TY - JOUR
T1 - How students and field geologists reason in integrating spatial observations from outcrops to visualize a 3-D geological structure
AU - Kastens, Kim A.
AU - Agrawal, Shruti
AU - Liben, Lynn
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank the study participants for their thoughts and actions, G. Michael Purdy for permission to use the grounds of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, M. Turrin and L. Pistolesi for assistance with data acquisition, L. Pistolesi for preparing the illustrations, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) for support through grants REC04-11823 to Kastens and REC04-11686 to Liben. The opinions are those of the authors and no endorsement by NSF is implied. This is Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory contribution number 7230.
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=61349183817&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=61349183817&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/09500690802595797
DO - 10.1080/09500690802595797
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:61349183817
SN - 0950-0693
VL - 31
SP - 365
EP - 393
JO - International Journal of Science Education
JF - International Journal of Science Education
IS - 3
ER -