Carol J. Ormand

Commentary: ANALOGICAL THINKING IN GEOSCIENCE EDUCATION

Geoscience instructors and textbooks rely on analogy for teaching students a wide range of content, from the most basic concepts to highly complicated systems. The goal of this paper is to connect educational and cognitive science research on analogical thinking with issues of geoscience instruction. Analogies convey that the same basic relationships hold in two different examples. In cognitive science, analogical comparison is understood as the process by which a person processes an analogy. We use a cognitive framework for analogy to discuss what makes an effective analogy, the various forms of analogical comparison used in instruction, and the ways that analogical thinking can be supported. Challenges and limitations in using analogy are also discussed, along with suggestions about how these limitations can be addressed to better guide instruction. We end with recommendations about the use of analogy for instruction, and for future research on analogy as it relates to geoscience learning.

Strain paths of three small folds from the Appalachian Valley and Ridge, Maryland

Structural analysis indicates that, for a given set of conditions, subtle differences in layer configuration and rheology can result in major differences in fold kinematics. We studied three hand-sample scale folds from the Maryland Valley and Ridge province in an effort to understand the accommodation of folding on meso- and microscopic scales, and to constrain the deformation histories of the folds sampled. Two single-layer folds and one multilayer fold were taken from two nearby outcrops of the Wills Mountain Anticline, and are therefore interpreted to have developed under virtually identical pressure and temperature conditions. Although all three folds are dominated by carbonate material, structural fabrics are unique for each fold, indicating rheological contributions to and local structural control of fabric development. Both single layer folds have asymmetric vein distributions that are consistent with strain directions expected from asymmetric flexural flow. Slickenlines (on one sample) and cleavage in an adjacent layer (in the other sample) support this interpretation. The first of these folds appears to have undergone late-stage hinge tightening, as evidenced by the development of crosscutting bed-normal stylolites. In contrast, veins, stylolites, and the intracrystalline deformation in the multilayer fold are suggestive of (symmetric) tangential longitudinal strain followed by heterogeneous sub-horizontal flattening. The three folds are interpreted to be buckle folds, with differing mechanisms accommodating strain within the competent layers.

The Lay of the Land: Sensing and Representing Topography

Navigating, and studying spatial navigation, is difficult enough in two dimensions when maps and terrains are flat. Here we consider the capacity for human spatial navigation on sloped terrains, and how sloping terrain is depicted in 2D map representations, called topographic maps. First, we discuss research on how simple slopes are encoded and used for reorientation, and to learn spatial configurations. Next, we describe how slope is represented in topographic maps, and present an assessment (the Topographic Map Assessment), which can be administered to measure topographic map comprehension. Finally, we describe several approaches our lab has taken with the aim of improving topographic map comprehension, including gesture and analogy. The current research reveals a rich and complex picture of topographic map understanding, which likely involves perceptual expertise, strong spatial skills, and inferential logic.

Promoting Sketching in Introductory Geoscience Courses: CogSketch Geoscience Worksheets

Research from cognitive science and geoscience education has shown that sketching can improve spatial thinking skills and facilitate solving spatially complex problems. Yet sketching is rarely implemented in introductory geosciences courses, due to time needed to grade sketches and lack of materials that incorporate cognitive science research. Here, we report a design-centered, collaborative effort, between geoscientists, cognitive scientists, and artificial intelligence (AI) researchers, to characterize spatial learning challenges in geoscience and to design sketch activities that use a sketch-understanding program, CogSketch. We developed 26 CogSketch worksheets that use cognitive science-based principles to scaffold problem solving of spatially complex geoscience problems and report observations of an implementation in an introductory geoscience course where students used CogSketch or human-graded paper worksheets. Overall, this research highlights the principles of interdisciplinary design between cognitive scientists, geoscientists, and AI researchers that can inform the collaborative design process for others aiming to develop effective educational materials.

Chapter 2: Training Spatial Skills in Geosciences: A Review of Tests and Tools

Abstract Characterizing spatial thinking and the development of spatial expertise is essential to understanding how to train geoscientists to succeed in both academia and industry. The Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center has supported an eight-year-long collaborative research program, which brings together disciplinary expertise in cognitive science and geology to characterize and develop spatial thinking in the geological sciences. To facilitate our understanding of science education and practice, we have characterized the spatial skills of geoscience discipline experts and the spatial thinking impediments experienced by students studying the geological sciences. In this chapter we review recent research on measuring and improving spatial thinking skills in the geosciences and on characterizing individual differences in spatial thinking, including the role of gender and age. We conclude with a discussion of important unanswered questions and some directions for future research. The research discussed here may help guide the development of best practices for spatial thinking training in both academic and industry settings.

Improving spatial thinking skills among undergraduate geology students through short online training exercises

ABSTRACT Spatial reasoning is a critical skill in the Geosciences. Using a randomized control study with 592 undergraduate students enrolled in introductory and advanced Geology courses, our data indicates that regular, short interventions throughout an academic semester improve students’ spatial thinking skills significantly with a moderate to large effect size when compared to an instruction-as-usual control group. We found evidence for additional gains in students who participated also in hands-on training interventions. We found even larger training effects on students who achieved correct scores of >50% on the practice modules, with gains of almost three-quarter of a standard deviation relative to their baseline scores. Male and female students display significant differences in spatial skills, with males outperforming females. Training resulted in similar magnitudes of improvement in both genders, so we see no evidence that the interventions closed the gender gap. Using the initial performance as a baseline, poor performers’ spatial skills appear to improve through practice at the same rate as their peers. We argue that 15.4% of students improve their spatial skills through participation in the training towards a threshold that appears to be critical for participation in STEM careers. On a reflection survey, half of the students reported that they felt their spatial thinking skills improved through their participation, and over a third found the training beneficial for their overall learning in Geology or other classes. We hypothesise that formal training opportunities for spatial reasoning could increase the potential pool of students who successfully enter and succeed in Geoscience careers.

Spatial skills in undergraduate students—Influence of gender, motivation, academic training, and childhood play

Anne U. Gold1, Philip M. Pendergast2, Carol J. Ormand3, David A. Budd4, Jennifer A. Stempien4, Karl J. Mueller4, and Katherine A. Kravitz4 1Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, UCB 449, Boulder, Colorado 80303, USA 2Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, 483 UCB, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA 3Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College, One North College St., Northfield, Minnesota 55057, USA 4Department of Geological Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, UCB 399, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA GEOSPHERE

3-D Structural Interpretation: Earth, Mind, and Machine

Three-dimensional geologic interpretation of surface and subsurface data requires integration and application of both geologic knowledge and spatial cognitive skills. Much surface geologic mapping still employs pen and paper techniques, but subsurface interpretation is usually accomplished using sophisticated visualization software. In both cases, successful interpreters use mental models that bridge internal and external forms of 3-D visualization to construct 3-D geologic interpretations. This AAPG Memoir 111 sets out to understand more about the convergence of geology, 3-D thinking, and software, which collectively provide the basis for truly effective interpretation strategies. It should appeal to all geologic interpreters, and especially those who investigate and teach interpretation skills.

Chapter 1: Learning from the 2013 3-D Interpretation Hedberg Conference: How Geoscientists See 3-D

Abstract Geologists as a group have and use above-average spatial thinking skills to interpret and communicate complex geologic structures. Interpretation challenges, especially with petroleum industry subsurface targets, come from abundant but still ambiguous data volumes, challenging geologic forms, powerful but difficult-to-learn software, and under prepared staff. In June 2013, 70 participants met in Reno to discuss these and related issues and to explore how spatial cognitive science can help us better understand and develop geologic interpretation skills, software tools, and education strategies. Industry interpreters and trainers, academic structural geologists, software developers, and cognitive scientists brought complementary perspectives to three days of presentations, posters, and discussions, plus a field day with interactive interpretation modules. This Hedberg conference provided new shared insights to the interpretation process, ideas for improving skill development, and abundant opportunities for further collaboration.

Survey of Geoscience Departments Finds Shared Goals and Challenges

Results of an online survey of a broad variety of geoscience departments at Canadian and U.S. colleges and universities have indicated a striking degree of common perspective across institution types. In the survey, which was sent to 900 institutions and completed by 364 respondents (for a response rate of nearly 40%), respondents noted that three of the most important measures of a successful department were effective curricula; recruitment of students, staff, and faculty; and building partnerships within and outside of their institutions.