one question, four point
journal entry was assigned for submission during the Likert questionnaire was administered during the final
final feedback session. Journals were read by feedback meeting. It served as a summative program and
independent readers. Emergent themes common to all a staff satisfaction survey. Inserted items addressed
program pedagogy, science process/content, and
journals were identified and analyzed.
attitudes. Participants responded to items as 1 for
Performance Assessments - The staff geologists "strongly disagree" or 4 for "strongly agree."
worked closely with all participants during the one and
half weeks they learned field technique and mapping. RESULTS
As a result, they became very acquainted with the
strengths and weaknesses of each participant. This Each instrument provided critical data to our cumulative
anecdotal data both reinforced and redirected the understanding of teacher change during the
evaluation process. It also proved useful when the GEOTEACH experiential learning process. In this
composition of the three smaller field teams was being section we discuss, instrument by instrument, themes
determined. Finally, although the staff geologists did not that emerged from the qualitative processes and data
In
work with nor direct the participants' final research obtained from the quantitative instruments.
96
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 2, March, 2006, p. 93-102
situations where quotes are cited as supporting evidence,
fictitious initials are used to protect the identify of the
different participants.
Participant Journals - A review of the participants'
journals revealed several prevalent and consistent
themes. These included field techniques, collaboration,
field work conditions, qualities of a field researcher,
attitudes toward their own research, geology content,
and assuming the role of a student. Under the category
of field techniques, the most commonly discussed topic
was the struggle they had mastering the Brunton
compass to measure stratigraphic strike and dip. They
also frequently mentioned difficulties in recognizing,
and using, inter- and intra-stratigraphic unit variations.
Discussions related to identifying contacts eventually
advanced from simple bedding plane occurrences to
difficulties encountered when trying to establish upper
and lower formational boundaries. For the most part,
personal reflections centered around field techniques.
Some referents to the recorders' improvement of these
techniques and subsequent mastery was noted. For
example:
Canaan Valley was pretty straight forward and
understandable, developing a map from our
given data was difficult but certainly possible.
The map we developed today [using our own
field data] was impossible! At least it seemed so at
the beginning. How is one supposed to take a set
of data which basically [follows the road] and
expand that to a meaningful three-dimensional
map?...I succeeded in drawing the map. [DA]
Tonight we discovered we were using the wrong
direction for dip. We took our measurements up
instead of down dip. This was easily cleared up
[WK]
Although I hesitate to say this too soon, I may
have strike and dip down [ie., understood] [BM]
...and how much intuition is used to help
determine contact points? I think you can find
obvious rock layers but the contacts are often
nebulous. We found you can spend a great deal
of time trying to determine all the nuances in rock
layers and where they should be considered in
the layers of the rock. Our group spent way too
much time checking and rechecking ourselves
[KS]
Collaboration and the importance of working as a
team was also a prevalent theme. Entries discussed the
"routine" the smaller mapping teams "fell into" and the
admiration for other members of the team or the cohort.
"Peer teaching" and learning from each other were
commonly mentioned. Of particular interest were the
comments pertaining to confidence in their own
abilities:
We are all able to see patterns emerging and
predict what to look for next. We are also
becoming a team, sharing jobs and affirming each
other's knowledge. [BM]
The cohesion of the group increased as the day
progressed... [my team member] is wonderful in
explain[ing] the intricacies of the types of rocks so
that we will be able to recognize them. [WK]
Hemler and Repine - Teachers doing Science
I was reminded of my problems with strike. I was
finding it on the compass just fine but the concept
was escaping me still. Then [SM] put it into
perspective when she stood with me at a short
distance from an outcrop and showed me how to
try to imagine the whole layer, from what we saw
through to underground. What a massive unit! It
helped in trying to see the big picture! [PK]
I feel sometimes like I'm giving her a hard time by
being dubious about some of the formations she
feels we find. I think it's OK to disagree and
explore possibilities but its important to work as a
group [DA]
Participants often referred to qualities of a field
scientist. While participants never used the term "nature
of science," their comments acknowledged a growing
understanding of certain aspects of the abstraction. Their
entries often discussed the amount of interpretation,
interpolation, and "intuition" necessary for conducting
geologic mapping. They especially, and frequently, were
frustrated by the lack of data they were able to collect as
they encountered hidden and obscured outcrops:
[Trying] to find the Juniata on the west limb of the
anticline....thought we'd go a little farther to find
the contact with [Tuscarora] and we came to Rose
Hill...No St [Tuscarora]?
Re-thought it and
realized we had seen no Juniata at all, it had all
been Rose Hill! Things are not always as they
seem. Perfect example of how new data can call
for a new explanation. [BM]
One really cool thing was that [my partner] was
suspecting a St/Oj contact because of the looks of
the place. St ended and Oj would have been
covered. I calculated distance using thickness of
St, dip, and sine function. [WP] and I paced off
my mathematical prediction from the St/Srh
contact and ended up within a few yards of
[WP's] prediction. That was way cool!!! [BM]
GEOTEACH participants had prior experience with
geology through the RockCamp Program. Field
excursions were lead and directed by the RockCamp
staff. More importantly,
creature comforts often
included transportation using a chartered tour bus
(complete with restroom facilities) that made frequent
refreshment stops. Thus, the true nature of "real" field
work was an entirely new experience for GEOTEACH
participants. Journal entries on the toll taken by physical
exertion, heat, dehydration, ticks, and the lack of
preparation at the beginning of the week all indicated the
participants were keenly aware of the not-so-thrilling
aspects of field work:
The heat is hard on some folks, but [sport drinks]
help....Yesterday we just kept working and
working because there were no structured
breaks. Now our group has figured out that we
can be most effective if we rest when we're tired
and eat when we're hungry. [BM]
...so I was unprepared-didn't have adequate
water, snacks, drinks, etc, and I suffered in
consequence (I am well prepared for tomorrow
and ready to go!) [DA]
97
Climbing up and down rocks at the stream got a
little dicey for me but with those boots and
practice I'm getting a little braver every time. [PK]
Frustration, excitement, satisfaction, and validation
were common examples of attitudes expressed about
their own research. These surfaced in passages referring
to searching for contacts, identifying rocks, predicting
and finding the expected rock units. These entries
illuminated the emotional or dispositional changes the
participants experienced during their work:
I am still concerned about whether we will make
it all the way [through] as we just finished one
side. The first group is well into our section and
we are only halfway through the second section.
This is creating some anxiety for me. I hate to be
the one to hold everyone else up. [WK]
Seriously, a great day! We are real scientists. We
are feeling stronger and more confident each day.
[BM]
With a lot of help and great frustration, I
succeeded in drawing the map and felt very
proud of myself for being able to do it. [DA]
Not surprisingly for a field mapping oriented
program, the topic of pedagogy was not commonly
addressed in the participants' journals. However, the
occurrence of these types of comments did indicate that
the participants were aware they had assumed the role of
a student. One participant commented on how her
progress made her reconsider the "lost" student in her
own classroom: "It certainly brings home again what we
deal with as teachers: the kid who is completely lost. I
have a renewed appreciation for their plight. .. and to be
patient." [DA] One participant expressed empathy with
the frustration her students must experience when a
concept is beyond their immediate grasp. Two
participants suggested that the level of frustration
experienced by this type of inquiry might be
counterproductive to others. This "to others" comment
was fascinating when we realized that the comments
never seemed to apply to the writer because she was
capable of "coping" with the experience: "I understand
the idea of the inquiry based activity and I enjoyed it,
however it was very frustrating for some to do this.
Many of the people do not have enough confidence in
themselves or their instincts and abilities to do an inquiry
based activity." [KS]
felt as though they were "doing real science," some of
them for the first time: "This is about as close to science as
it gets." [BM] One of the more telling comments, which
clearly illustrated a level of personal and professional
growth, was "...we're ready for you not to take care of us
anymore" [WP] This comment was a direct reference to
the typical collaborative, or scientist-directed, type of
RockCamp experiences which they had previously
participated. We also found study participants using the
term validation to occasionally describe their
dispositions. One participant said "you had no one to
ask, so you had to learn to make decisions and trust
yourself." [WK] For another participant, validation
occurred when she confirmed her interpretation or
prediction. The only truly new attitude to emerge from
the group interviews was the satisfaction of having
completed the workshop. For the purposes of this study
we placed all aspects of participant disposition under the
theme of attitudes toward science research.
Although participants' journals referred to being a
student, the interview discussion switched to classroom
applications.
For example, comments included a
comparison of this program to the inquiry process.
GEOTEACH had never been promoted as a
classroom-transferable
training
experience.
Nevertheless, when asked how this experience would
translate into the classroom, many responded that the
direct experience would not. They claimed, however,
that indirect transfer was going to be significant because
experiencing science made them better teachers of
science. Also, once they had told students of their
research experience, the mere fact they had done it
would enhance their credibility as a scientist, not simply
a science teacher. Thus, the pedagogical benefits of the
program were recognized as more intrinsic than
extrinsic. GEOTEACH had provided them with a better
understanding of the work of the field scientist. As a
result, they could fully explain how the geologic map of
West Virginia, hanging in their classrooms, was
constructed. Furthermore, their increased geologic
content knowledge would help them design better
hands-on student lessons. And, they would be better able
to suggest more realistic geology strategies for student
science projects. Such student-teacher related topics
were collapsed into the single theme of pedagogy.
Artifacts - The maps, field notebooks, cross sections, and
geologic columns collected from the participants
demonstrated a growth in understanding of all aspects of
data collection and analysis.
Each participant
demonstrated an increased proficiency in describing and
recording stratigraphic data. Correlation skills improved
dramatically. The successful completion of two reliable
Group Interviews - The process of analyzing group geologic maps and cross sections by each participant
interview transcripts reinforced many themes extracted demonstrated an understanding of the content necessary
from the participants' journals. The additional for this process.
supporting data also initiated our process of refining
those themes. For example, field techniques and field Pre-post Instrument - The pre-test instrument
conditions were important emergent journal themes. identified content and process deficiencies. Results of
Analysis of the interview data demonstrated that the pretest instrument demonstrated that, as a group, the
teachers had expanded upon these ideas during an open participants had only a vague (eg. textbook)
discussion of field note interpretation. Not only did they understanding of what a field geologist does. Six out of
feel there was always insufficient data to draw eight had some understanding of the terms strike and
conclusions, with time, they began to appreciate how dip,
stratigraphic
column,
fossil
assemblage,
these feelings had diminished with additional stratigraphic correlation, geologic map, contact
experience and knowledge. These ideas became part of recognition, and lithology. Responses to nature of
the theme we identified as the process of science.
science related items, specifically, a question about the
Teachers also mentioned that the experience possibility of "constructing" a true representation of
provided them with personal growth and that the observed and mapped geology produced varied
challenge gave them a feeling of empowerment. They answers. Some agreed this was possible. Others did not
98
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 2, March, 2006, p. 93-102
Hierarchy
pre
post
4.3
4.3
Propositions*
pre
post
7.1
22.8
Branching*
pre
post
9.9
13.7
Cross Ties
pre
post
2.9
2.9
Total Score*
pre
post
16.1
40.9
Table 2. Pre and post involvement concept map mean scores for the topic of geologic mapping. (* denotes
significant at the p<0.005 level)
Measure
Pedagogy (4)
mean
SD
3.8
0.2
Science
Process/Content
(4)
3.9
0.29
Dispositions (4)
Geologists (2)
Program
Evaluation (7)
3.6
0.7
4.0
0
3.3
0.6
Table 3. Mean and standard deviation values for each category of responses on the final four point Likert-type
questionnaire (# items). (4= strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree)
commit or rejected the statement. Only two of the
participants, because of prior field experience, were able
to provide more knowledgeable responses.
Analysis of the post-test data suggested significant
improvement in the participants' ability to realistically
depict the work and goals of a field mapping geologist.
Participants provided specific and accurate definitions of
the vocabulary terms. The most striking difference were
the results for the last question regarding the possibility
of a geologist's map being a "true" representation of the
area. All of the participants emphatically agreed this was
not possible. It would seem that the nature of geologic
mapping had finally been appreciated when participants
supported their responses by adding comments
indicating that geologists are limited by their data and
the accessibility of the rocks and that the mapping
process is not only open, but invites, interpretative
deliberation.
Concept Maps - Pre and post involvement maps were
reviewed and scored based on the hierarchical structure,
number of propositions, branching from a proposition,
and cross-ties from one series of relationships to another.
Scores were tabulated, means calculated, and a paired
T-test conducted on the category means as well as the
overall score. The results shown in Table 2 indicate a
significant increase in overall concept map structure.
While the hierarchical structure of the map or the
number of cross ties did not increase, the number of
propositions and the sophistication of the branching
increased significantly (p< 0.005) demonstrating an
increase in conceptual understanding of the process
involved in concept mapping.
Pre-maps were characterized by limited vocabulary
(strike and dip) and minimal vague references to the
identification of a few lithologic characteristics.
Post-maps were characterized by a "rich" use of
vocabulary and included specific scientific processes and
instruments used to collect data required to construct a
geologic map. References to interpretation and
assumptions necessary to construct a geologic map were
made on more than fifty percent of the concept maps.
About 50% identified collaboration as necessary to
complete a map. Only one participant elected to use the
term "correlation of rock units" in her concept map.
While correlating rocks was an inherent part of the
process and was frequently done during their field work,
it was not typically integrated into their concept maps.
coded, all items were tabulated and averaged by the
subcategories of pedagogy, science process/content,
dispositions, and program and staff evaluation. Mean
program satisfaction was an overall 0 = 3.3 with highest
scores for meeting expectations, review of projects, and
instruction. There was only one score of 2.5 or less which
denoted disagreement. This disagreement was based in
a participant feeling that some programmatic
improvements were needed.
Suggested changes
included issuing directions that roles within the smaller
field mapping team should be made to rotate. They also
wished that more time had been allocated for the entire
cohort to work together since they had to rely on their
own field data to construct a map of the area. In this
instance, the were requesting more time to consult with
each other. Given that we presented the participants, and
each of their smaller field mapping teams, with
conditions similar to those routinely addressed by
professional geologists, the authors are not convinced
significant programmatic revisions are warranted.
Working with, and having help provided by the staff
geologists during the programs initial stages, ranked the
highest (0= 4.0) but only had two items for measurement.
Within the pedagogy subcategory (0 = 3.8),
individual item scores were highest when referring to
professional development. This dropped slightly (0= 3.5)
when addressing applications with students. Attitudes
or dispositions scored the lowest of theme subcategories
(0=3.6) and exhibited the largest standard deviation.
Participants agreed that they enjoyed the experience, did
not think it was overwhelming, and agreed they would
participant again given the opportunity. The item which
lowered the category mean dealt with the frustration
level. Participants generally agreed that there was a
considerable amount of frustration associated with the
process. The authors are not convinced that this is
necessarily a bad thing when struggling with concept.
Performance Assessment - The staff geologists
observed that it sometimes took a considerable length of
time for the teachers to understand some harder
concepts. But, in general, they were impressed with their
persistence. Teachers first began looking at rocks as
vaguely different, but by the end of the process, they
could correlate them based on subtle characteristics or
fossil evidence. The staff geologists were also surprised
with the leadership that emerged as the teachers gained
confidence in their abilities. In conclusion, the lead
geologist suggested that the teachers performed at a level
Likert Instrument - The Likert instrument results are expected from a group of undergraduate geology majors
summarized in Table 3. Negative items were reverse in their first weeks of summer field camp.
Hemler and Repine - Teachers doing Science
99
Instrument
Journal
Group Interview
Likert
Questionnaire
Pre/post Test
Concept Maps
Performance
Assessment
Artifcacts
Constructed
Response Items
Nature of
Science
X
X
Attitudes &
Dispositions
X
X
Scientific
Process
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Geology Content
Pedagogy
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 4. Overview of support of themes by various evaluation tools.
Constructed Response Items - It was obvious from the
first "check" responses that teachers were having some
difficulty mastering strike and dip measurement skills.
A follow-up session addressed their naive
understanding of these concepts. Participants indicated
that, at times, the program staff geologists could have
done a better job of planning and presenting the
instruction offered in the first several days. From this,
they suggested, without maliciousness, that a good field
geologist is not necessarily a natural classroom
instructor. Data derived from these items indicated that
the program had met participant expectations in that
each felt they had successfully completed their maps and
had learned to be field geologist.
With the completion of every program new
questions and needs are generated. After their
experience, our cohort expressed an interest in
comparing and contrasting what they had learned with
mapping techniques used in the more nearly horizontal
strata of the Appalachian Plateau.This is a valid question
since the majority of our science teachers live and work
in that physiographic province.
This instrument asked the participants about the
program's usefulness to their teaching. All eight cited
increased knowledge. All of them also commented on
their increased geologic and topographic map
interpretation skills. We also thought it important that
these comments included attributes related to increased
abilities in measuring stratigraphic strike and dip, what
the measurement actually meant, and why it was
important and useful. In addition to these comments,
three teachers cited the usefulness for classroom
applications, two mentioned conducting professional
development for peers, and two teachers noted changes
in personal dispositions about science or improved
confidence and excitement about doing science.
Participation benefits that might profit classroom
students included both external and internal rewards.
Concrete examples provided by teachers included direct
applications to the classroom. Six of the eight teachers
included benefits such as being better equipped to
conduct inquiry type lessons, conduct geology research
(and/or science fair projects) with students, model
science better, and construct geology activities.
Participants also included comments of the intrinsic
nature-such as students benefitting from new-found
teacher enthusiasm, subject confidence, new classroom
pedagogical awareness, and an overall better
understanding of the scientific process.
100
In conclusion, themes first emerged from our review
of the participant journals. Subsequently, these themes
were modified by the analysis of additional data, such as
the group interview transcripts. The extent to which the
modified themes are supported by our various
evaluation methods is illustrated in Table 4.
CONCLUSION
GEOTEACH successfully introduced a small cohort of
K-12 science teachers to the processes of science,
specifically surficial geologic bedrock mapping, by
engaging them in a
professional development
experience. The experience was initially designed to
employ attributes of the apprentice or facilitated model.
As a result of their involvement, participants
demonstrated a learned ability to use field techniques to
collect data, interpret the data, present the data in the
form of a geologic map and cross section, and draw
conclusions about the geologic nature of the area. In
their own words, they felt as though they were field
geologists.
Performance assessments and artifacts
indicated that they had performed at a level akin to that
demonstrated by undergraduate geology majors in their
first weeks of summer field camp. When compared to
pre-experience data, participant concept maps and
constructed response tests results illustrated a positive
change in their understanding of the process and nature
of geologic field mapping and its associated vocabulary.
Other studies confirm that teachers engaged in similar
programs have demonstrated enhanced content
knowledge (Hemler 1997, Gilmer et al 2002, Brown et al
2002).
In addition to content and the processes of science,
growth in awareness of the nature of science was
acknowledged. The importance (and sometimes pitfalls)
of collaboration in geologic mapping was recognized in
both journals and group interviews. Participants
accepted that there are limitations to the amount of data
that can be collected if a finished product is to be
constructed. And, as a result, their finished map is only
as good as their interpretation of their data. As a result,
newer data may require changes to their "finished"
product. In the end, all of this suggests that the
participants developed, and came to appreciate, a clear
understanding of a geologic map as an interpretative
construct. They further, and correctly, argued that
multiple interpretations can develop from the same set of
data. As one participant stated, science can be "messy:"
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 2, March, 2006, p. 93-102
Based on the work I did this summer, I feel that a
portion of map construction, while based on
sound collected data, involves plain old educated
guess[ing]. At Greenland Gap, we had scientific
knowledge. We sampled areas and identified
rocks. We identified contacts between the strata.
We had knowledge of the geologic history of
Greenland Gap, etc...but putting these individual
points together in a cohesive and overall geologic
"layout" required some good solid (based on
evidence) guessing! "True representation" are
words that don't really seem to fit that which is
not visible. Extrapolation, interpolation are terms
that apply to what we did.... [WK]
Our interpretation of the progress demonstrated by
the GEOTEACH participants, combined with previous
work by Hemler (1997), suggests that the degree to
which improvement in a teacher's conception of the
nature of science is a function of the type of experience in
which she or he is engaged. We suggest that coming to
know science as a human endeavor is one approach to
helping teachers become more familiar, more
comfortable, and more apt to share the nature of science
with their students.
Was this mixture of inquiry-based pedagogy and
geologic investigation valuable to the participants
classrooms? Teachers' journal entries commented on the
inquiry-based nature of the field experience and once
again having to assume the student role. Benefits to
teachers in the form of professional development and
students acquiring better lessons were mentioned.
Initially, teachers suggested that applications to the
classroom would be in the form of intrinsic benefits such
as teacher experience, confidence, and knowledge. Once
teachers had returned to their classrooms, student
instruction in processes as simple as map reading and
mineral, rock, and fossil identification assumed new
dimensions.
Empowerment is the term that resounds when one
reflects on the dispositions and attitudes of the teachers
who completed the program. These teachers overcame
content deficiencies, learned field techniques in a short
time period, and succeeded in developing geologic maps
that realistically and soundly reflected the geology and
structure of their assigned areas. To them, the
entire experience was "a rite of passage" filled with the
frustration, excitement, satisfaction, and exhaustion
associated with finally being able to "do real science."
Recommendations
We believe GEOTEACH is a viable teacher
enhancement model for teachers with a background in
basic geology. The teachers involved in this program
were graduates of multiple RockCamp workshops and
had demonstrated a proficiency in basic geology content.
While some may argue this workshop was successful
due to the process employed for the participant selection,
it is important to remember that amount of time
invested, the mental intensity, and the physical nature of
the workshop self-selected only the most dedicated to
apply. Some attrition can be expected and did happen
during this program.
It is recommended that science teacher educators be
involved in the entire process to help facilitate the link
between content and pedagogy. Teachers readily
recognize inadequate instruction.
Some problems
occurred when the geologists were told to treat the field
experience as an inquiry process. When left on their
own, the geologists lacked the ability to know when to
provide adequate facilitation. This produced unneeded
Hemler and Repine - Teachers doing Science
participant frustration. A science educator could gauge
the level of frustration and make suggestions to alleviate
such developing problems. In addition, participants
indicated that more introductory instruction was
necessary
regardinggeologic
map
construction.
Adjustments to the program have been made based on
these suggestions.
Experiential learning for teachers is gaining in
popularity. Many professional development programs
incorporate a directed research approach where the
activities, and results, of the participants are scientist
directed. Such program may appear contrived or place
the participant in the position of a laboratory technician.
We have found inservice educators recognize when they
are duplicating studies or replicating processes as
opposed to contributing to science. GEOTEACH tried a
different approach ultimately using a facilitated
apprenticeship model. Even though the area had been
previously mapped, one of the appealing aspects of
geologic mapping is the real potential for new
discoveries, and therefore, new interpretations. Brown
et al. (2002) found that preservice teacher attitudes
toward research improved with their increased degree of
involvement in an experience.
By allowing the
participants to "grow" their skills without the direct
supervision of a scientist, the GEOTEACH program
actually went beyond the apprenticeship model. It
instituted a "journeyman" approach whereby each
participant was provided ownership over the process of
learning and doing the science.
Programs such as GEOTEACH, which go beyond
collaboration and apprenticeships by exposing teachers
to the processes of science, are successful in providing
authentic science research experiences. It remains to be
seen how this new found knowledge of science is
conveyed to their student. While this study did not focus
on what actually translates to the classroom, future
studies should incorporate this component. Has this
exposure to the scientific process affected the
participants' understanding of the content, process, and
nature of science?
Will it make significant and long-term contributions
to the way they teach science in their classrooms? This
question is best answered by one of the participants:
It is hard to imagine any geologist who would attempt to
map an area without spending lots of time and effort in
gathering field data. First of all that seems to be their true
love, the number one reason why they are working in
geology. Also, seeing and feeling (even smelling) the
rocks is essential to understanding the dynamics behind
stratigraphy. No scientist should ever rely blindly on the
data gathered by others, and I don't believe I've met a
geologist who would consider doing that. Ah, the
implications for the science teacher! How often do we
expect our students to rely on data recorded by others?
To blindly accept what the text and/or the teacher say as
true without independent confirmation? How many
potentially great geologists and other scientists are
turned away from science by the quantity of facts to be
memorized (even if they are not understood) and a lack
of opportunity to practice science as a process? [BM]
ACKNOLEDGMENTS
Funding for the work was provided by West Virginia
Higher Education Policy Commission (Grant
EDPD-02-WVGEO-1) and by contributions of the staff
and management of the West Virginia Geological and
101
Economic Survey and the Geoscience Education Jacob, K., Kelter P., and Hughs, K., 1991, Promoting
Program of Fairmont State University.
understanding of the interrelationships among
science, technology, and society: a course for
precollege teachers, Journal of Science Teacher
REFERENCES
Education, v. 2, p. 53-56.
American Association for the Advancement of Science Lederman, N.G., 1992, Students' and teachers'
conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the
(AAAS), 1989, Science for All Americans, New York,
research, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v.
Oxford University Press
29, p. 331-359.
Barstow, D., Geary, E.,Yazijian, and Schafer, S., 2002,
Blueprint for Change: The Report of the National Lofland, J., and Lofland, L., 1995, Analyzing Social
Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and
Conference on the Revolution in Earth and Space
Analysis, Belmont, CA, Wadsworth.
Science Education, Cambridge, TERC.
Brown, S.L., Bolton, K. Chadwell, N., and Melear, C.T., National Research Council (NRC), 1996, National
Science Education Standards, Washington, D.C.,
2002, Preservice secondary science Teacher
National Academy Press.
apprenticeship experience with scientist. A paper
presented at the Association for Educators of Novak, J.D., 1998, Learning, creating, and using
knowledge: Concepts maps as facilitative tools in
Teachers of Science, Charlotte, NC.
schools and corporations, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence
Carpenter, J.R., Smith, K., Astwood, P.M., Wideman, I.,
Erlbaum Associates.
and Ryan, J.M., 1993, An overview of the South
Carolina Earth-science-resources project, Journal of Novak, J.D., and Gowin, D.B., 1984, Learning how to
learn, New York, Cambridge University Press.
Geoscience Education, v. 41, p. 339-344.
Collins, A., 1994, An Experience in authentic assessment, Peterson, C.D., Anderson, L.L., and Michtom, W.D.,
1996, Applications of undergraduate research
Journal of Science Teachers Education, v. 5, p.
proposals in general-education earth science
111-112.
courses, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 44, p.
Davis, N. T., 1990, Using concept mapping to assist
197-201.
prospective elementary teachers in making meaning,
Journal of Science Teacher Education, v.1, p. 66-69. Repine, T., Hemler, D., and Behling, R., 2004, Sustaining
K-12 Professional Development in Geology:
DiBiase, W., 1995, Impetus for Change: a Study in the
Recurrent Participation in RockCamp, Journal of
Change in Perceptions Resulting in Participation in
Geological Education, v. 52, p. 161-171.
the NRAO-WVU-NSF Investigating the Universe
Rosenthal, D.B., 1991, A reflective approach to science
Project, West Virginia University Dissertations.
methods courses for preservice elementary teachers,
Freeman, T., 1999, Procedures in Field Geology, Maiden,
Journal of Science Teacher Education, v. 2, p. 1-6.
MA, Blackwell Science, Inc.
Gilmer, P.J., Hahn, L.L., and Spaid, M.R., (eds.), 2002, Saunders, W, Eastmond N., and Canperell, K., 1994,
Elements of Improvement in Secondary Science
Experiential Learning for Pre-service Science and
Teacher Preparation, Journal of Science Teacher
Mathematics Teachers: Applications to Secondary
Education, v. 5, p. 146-51.
Classrooms, Talahassee, FL, SERVE.
Glense, C and Peshkin, A., 1992, Becoming qualitative Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G., and Crawford, B., 2000,
Making connections between the nature of science
researchers, White Plains, NY, Longman.
and scientific inquiry: A science research internship
Govett, A., 2002, Teachers' Conceptions of the Nature of
for preservice teachers, Paper presented at the
Science: Analyzing the Impact of a Teacher
meeting of the Association for the Education of
Enhancement Program in Changing Attitudes and
Teachers of Science, Akron, OH.
Perceptions of Science and Scientific Research, West
Siebert, E.D., and McIntosh, W.J., 2001, College Pathways
Virginia University Dissertations.
to the Science Education Standards, Arlington, VA,
Haakonsen, H., Tomala, G., Stone, A.H., and Hageman,
NSTA Press.
S., 1993, Enhancing teaching excellence through a
scientist-science teacher collaborative process, Spiegel, S.A., Collins, A., Gilmer, P.J., 1995, Science for
early adolescence teachers (Science FEAT): a
Journal of Science Teacher Education, v.4, p. 129-136.
program for research and learning, Journal of
Hammersley, M., and Atkinson, P., 1995, Ethnography:
Science Teacher Education, v. 6, p. 165-174.
Principles in practice, Second Edition, NewYork,
Westerlund, J. F., Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G., and
Routledge.
Koke, 2001, Teachers learning about nature of
Haukoos, G.D., and Penick, J.A., 1983, The influence of
science in authentic science contexts: Models of
classroom climate in science process and content
inquiry and reflection, Paper presented at the
achievement of community college students,
meeting of the National Association for Research in
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 5, p.
Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
629-37.
Hemler, D.A., 1997, Research Experiences in Teacher Winchester, S., 2001, The Map That Changed the World,
New York, NY, Harper Collins Publishers.
Preparation: Effectiveness of the Green Bank
Preservice Teacher Enhancement Program, West
Virginia University Dissertation.
Herr, N., Holzer, M., Esterle R., Martin, M, and Sparks,
C., 1995, Preparing student teachers for alternative
assessment in science, Journal of Science Teacher
Education, v. 6, p. 27-32.
Hines, S.M., and Mussington, C.G., 1996, Preservice
teachers as researchers: extending field-based
learning, Journal of Science Teacher Education, v. 7,
p. 143-50.
102
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 2, March, 2006, p. 93-102
Membership Application or Renewal Form
Name: __________________________
Mailing Address: __________________________________
________________________________________________
City: ______________________________ State: ________
___College/University Professor @ ______________
___Precollege Teacher @ _____________________
___Other @ ________________________________
Checks, MasterCard, or VISA (US funds
only) are payable to:National Association of
Geoscience Teachers. Mail to: NAGT, PO
Box 5443, Bellingham, WA 98227-5443
Phone:
__________________________
Fax: ____________________
Email: ___________________
Zip: _____________________
Membership
Regular USA
Outside USA
Student–USA
Student–outside USA
Retired NAGT member
Library Subscriptions
Regular USA
Outside USA
_______New
Rates (US funds)
$35 _____
$47 _____
$20 _____
$32 _____
$30 _____
$55 _____
$67 _____
_______Renewal
Check
q Credit card:
MC/VISA (circle one)
Number: ________________________
Signature: __________________________ Exp. Date
__________________________
q
The Journal and membership year runs from January to December. Subscriptions received after
June 1 will begin receiving the Journal in January of the following year. Back issues are
available for $15 (foreign $18) each.
*To qualify for student rate, indicate and obtain verification from a NAGT member:
___Undergraduate
___Graduate
____________________________________
Signature of NAGT member
School