integrating investigation across the geology and physics ... · pdf filein introductory...

ABSTRACT

The geology and physics programs at Western CarolinaUniversity were revised to provide investigative,quantitative, and interdisciplinary opportunities at alllevels of the curriculum. Central to the revisions was thedevelopment of the Cullowhee Creek EnvironmentalField Station (CCEFS). The field station, a part of theWestern Carolina University campus, includes threegroundwater wells, a gaging station, a weather station,and areas to investigate the physical, hydrological, andenvironmental systems on campus. Hydrologicalmeasurements are made using continuously monitoredloggers and probes, hand-held instruments, and flowmeters. Shallow subsurface characteristics are evaluatedthrough surface material observations, shallow soilprobes, and geophysical (seismic, resistivity, magneticand ground-penetrating radar) surveys. Curricularreforms using the CCEFS have emphasized developmentof investigative projects related to the campus geologicalenvironment in several introductory through advancedcourses in geology and physics, as well as aninterdisciplinary geophysics course. Preliminary projectassessment indicates that early and persistent studentinvolvement in investigations has increased studentunderstanding and ability to do science. Theinterdisciplinary field station activities have helpedstudents recognize the importance and relevance ofphysics to geological and environmental problems.

Keywords: Hydrogeology and hydrology;geophysics; education-undergraduate;education-field based

INTRODUCTION

The Cullowhee Creek Environmental Field Station(CCEFS) is an on-campus site developed with NationalScience Foundation (NSF) support to facilitate aninvestigative and interdisciplinary approach to learningin introductory through advanced level classes in thegeology and physics programs. The field station is thekeystone of recent and ongoing curricular changes in thegeology and physics programs, the goals of which are to(1) enhance student involvement in investigativeexperiences at all academic levels; (2) increase studentinvolvement in quantitative data collection and analysisusing industry standard tools and equipment; (3)enhance student awareness of the interdisciplinarynature of learning through integrated projects, courses,and collaboration; (4) emphasize connections betweentheory and application, linking to the existing

knowledge base of students and using the localenvironment and their relationship to it as a point ofreference; and (5) develop a well studied, on-campus sitefrom which to evaluate regional environmentalproblems. Our impetus for curricular change includesinternal and external program assessment in geology, anincreased emphasis on environmental applications inphysics, and educational literature on reforms in scienceeducation.

Numerous articles have outlined the use of fieldprojects to enhance student learning in geology. In thisjournal alone, examples include interdisciplinaryprojects between geology, chemistry, biology, physicsand archeology (Pestana and Gilbert, 1977; Bridger, 1979;Purdom et al., 1990), equipment intensive projects(Klasner, 1992; Tibbs and Cwick, 1994), and projects toenhance quantitative and problem solving skills acrossthe curriculum (Kruse, 1995; Keller et al., 2000;Macdonald and Bailey, 2000). The project we describeaddresses all of these issues and goes further byimplementing changes across both the geology andphysics curricula. The strengths of the project lie in thecombined activities that allow students from bothphysics and geology access to the strengths of eachdiscipline. The purpose of this paper is to describe howthe CCEFS has been used to increase hands-on,investigative experiences throughout our curriculumand provide a preliminary evaluation of the efforts toachieve the CCEFS project-related goals. To do this, wewill elaborate on the rationale underlying our approach,provide an overview of the field station, describe thecurriculum related to the CCEFS in several courses, andthen discuss the project effectiveness to date.

RATIONALE

Much of the recent reform in science education is rootedin the ideas of Dewey (1933) that learning takes placethrough discovery. The National Science EducationStandards (National Research Council, 1996) stress thecentrality of inquiry learning in science at all levels. In thestandards, inquiry is described as “a multifacetedactivity that involves making observations; posingquestions; examining books and other sources ofinformation to see what is already known; planninginvestigations; reviewing what is already known in lightof experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze,and interpret data; proposing answers, explanations,and predictions; and communicating the results. Inquiryrequires identification of assumptions, use of critical andlogical thinking, and consideration of alternativeexplanations. Students will engage in selected aspects ofinquiry as they learn the scientific way of knowing the

Lord et al. - Integrating Investigation Across the Geology and Physics Curricula 415

Integrating Investigation Across the Geology and PhysicsCurricula using the Cullowhee Creek Environmental FieldStation, Western Carolina University

Mark Lord Department of Geosciences and Natural Resources Management, WesternCarolina University, Cullowhee, NC 28723, [email protected]

Ginny Peterson Department of Geosciences and Natural Resources Management, WesternCarolina University, Cullowhee, NC 28723, [email protected]

Kurt Vandervoort Department of Chemistry and Physics, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee,NC 28723, [email protected]

416 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 51, n. 4, September, 2003, p. 415-423

Equipment

Coarse and Typical Number of Students in Lab Section

Geol 110 labn = 20

Geol 305n = 16

Geol 405n = 14

Phys 150n = 20

Phys230/231n = 20

Geol/Phys330

n =10

Wells, stream gage,water-level loggers X X X

Multi-probe X X

pH, temperature,conductivity meters X X

Current meters X X X

Bailers and pumps X X

Seismograph X X X X X

Resistivity meter X X X X X

GPR X X X X X

Magnetometer X X X

Table 1. List of equipment and use in targeted classes.

Figure 1. Topographic map, supplied in digital form by the campus architect, of the part of campus that isthe primary area for field station activities showing the location of wells, gaging station, and weather stationin relation to Cullowhee Creek. Labeled wells are CC – Cullowhee Creek, PS – Print Shop, and ST – Stillwell.Inset shows the location of Western Carolina University in Jackson County, North Carolina.

natural world, but they also should develop the capacityto conduct complete inquiries.”

The Boyer Commission report (1998), ReinventingUndergraduate Education, also suggests that research-or inquiry-based learning should be the standardapproach in undergraduate education and should becarried from freshman-level courses throughout theundergraduate curriculum so that a discovery-basedway of thinking becomes the norm for studentscompleting an undergraduate degree. The Boyer reportalso stresses the importance of breaking downdisciplinary boundaries in order to enhance the “mentalflexibility” of our students. This notion is consistent withTobias and others (1995) who emphasize the importanceof cross-disciplinary diversity for undergraduate sciencemajors as necessary preparation for the currentemployment market. Prior to implementation of thisproject, the Geology and Physics programs offeredwell-structured curricula, however each programrecognized missing components for student educationand opportunities. For example, in our geology courses,students developed observational and deductive skills,but had few opportunities for investigative andquantitative analysis. In physics, emphasis was placedon theoretical and experimental analysis of fundamentalphysical phenomena, with few links to practicalapplications. In both programs, many laboratoriesinvolved stand-alone exercises with little commontheme. Our intent with the curriculum change was thateach program would be better served bycross-disciplinary activities where students could gainaccess to the strengths of each discipline throughinvestigative or inquiry-based projects that involvedquantitative data collection and analysis to address localor regional geological problems.

PROJECT SETTING

Western Carolina University (WCU), part of theUniversity of North Carolina system, is a regionalcomprehensive university of approximately 5600undergraduates and 1100 graduate students. The schoolis located in a rural community within the Appalachianmountains of southwestern North Carolina, but servesstudents from across the state with widely variedbackgrounds. The Geology and Physics programs have 5and 3 full-time faculty, respectively, with approximately20-30 majors in each program. Both programs serve largenumbers of students fulfilling cognate requirements inother majors and through liberal studies courses. Recentcurricular changes in the two programs emphasize anincreased investigative approach in all courses ingeology and an increased emphasis on environmentalapplications in physics.

The WCU campus is located in the lower reaches ofthe Cullowhee Creek watershed in the headwatersregion of the Tennessee River basin (Figure 1). The creekflows through campus for about 1.5 km. As part of theBlue Ridge physiographic province, mountainousterrain dominates the Cullowhee Creek watershed (62km2), with the elevation ranging from 628 m at its mouthto just over 1400 m along the highest divides. The climateis humid subtropical and the annual precipitation variesfrom 127 cm at WCU to 178 cm in the headwaters.Development in the watershed is generally sparse withthe most intensive land use, including WCU, in the lower

elevation, flatter part of the basin. Excess sedimentationis considered the largest environmental threat to aquaticsystems in the region. Most sedimentation problems areattributed to rapid development and logging in amountainous region. Only recently is concern forsedimentation related problems evidenced by anincrease local and state government regulations andenforcement. Bedrock exposures on campus, mostly theproduct of human activity, include Late Proterozoicmetamorphic rocks. Alluvium, artificial fill, colluvium,and saprolite dominate the sediments observed oncampus. Red, clay-rich Ultisols are developed insaprolite on most slopes on the WCU campus whereasloamy Inceptisols make up the floodplain of CullowheeCreek.

THE CULLOWHEE CREEKENVIRONMENTAL FIELD STATION

The Cullowhee Creek Environmental Field Station(CCEFS), a portion of campus that is the focus of mostinvestigations (Figure 1), consists of fixed-positionhydrologic stations, and portable geophysical andhydrologic equipment to study the site. The equipmentpermits students to measure, monitor, and characterizethe environmental systems on campus. Tools andapproaches used in characterizing the field station arealso used to address questions outside the CullowheeCreek watershed, particularly in upper level classes andindependent research projects. A web site for the CCEFSserves as a communication tool, providing access toequipment protocols, conceptual backgroundinformation and links, maps, and archived data alongwith newly acquired data.Hydrologic stations include three groundwater wells, astream gage, and an automated weather station. Eachwell and the stream gage contain water-level loggers(pressure transducers) that continuously monitor waterlevels. Portable hydrologic equipment includes a loggingmultiprobe (temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolvedoxygen, and turbidity), standard hand-held probes (e.g.temperature, pH, conductivity), current meters,groundwater bailers and pumps, andspectrophotometers (Table 1).

Effective characterization of the stream, andparticularly the groundwater systems on campus,requires an understanding of the surface and subsurfacematerials and structure. Surface exposures of bedrockand soil are evaluated by students using traditional tools(e.g., hammer, soil probe, etc.) to make observations anddescriptions. Lithologic logs, from the drilling of thegroundwater wells, provide spot information onsubsurface materials. Several geophysical tools;including seismic, resistivity, ground penetrating radarand magnetics (Table 1); permit better three dimensionalcharacterization of subsurface parameters such as depthto bedrock or groundwater table. Each of these tools hasstrengths and limitations so that the combined methodsprovide a better understanding of subsurface parametersthan any individual method. Geophysical equipmentpurchased by the NSF grant supporting this projectincludes a SmartSeis 12 channel seismograph withrefraction analysis software, a Sting R1 resistivity meterwith 800 m of cable and 2D inversion software, and aRamac ground penetrating radar system with 50, 100 and


200 MHz antennae. The Geosciences department alreadyowned an E G & G proton precession magnetometer.

CCEFS PROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONTHROUGH CURRICULAR CHANGES

Implementation of the CCEFS and related curricularchanges began in Spring 2000 (Table 2). Six courses weretargeted for curricular change using the field station,including Geology and Physics courses, and aninterdisciplinary Geophysics course; they ranged fromintroductory general education-level to advancedcourses for majors in the two disciplines. An additionalimportant aspect of implementation was theemployment of students to assist in establishment of thefield station. Undergraduate students were importantpartners in such tasks as well drilling and logging,

establishing protocol for monitoring of well and streamdata, setting up and testing geophysical equipment anddeveloping field instruction sheets, setting up theweather station, developing and testing physics labs todemonstrate geophysical concepts, and developingweb-site material. The following examples illustrateongoing implementation of the CCEFS project in thetargeted classes.

Environmental Geology Lab (Geology 110) - TheEnvironmental Geology lab was offered as a stand-alonelab as part of the University General Education program.The General Education program required students totake 7 credits of science, typically two 3-credit lectureclasses and a lab related to one of the lecture classes.Previously, the lab proceeded as a sequence of largelyunrelated lab exercises, although several field labsrequired student observation and/or measurement of


Activity Timetable

Drill wells on campus Summer 1999 - Spring 2000

Research and purchase best equipment that suits scientific and pedogogicalgoals, is widely used, student-friendly, and durable. Fall 1999 - Fall 2001

Set up and field test equipment with students and establish protocols andstep-by-step instructions for equipment use. Spring 2000 - present

Post equipment instructions, protocols for use and care, and data to web sites. Spring 2001 - present

Develop investigative modules for use and modification in several courses. Spring 2000 - present

Revise course structure to include investigative or inquiry-based modules. Spring 2000 - present

Table 2. Timetable and process of field station establishment and course revision.

Figure 2. Geologic cross section of the CCEFS. This is an example of one of the expected products from anintroductory geology lab sequence. The students integrate observations and knowledge—developed overseveral labs—of soil, bedrock, and groundwater to construct the section. Their completed cross section isthen used to help interpret and constrain seismic data collected along the cross section line in subsequentlabs. Inset shows students collecting seismic refraction data on the Cullowhee Creek floodplain.

local geologic features. Our initial goal with this labcourse was to use the field station to develop a sequenceof related labs in which students collected and analyzeddata to evaluate the interrelated geologic systems oncampus. The revised lab consists of three modules. Theintroductory module gives students experience in fieldobservation, recognition, description and analysis ofearth materials, and interpretation and use oftopographic maps. The remaining modules focus ondifferent aspects of campus geology, each involving fielddata collection, analysis and a written report. Most workis done in small groups with data shared betweengroups. Module I involves mapping and collection ofbedrock and soil samples, and construction of a simplebedrock and soil map of a portion of the field station.Module II focuses on hydrologic systems; it includesin-lab experimentation with groundwater physical, scalemodels; measurements of campus groundwater levelsand stream discharge; and preliminary analysis of theCCEFS hydrologic setting and groundwater-streaminteraction. Students must synthesize these data toconstruct a geologic cross section, which includes thecampus wells and the stream (Figures 1 and 2), and topredict groundwater flow paths.

In the third module, students collect seismicrefraction data along a traverse between two of thegroundwater wells (the two lower wells in Figure 2). Theseismic data were not extensively interpreted, but rathercompared to observations from previous modules. Soilmaps (Module I) and the cross section (Module II –Figure 2) allowed students to predict the range ofexpected shallow subsurface velocities and comparethem to observed seismic velocities. The layer depthsindicated by the seismic refraction data were alsocompared to the depths predicted on the cross section.Students were encouraged to explain any differences intheir data sets and interpretations. In a final report,students evaluate the subsurface distribution ofmaterials, integrating data and interpretations frommodules I, II, and III to better understand thehydrogeologic setting of the field station. This lab courseapproach has been successful in involving non-sciencemajors in collaborative investigation of the campusgeology. The students left with a much better

understanding of the geological systems that theyinhabit.

The Environmental Geology Lab course (noweliminated) provided an excellent forum for hands-onfield activities and data collection using the CCEFS, butwas less successful at incorporating true inquiry into thestructure due to time constraints of a 1-credit course. Aninquiry-based investigation of the CCEFS was central toa new liberal studies course, Investigations inEnvironmental Geology (3 credits), offered in the Fall2001 semester. The class investigation topic was land-userelated impacts of the University on the quantity andquality of water in Cullowhee Creek. The class beganwith small-scale investigations to understand artificialand natural controls on hydrology, and, from theirfindings, developed specific hypotheses regardingcampus impacts on hydrology. Testing of thestudent-developed hypotheses, in turn, became the focusof a collaborative, larger-scale class investigation. Thecourse was successful in that the students developed amuch better understanding of how science works than inour traditional introductory courses and they developeda sense of pride in their ‘discoveries’. To permitdevelopment of the science skills necessary to completean investigation, the geology-related content of thecourse had to be drastically scaled back. The design ofthis course has the flexibility needed to ‘drop’ contentthat may be necessary in a physical geology coursebecause it emphasizes geologic investigation rather thana survey of topics in geology. And finally, theinquiry-based investigation the class completed wassimple and, with respect to scientific discovery, they‘reinvented the wheel’. However, as other authors haveconcluded (e.g. Niemitz, 1996), it is necessary to startinvestigations at a small-scale in lower level courses topermit more sophisticated investigations in upper-levelcourses. In our physical geology course, which has morespecific content goals, we have increased the emphasison investigations using the CCEFS, but they aregenerally small scale (two to three weeks) and relaterather directly to more traditional topics.

Soils and Hydrology - The Soils and Hydrology course(Geology 305) is required of Geology, Natural Resources


Figure 3. Ground penetrating radar image, using a 100 MHz antenna, of the margin of the floodplain on theCCEFS with geologic interpretation (cross hatch pattern). These data were used to better understand thenear surface geologic conditions to provide a basis for the study of soils and hydrology.

Management, Geography, and Environmental Healthmajors; it is offered each semester and enrolls about 50students per year. The course is intended to provide anoverview of soils, the hydrologic cycle, surface andgroundwater hydrology, and water quality. Though allstudents in the course are upper-level science majors,there is no prerequisite for the course. The primarychallenge with this course is to cover the topicsdemanded by the diverse audience it serves with enoughdepth so that students genuinely understand the topicsaddressed and have the knowledge needed to approachproblems in the discipline. To meet this challenge, thecourse is taught with a systems approach, and reliesheavily on field experiences to develop observation andinvestigative skills. The exercises and format of thelaboratory may vary from semester to semester, but allhave the same general, three-part approach, outlinedbelow.

Part I, characterization of geologic framework,consists of field sampling and analysis of soils and parentmaterial/bedrock, analysis of geologic information fromdrilling logs, and geophysical investigations of thesubsurface. As an example, in one project studentsmapped soils on a floodplain-slope sequence typical ofthe region. To better understand the geologic setting andsubsurface relationship of parent materials, severaltransects of the map area were completed using groundpenetrating radar (GPR). In some images, students couldidentify the contact between bedrock and alluvium(Figure 3). Elsewhere, students were able to see epsiloncross-stratification in subsurface sands of a floodplainand the alluvium contact with colluvium at a slope base.

The goal of labs in Part II, characterization ofphysical hydrology, is to characterize the mainhydrologic components of the field station, with a specialemphasis on tasks that serve to demonstrate the linkagebetween soils and hydrology. Labs in this part evaluatesoil infiltration rates, stream discharge, stream-groundwater flow interaction, subsurface hydraulicconductivity (using bail test of piezometers, Figure 4),and hydrologic monitoring data to assess the hydrologiccycle (e.g. evapotranspiration, response of ground andsurface waters to storms, seasonal and spatialvariability). Depending on class size, different groups ofstudents within a class may evaluate different topics.

In the last part, III. Development of a CullowheeCreek watershed model, students carry out a moreopen-ended project that requires them to apply theirknowledge developed over the semester. In one project,students had to evaluate the water quality of thewatershed. To begin this, students first had to develop ameaningful sampling scheme (i.e. where and when tosample) and select chemical parameters appropriate foranalysis—both of these tasks, as well as theirinterpretation of their results, required them to use andbuild upon a their knowledge gained in the first twoparts of the laboratory sequence.

Student reaction to this approach has been veryfavorable, largely because the hands-on investigativeapproach has permitted them to develop skills(methodological and thinking) directed to a purposewhere they understand the practical application. Abouttwo-thirds of the laboratory periods are directly relatedto the project; the remaining labs are directed towardsdevelopment of specific skills. Students are required towrite a comprehensive report that uses informationcollected over the semester, however, smaller reports oncomponents of the project are submitted regularly forevaluation and feedback.

Perspectives on Physics and Technology - Thiscourse was offered at the freshmen level to potentialphysics majors to highlight many of the important andinteresting applications of physics, without gettingbogged down in the mathematical details. The coursewas designed to promote an early awareness of therelevance of a physics degree, and to make studentsbegin thinking about their future careers. The courseincluded career-oriented activities and a number ofhands-on laboratories, many of which involved use ofthe geophysical equipment. The geophysics activitieswere used as a means of getting students out in the fieldand to give them an idea of the activities associated witha career in geophysics. The course did attract at least tenstudents into the physics program. In addition, itsparked their interest in a number of fields, includinggeophysics, and made them more likely to pursuesubsequent courses involving similar projects.

General Physics - In our calculus-based general physicssequence, we introduced a number of application-basedlaboratories around a central theme, “How can we usephysics to elucidate the composition and structure of theEarth?”. The goals behind these modifications were toincrease student motivation through connections to realworld applications, lend coherence to the course, anddemonstrate the usefulness of an interdisciplinaryapproach to the solution of a specific problem. Theseapplication-based laboratories included both indoorlaboratories to introduce fundamental physical conceptsand their applications, and outdoor laboratories to applythese concepts to the elucidation of the shallowsubsurface. Including these applied laboratories into thetraditional physics lab sequence did not weaken theteaching of fundamental physics. Instead, geologyspecific applications replaced traditionally taughtapplications such as statics, circuitry, and geometricaloptics. The applications, therefore, focused on a centralproject, that is, determining the subsurface geology of thefield station.

The applied geophysics laboratories wereinterspersed with the traditional physics laboratories.The sequence of laboratories proceeded through a


Figure 4. Students conducting a bail test at one ofthe field station groundwater wells.

progressively increasing level of complexity in thefollowing way. Students first performed a traditionalphysics laboratory to illustrate the basic physicalconcepts in the simplest manner possible. For example,relationships between resistance, electric potential andcurrent were established through a laboratory tomeasure Ohm’s law by analyzing the current-voltagecurve for a resistor. The laboratory then progressed to theconcept of resistivity through four probe measurementson a copper bar. More geologic specific materials such assand and clay with various water contents were thenintroduced through four probe resistivity measurementsusing a soil box. Before transferring these ideas to theoutdoor field lab, students performed an intermediateindoor lab where the resistivity of multiple layers wasmodeled by measuring a four probe Wenner array onconducting paper with a power supply and voltmeter,analogous to the technique that is employed in fieldwork (Vandervoort et al., in press). The students thenperformed the outdoor laboratory using the commercialresistivity meter. Consistent with the level ofsophistication of the general physics course, data wereanalyzed to approximate depths to bedrock and thewater table.

For the outdoor laboratory, resistivity data werecollected near the campus golf course using a Wennerexpanding spread array with a range of a-spacings (thespacing between adjacent electrodes) from 0.2 to 50 m(Figure 5). Two spreads were collected at the samelocation one week apart, before and after a heavy rainfall.In the standard 4-electrode Wenner expanding spread(Burger, 1992), the resistivity is measured as a function ofelectrode spacing over as long a distance as is practical,keeping the center of the spread stationary. The currentbetween the outer electrodes is held constant and theelectric potential difference between the inner electrodesis measured as a function of a-spacing. Analysis of theseresults using a resistivity modeling program (on the datacollected before the rainfall) yields four horizontallayers; a low resistivity top soil layer of thickness 0.4 m, asecond moderate resistivity layer of thickness 3.3 m, athird low resistivity layer of thickness 15 m and a highresistivity bedrock layer below. An interesting feature ofthese results (Figure 5) is the reduced resistivity thatoccurred due to the rainfall, particularly for a-spacings

comprising the first two thirds of the spread. This resultis consistent with rainfall affecting mainly the upperlayers of the subsurface. The deeper layers wereunaffected by the rainfall since they were below thewater table. With a small amount of prodding, thestudents were able to make such qualitative conclusions.

Of the 25 laboratories implemented over thetwo-semester sequence, 7 involved some aspect of geo-physics. The following geophysics laboratories were im-plemented: a seismic refraction survey, an indoor electricpotential mapping laboratory to model a leak in the plas-tic lining of a landfill (Bluth and Young, 1997), an indoorresistivity of sediments laboratory, an indoor laboratoryto model a Wenner spread on conducting paper, an out-door resistivity survey, an indoor laboratory to illustratethe attenuation of electromagnetic radiation (micro-waves) through various materials and sediments, and anoutdoor ground penetrating radar survey. The laborato-ries were inserted at the appropriate times to closelymatch the material that was covered in the lecture. There-fore, they were spread out over much of the course andstudents were continually reminded of the coherent goalof using physics toward the solution of geological prob-lems.

Geophysics - The Geophysics course was taught for thesecond time in the Spring of 2001 with a tremendouslyimproved content over its first offering, in Spring of 1998,when much of the geophysical equipment was unavail-able. It was offered as an upper level elective course toboth geology and physics majors and did attract somestudents from other disciplines, specifically math, chem-istry, and anthropology. The lecture/discussion part ofthe course focused on theory, applications, and globalperspectives of geophysical techniques including seis-micity, gravity, magnetism, resistivity, and electromag-netism. Labs included field data collection, computeranalysis, and modeling of an area within the field stationwith an emphasis on integrating the different types ofgeophysical data. Data were obtained using seismic re-fraction, Wenner and Schlumberger resistivity surveys,and ground penetrating radar. In addition, proton pre-cession magnetometry was used to characterizeman-made structures, namely submerged pipes withinthe field station. The laboratories culminated in a stu-dent-designed project using multiple techniques to char-acterize the surficial geology at a small, locallandslide-plagued airport. The airport was built along aridge top by leveling the ridge, using blasting and fill ma-terial. The fill areas have been the locus of landslide ac-tivity since before the airport opened. The goal of thefinal project was to use combined geophysical tools todetermine the location of the base of fill in one area of theairport. Ground penetrating radar was first run alongtraverses designed by the students to best image the baseof fill. Seismic and resistivity data collected along thesame profiles provided further constraints on the depthsto base of fill and types of fill materials.

For the targeted physics courses, the level of thegeophysics progressed from a basic introduction toresearch level implementation. In the freshman levelcourse, Perspectives on Physics and Technology, thegeophysical equipment was introduced mainly as ameans of spurring student interest and actual datamanipulation was limited. In the General Physicssophomore level course, the geophysics labs weredesigned to enhance student understanding of theunderlying physics through applications that


Figure 5. Resistivity data for an expanding arraycollected at the same location on campus before(crosses) and after (squares) a heavy rainfall.

reemphasized physical concepts. In the junior-seniorlevel Geophysics course, the laboratories were openended and designed to give students experience insurvey lay out and implementation. The diversity ofgeophysical equipment was particularly important inthese labs so that students could discover for themselvesnot only the utility but also the necessity of the differenttypes of geophysical data in evaluating geologicalproblems. Some students benefited by taking two of thecourses in this sequence and were able to experience theprogression of complexity of the geophysicalapplications. When Geophysics is offered next time, it ispossible that some students will have taken all threecourses in the sequence, which would be ideal.

Other Courses - The CCEFS has been used in coursesbeyond those initially targeted. For example,Hydrogeology, a new upper-level course at WCU,focused the entire laboratory sequence around theCCEFS. For their last project of the semester, studentshad to produce a viable groundwater flow computermodel for the CCEFS based upon, among other things,numerous well tests and geophysical surveys (resistivityand seismic) they had performed over the semester. Inmany courses, the data from the hydrologic stations havebeen used to demonstrate things such as groundwaterand stream response to storms, the influence ofevapotranspiration on groundwater levels, baseflowrecession in Cullowhee Creek, and variability ofresponse time throughout the hydrologic system (Figure6).

ASSESSMENT

In order to assess the impact of the project on studentlearning and achievement of project goals, wesupplemented our own observations with those of anoutside evaluator. Evaluation instruments included pre-and post- course concept maps and surveys, andevaluator interviews with the PI’s and students impacted

by the project in a variety of classes. In addition, we haveworked closely with many of the students impacted byimplementation of the field station in one or more classesand/or through project development. Discussions withthese students, and observations of their increasingscientific and research sophistication, have alsocontributed to our assessment of the project impact.

A quote from the final conclusions of the outsideevaluator provides a sense of the overall contribution ofthe project: “This project was designed to develop anon-campus laboratory site that facilitated aninvestigative, interdisciplinary approach to learninggeology and physics. The developed courses have madeuse of this site and have developed curriculum tosupport this interdisciplinary and investigativeapproach. The students were enthusiastic about theirfield investigations and found themselves motivated tolearn more about the environment and geology of thearea. Both geology and non-geology majors becameinterested in the environment and subsurface materialsof the area through experiments that taught geology andphysics concepts or hydrology and natural resourcesmanagement concepts.” More specific assessment isaddressed in the context of project goals.

An important long-term goal of the project has beento enhance student involvement in investigativeexperiences at all academic levels within the geologyand physics programs. This goal is difficult to evaluate

completely in the short term; however, we can commenton current progress toward that goal. An importantaspect of this goal is to involve majors in hands-on andresearch-type experiences early and often so that they areprepared to conduct independent research projects intheir senior year and leave the university with excellentproject skills. In physics, students were able toexperience hands-on research through the CCEFS intheir freshman level courses in the context of practicalapplications of physics. Replication of these activities at amore advanced level was provided in the upper levelGeophysics course and through individual seniorresearch projects. In geology, implementation of CCEFSproject coincided with implementation of a newcurriculum with similar goals. Among our currentupper-class students who participated in CCEFS-impacted classes and/or assisted us with field stationset-up, most are involved in senior research. Increasedquality of student projects and presentations suggest thatthey are better equipped to initiate and conduct researchprojects. Our biggest challenge in this area is at theintroductory level.

Although we cannot yet quantify the impact, wethink that the CCEFS project has been quite successful inincreasing student involvement in quantitative datacollection and analysis, particularly in geology. Studentsin all impacted classes reported favorably on thehands-on field experiences and the collection andanalysis of real data. In the intermediate and upper levelclasses, students indicated an increase in analytical andinterpolation skills, and in their ability to makeinferences from data. Again, the greatest challenge wasat the introductory level, where many of our studentsarrive with a significant fear of math and anythinganalytical.

It is challenging to assess the enhanced studentawareness of the interdisciplinary nature of learning andan increased understanding of the connections of theoryand application. However, some comments in studentinterviews and anecdotal evidence suggest progress in


Figure 6. Storm rainfall and hydrographs forCullowhee Creek and two groundwater wells on theCCEFS; water levels show relative changes only. TheCullowhee Creek groundwater well is on thefloodplain; the Stillwell well is in an upland setting.Hydrographs such as these have been used forprojects and to demonstrate hydrologic processes inseveral courses.

this direction. Students in Soils and Hydrology felt“strongly that connections were made among disciplinessuch as mathematics, geology, and physics”. Students inthe General Physics courses indicated that their “favoritelabs were the geology-based experiences” and “it wasnice to see what some of this physics can actually be usedfor”; non-geology majors in the Geophysics class“especially liked the direct practicality of the class”. Inaddition, two geophysics students (out of a total of 16),one a physics major and the other a math major, decidedto pursue a career in geophysics as a result of the class.One is a geophysics graduate student and the otheremployed as a geophysicist.

The most visible goal of the project has been todevelop a well studied, on-campus site from which toevaluate regional environmental problems. At this pointthe equipment is purchased and in place. We havedeveloped protocols for its use and have had studentsinvolved in data collection independently and throughclasses. Our use of the field station and dissemination ofcourse modules and data through our field station website will continue to evolve, including adaptation of thefield station concepts for use by pre-college educators.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding for this project was provided by the NationalScience Foundation Course, Curriculum, and LaboratoryImprovement Program (DUE-9950260) and WesternCarolina University. We thank Cynthia Copola, aconsultant who evaluated the project, and the manystudents who assisted in the development of the CCEFSproject; they added quality and enjoyment to the project.Lenore Tedesco, Gary Rosenberg, and an anonymousreviewer have improved this paper with their insightfulreviews.

REFERENCES

Bluth, G. J. S., and C. T. Young, C. T., 1997, An appliedgeophysics laboratory for introductory environmen-tal-geology courses, Journal of Geoscience Educa-tion, v. 45, p. 447-450.

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in theResearch University, 1998, Reinventing Undergrad-uate Education, A Blueprint for America’s Research,State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY.(http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf)

Bridger, J. F. D., 1979, An interdisciplinary curriculumlinking geology with prehistoric archeology, Journalof Geological Education, v. 27, p. 160-161.

Burger, H. R., 1992, Exploration Geophysics of the Shal-low Subsurface, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,Prentice Hall, p. 241-316.

Dewey, J., 1933, How we think, a restatement of the rela-tion of reflective thinking to the educative process,Boston, D.C. Heath & Co., 301 p.

Keller, C. K., Allen-King, R. M., and O’Brien, R., 2000, Aframework for integrating quantitative geologicproblem solving into courses across the undergradu-ate geology curriculum, Journal of Geoscience Edu-cation, v. 48, p. 459-463.

Klasner, J. S., Crockett, J. J., Horton, K. B., Poe, M. D., andWollert, M. T., 1992, Hands on teaching through astudent field project in applied geophysics, Journalof Geological Education, v. 40, p. 53-61.

Kruse, S. E., 1995, Using cooperative-learning methods toteach quantitative material in an undergraduate geo-physics course, Journal of Geological Education, v.43, p. 357-360.

Macdonald, R. H., and Bailey, C. M., 2000, Integrating theteaching of quantitative skills across the geology cur-riculum in a department, Journal of Geoscience Edu-cation, v. 48, p. 482-486.

National Research Council, 1996, National Science Edu-cation Standards. National Academy Press Wash-ington, DC. (Http://bob.nap.edu/html/nses/html/contents.html)

Niemitz, J. W., 1996, Preparing geology majors for theirfuture by assessing what works for students and fac-ulty, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 44, p.401-407.

Pestana, H. R. and Gilbert, W. H., 1977, Interdisciplinary(biology/geology) field study in Bermuda, Journalof Geological Education, v. 25, p. 66-69.

Purdom, W. B., Welton, R. E., and Wilson, R. D., 1990,Study of local radon occurrence as an interdisciplin-ary undergraduate research project, Journal of Geo-logical Education, v. 38, p. 428-433.

Tibbs, N. H., and Cwick, G. J., 1994, An equipment inten-sive field methods course in environmentalgeosciences, Journal of Geological Education, v. 42,p. 455-460.

Tobias, S., Chubin, D. E., and Aylesworth, K., 1995, Re-thinking Science as a Career, Perceptions and Real-ities in the Physical Sciences, Research Corporation,Tucson, AZ.

Vandervoort, K. G., Lesmerises, M. J., Shuler, K. C., and J.M. Spratt, J. M., 2002, Modeling the electrical resistiv-ity of the earth’s subsurface on paper, AmericanJournal of Physics, v. 70, p. 871-873.


integrating investigation across the geology and physics ... · pdf filein introductory...

Documents