Evaluating Student Engagement with Virtual Field Experiences as Standalone and Supplemental Activities in Geoscience Education

Summary of proposal

Many issues facing societies locally and globally stem from aspects of geosciences at the intersection with policy, security, and economics (e.g., accessibility to clean water, resource and energy extraction, and impacts of climate change). Effective learning about the interplay of geoscience on societies requires the application of specialized skills (Frodeman, 1995; Bjornerud, 2018). These typically require field-based learning activities to allow students to visualize (Kastens & Ishikawa, 2006), conceptualize time (Jeff Dodick & Orion, 2006), and understand Earth in terms of its complexities (Anderson, 2006) and systems (Herbert, 2006). Experiential field learning is integral to skills acquisition (Petcovic et al., 2014). Students have embodied, hands-on experiences, developing proficiency with inscription while becoming part of a community of practice (Mogk & Goodwin, 2012). However, in-person field trips present a number of logistical challenges, including cost, time and safety, and pose issues for accessibility. Students may have mobility constraints or anxieties about being in an unfamiliar, open environment. These challenges are exacerbated by increasingly larger class sizes, and smaller resource allotments (Eggers, 2019), and, more recently, the necessary shift to virtual instruction due to the pandemic.  

In geoscience and other disciplines across the social sciences (i.e. archaeology, anthropology, geography), instructors have turned to virtual field experiences (VFEs), to introduce concepts typically learned in the field. VFEs can incorporate a range of digital media from a collection of 2-D images, photomosaics, and field videos to 3-D computer models and tours within digital globes (e.g., Google Earth). Classroom implementations range from guided, and annotated points of interest to open-ended and fully interactive activities where students explore the virtual terrain and record their observations and interpretations at their own pace (Dolphin et al., 2019). Although VFEs offer a cost-effective and logistically simplified alternative to going into the field (Atchison, 2011; Litherland, & Stott, 2012), there has been very little investigation into the pedagogical efficacy of VFEs on student learning. As instructors incorporate VFEs into instruction as an inclusive teaching strategy, it is important to understand their affordances and limitations to maximize their effectiveness in teaching and learning.

This project will undertake an investigation of VFEs as supplement or enhancement of student learning from a discipline which has traditionally relied on ‘real-world’ field work. We aim to understand how students experience VFEs for conceptual development as (i) a standalone learning activity and (ii) in combination with traditional (in-person) field work of the same location. The study will require initial development of a VFE following the principles of Dolphin et al. (2019), specifically designed and programmed using videogame engines as described by Nesbit et al. (2020). The VFE will incorporate a drone-based, photorealistic, and scaled 3-D virtual outcrop model (VOM) of a site that is commonly used for in-person field trips in geoscience (Durkin et al., 2015).  

The study involves approximately 80 undergraduate students enrolled in a second-year geoscience course designed to introduce novices to field techniques and observations. Classes will be divided into two groups that will alternate completing learning activities using both (a) traditional ‘in-person’ field work and (b) VFE ‘simulated’ field work of the same area. The co-applicants will lead an MSc graduate research assistant (GRA), and oversee observation of undergraduate participant engagement, conceptual and skills development as a result of each individual learning activity.

This research is located at the overlap of education in the geosciences and cognitive sciences and can effectively influence both communities. It also comes at a time when geology departments are trying to find ways to enhance equity, diversity and inclusion within their programs. Results will help us understand the potential of simulated learning activities and processes of knowledge development to support a high-impact learning environment for all students.  

Roles and Responsibilities

The proposed project involves the collaborative efforts of team members with different areas of complementary expertise. The team is comprised of three applicants: Dr. Glenn Dolphin, Dr. Paul Nesbit, and Dr. Stephen Hubbard from the Department of Geoscience at the University of Calgary (U of C). Dr. Dolphin will serve as the principal investigator responsible for approximately 60% of tasks, specifically overseeing the entirety of the project from educational research design, analysis, and knowledge mobilization. Co-applicants Dr. Nesbit and Hubbard will each be responsible for roughly 20% of project tasks, primarily technological and field-based subject matter development, project design, and implementation with support in analysis and mobilization.  

Project responsibilities will be divided into two distinct phases relative to each team members’ expertise, including:

Phase I establishes VFE design, educational content, and approach (led by Drs. Dolphin and Nesbit with support from Dr. Hubbard).  

Phase II includes field and VFE implementation, observation, and analyses (primarily led by Drs. Dolphin and Hubbard with support from Dr. Nesbit).

Dr. Dolphin is the Tamaratt Teaching Professor in Geoscience at University of Calgary, with expertise in geoscience education research. Dr. Dolphin's research occurs at the intersection of geoscience and the cognitive sciences. He will oversee the design (Phase I) and implementation (Phase II) of the plan for inquiry into student (participant) learning while engaged with the VOMs and conventional fieldwork. Dolphin’s abundant experience with qualitative research makes him well-suited for this investigation. The MSc student researcher (hired through this funding) will collaborate and lead participant observation and data collection as a Graduate Research Assistant (GRA). Through his background and expertise in similar investigations, Dr. Dolphin will mentor and train the MSc student in making observations of student participants doing field work, and make notes of their conversations, gestures, and drawings. He will also train student participants in a think-aloud protocol (Cowan, 2017; Leighton, 2017; Someren et al., 1994). In this way, participants will be able to make their thinking and cognitive reasoning audible for the GRA and co-applicants to collect. Dr. Dolphin will use his experiences as a qualitative researcher to observe and take notes concerning student participants as they engage in both actual and virtual field experiences.  

Dr. Dolphin has managed multiple geoscience education research efforts, including several funded projects. These projects with total funding of $660K have primarily focussed in the areas of history and philosophy of geology, and cognitive linguistics. This grant represents the continuation of a shift toward a focus on visualizations and alternative teaching technologies, as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion. One funded project involved supervising a group of four undergraduate students researching and developing historical case studies for teaching geoscience concepts. (Dolphin et al. 2018). Another was a two-year linguistic analysis of geoscience textbooks to identify the metaphors used and then determining how those metaphors impacted student learning. Dr. Dolphin recently began to focus on the use of alternative approaches to teaching and learning using visualizations via a two-year, $40K initiative to produce 2-D and 3-D virtual outcrop models (VOMs) that are currently used in our introductory geoscience courses. A publication documenting the workflow for creating and implementing VFEs in an undergraduate laboratory setting (Dolphin et al., 2019) has been cited over 60 times since its publication. Currently Dr. Dolphin is primary investigator for a Natural Resources Canada project ($260K) where he is investigating education in the context of their forthcoming earthquake early warning system.

Dr. Nesbit is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Department of Geoscience at the University of Calgary with a focus on the collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination of high-resolution 3-D datasets for geosciences. His most recent work highlights methods for creating VOMs and the (unknown) potential for enhancing student geoscience education and public outreach in an accessible format (Nesbit et al., 2020). Dr. Nesbit is an early career researcher and educator who incorporates emerging user-friendly technologies into his teaching and has designed VOMs used in a number of geoscience courses and international conferences. Dr. Nesbit will oversee the development and design of VFEs (Phase I) implemented in this study and consult in overall project design and field implementation.  

Dr. Hubbard will be responsible for developing learning outcomes and content in VFEs (Phase I) and facilitating the field activities with student participants (Phase II). Dr. Hubbard is a geoscientist who applies sedimentary geology principles to answer a number of scientific problems, relating to the tectonic history of the planet, energy resource discovery and development, geo-hazards, and early hominid archaeology. He is globally recognized for his field-based research approach, with funded projects recently completed or ongoing in Canada, United States, Chile, and Tanzania. Aligned with his geological research, he has developed a passion for teaching geological principles to undergraduate and graduate students over the last decade with a strong focus on experiential and field-based learning. There has been a significant decline in enrollment of field-based teaching classes in the discipline, related to factors that include excessive costs and safety concerns, and also COVID restrictions on group activities over the past few years. In this application, we propose to test the effectiveness of incorporating field-experiences in the classroom by leveraging emerging technology. Developing 3-D models of outcrops using drone-based photogrammetry has been a strength of his research group, and he will use this expertise as the foundation of our VFE development.  

Dr. Hubbard has been an instructor of the 2nd-year course wherein this research will be implemented, having developed the learning outcomes that will form the basis of both the field- and classroom-based exercises. He will set the benchmarks of intended learning outcomes for the assessment tools that will measure the viability of VFEs as a supplement for field-based learning and lead the field component of the research program. Dr. Hubbard has extensive knowledge and direct experience leading research initiatives within the study area (Durkin et al., 2015; Nesbit et al., 2021), supervising a PhD dissertation (Durkin, 2015) detailing the geologic history and significance, and facilitating several departmental field trips of the proposed field site. Dr. Hubbard has also initiated recent efforts to develop VOMs within the proposed field area receiving a $10,000 Development and Innovation grant from the Taylor Institute at the University of Calgary to pursue initial efforts.

The MSc student hired through this grant will be an essential collaborator throughout the project. The student researcher will have strong interests in pedagogical research using new technologies, a background in the geosciences, and experience in various programming languages. The MSc student will work closely with Drs. Nesbit, Hubbard, and Dolphin in creation of the VFE (Phase I) and will work closely with Dr. Dolphin in the analysis and interpretation of qualitative observation data (Phase II). This will enable a diverse range of perspectives in scrutinizing and reporting results and provide important insights into student learning processes that will support educators developing experiential learning for disciplines that benefit from field work activities. This includes broad applicability within geosciences, but also in allied fields of geography and environmental sciences, and in areas such as archaeology, urban planning, and anthropology.

Roles and Training of Students

For this study, we will hire and mentor an MSc student who will use the project for their thesis research focussed on development and evaluation of VFEs for geoscience education. Dr. Dolphin will be their primary supervisor, with mentorship from Dr. Nesbit in technical and theoretical issues with VFEs and Dr. Hubbard in relevant geologic background.

Dr. Dolphin has supervised 8 graduate and undergraduate students as research assistants focused on qualitative methods in geoscience education research. Dr. Dolphin places great value on authentic research experiences for students. He has mentored multiple students in qualitative data collection and analysis. Student RAs have also been heavily involved in communicating results through multiple conference presentations and contributing to published manuscript development. Dr. Hubbard has supervised 31 graduate students, 7 post-doctoral fellows, and 37 undergraduate student research projects to date. The majority of his highly qualified personnel (HQP) incorporate fieldwork in their research, and as such, he has vast experience designing field-based research projects and guiding students to their successful completion. The development and/or interpretation of VFEs has been a recent focus of numerous HQP projects (n = 13), complementing Dr. Hubbard’s extensive experience in leading in-person field trips around the world (e.g., Fildani et al., 2009; Hubbard & Bain, 2015; Durkin & Hubbard, 2017). Dr. Nesbit recently completed his Ph.D. (July 2020) and has mentored students throughout his studies. Dr. Nesbit has experience leading undergraduate research projects (n = 20) as a Graduate Assistant for a National Science Foundation funded Research Experience for Undergraduates in the United States (NSF-REU, award #1005258) and has co-supervised 5 undergraduate honours theses focused on digital interpretation, research, and knowledge development from VOMs.

The MSc student will work closely with Dr. Dolphin collecting and analyzing data. They will be trained to observe participants as they engage in in-person field activities, keeping track of where they go, what they look at, what they say to each other, and what body gestures the participants make as they formulate their mental models of the outcrop. This is an opportunity for the MSc student to witness learning first-hand. This can help them in the future when reflecting on their own learning or that of possible future students.

We will train undergraduate student participants to make their thinking visible (or audible) by engaging in think aloud protocol (Cowan, 2017). Participants will verbalize their thinking as it happens during both the field and the virtual field activities, a proxy for their mental model building. The GRA, as participant observer, will take notes of students thinking aloud, audio record discourse, and ask some probing questions for clarity of student thinking. We will transcribe the audio recordings and then code the transcripts for different student learning strategies. Though the think aloud protocol does not give perfect recreation of the thought processes experienced by the participant, it makes recently developed knowledge immediately accessible as verbal data (Erichsson & Simon, 1993). Recording thinking “as it is happening” is important because reflecting on one’s reasoning after the fact usually lacks the details of “being in the moment” (Erichsson & Simon, 1980) and is rationalized in hindsight to be much more linear (Rugg, 2006).  

Knowledge Mobilization Plan

Results from this pointed study are expected to inform instructional design for educators in geosciences, researchers in geoscience education, and has implications for scientific communication and outreach to the broader public. This is especially timely as many colleges and universities switched to virtual field experiences or completely cancelled field schools as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We will communicate our results to these target audiences at various venues. We will present our experiences and results at local and international conferences, including both the Geological Society of America and the American Geophysical Union, which have well-renowned geoscience education technical sessions. We also plan to publish multiple articles detailing the methods and results of the investigation in peer-reviewed education-focused journals, such as the Journal of Geoscience Education, as well as more broad-scoped journals, such as Geology. The VOMs will be included as open-source supplementary materials such that can be adapted by other geoscience educators around the world.

There are multiple venues for knowledge mobilization across the University of Calgary and within the Department of Geosciences, including a course which focusses directly on visualization. Within the faculties of Science and Arts, there are numerous courses that are field-based (physical geography, archaeology, ecology, and assorted biology courses) that could also benefit from the knowledge resulting from our investigations. Through numerous department- and faculty-level colloquia, we will share our results and recommendations. Finally, we would approach local education centres (e.g., Museums, Geoheritage sites) to offer development of VOMs as an educational tool (or display) for a broader audience. VOMs can be developed without the need for special hardware or software (beyond a standard computer), making it very convenient to share with others at such venues.

Expected Scholarly Outcomes

Improved curriculum. Results from this study will provide a more complete understanding of student learning from VFEs as a standalone activity and as a supplement to in-person field experiences. This will enable continual growth and adaptation of course content and teaching methods to best support undergraduate inclusion and education. In addition, this project will give us a blueprint for developing and implementing VFEs for this and other courses in the future.  

Enhanced theory. By observing students’ conceptual development doing field work, and virtual field work, we will come to better understand the learning process, as well as the affordances and limitations of VOMs and can therefore design other experiential learning experiences to be more effective.  

Students skills development. By learning the think aloud protocol and paying attention to their own thinking as it is happening, student participants will develop better awareness and control over their own learning.  

Enhanced professional practice. Students will gain valuable learning experiences using software and visualizations that are current and commonplace in industry. Familiarity with these technologies will give advantage to students in an already competitive job market.

Expected Societal Benefits

Collaborations and partnerships. We will be collaborating with researchers and students across geoscience, geography, computer science, and education. These cross-disciplinary activities are not very frequent and are fertile grounds for knowledge creation.  

Strategy of inclusion. By their nature, VFEs are inclusive of students who traditionally might not have access to the field. Giving access to differently-abled students will afford participation and learning in a discipline where just decades ago, these opportunities did not exist.

Open science communication. VFEs allow access and communication of complex scientific challenges to the broader public through user-friendly formats that do not require travel to the field or specialized computer skills.

Benefits to Potential Target Audiences

Post-secondary students. Creation and implementation of VFEs in this and other science courses will give students experiences to enhance their conceptual and technological learning. Conceptually, they will integrate actual field work and virtual field work for enhancing their understanding of geological processes. Technologically, they will benefit from experiences with cutting edge software and hardware that is becoming commonplace in the industries within which many of these students will be seeking employment.  

Academic sector/peers. With fewer resources, emphasis on inclusion and rapidly developing technology, a VOM is a natural “go-to” product. Having VOMs freely available benefits the geoscience community as a whole. Reporting on the process and pitfalls of creating and implementing VFEs will inform those who might wish to make their own for local areas of interest.  

Public outreach. Due to ease of sharing, VOMs could be used in museums and other accessible venues for public scientific outreach.

‍

Anderson, D. (2006). Plate tectonics; the general theory: Complex earth is simpler than you think. In C. A. Manduca, D. W. Mogk, & A. Geological Society of (Eds.), Earth and mind: how geologists think and learn about the earth. Special paper 413 (Vol. 413, pp. 29-38). Boulder, Colo.: Geological Society of America.

Arrowsmith, C., Counihan, A., & McGreevy, D. (2005). Development of a multi-scaled virtual field trip for the teaching and learning of geospatial science. International Journal of Education & Development using Information & CommunicationTechnology 1(3), 42-56.  

Atchison, C., & Feig, A. (2011). Theoretical perspectives on constructing experience through alternative field-based learning environments for students with mobility impairmants. In A. Feig & A. Stokes (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in geoscience education research (pp. 11-22). Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America.

Atchison, C. L. (2011). The Significance of Access: Students with Mobility Impairments Constructing Geoscience Knowledge Through Field-Based Learning Experiences. (Ph.D. 3476983). The Ohio State University, United States.  

Ault, C. R., Jr., & Dodick, J. (2010). Tracking the Footprints Puzzle: The problematic persistence of science-as-process in teaching the nature and culture of science. Science Education, 94(6), 1092.  

Bailey, J., Whitmeyer, S., & DePoar, D. (2012). Introduction: The application of google geo tools to geoscience education and research. In S. J. Whitmeyer, J. o. E. Bailey, D. G. De Paor, & T. Ornduff (Eds.), Google Earth and Virtual Visualizations in Geoscience Education and Research (Vol. 492, pp. vii-xix). Denver, CO: Geological Society of America.

Baker, K., M., Johnson, A. C., Callahan, C. N., & Petcovic, H. L. (2016). Use of cartographic images by expert and novice field geologists in planning fieldwork routes. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 43(2).  

Baker, K. M., Petcovic, H., Wisniewska, M., & Libarkin, J. (2012). Spatial signatures of mapping expertise among field geologists. Cartography and Geographic Informations Science, 39(3), 119-132.  

Barstow, D., & Geary, E. (2002). Blueprint for change: Report from the national conference on the revolution in earth and space science education. In. Cambridge, MA: TERC. Retrieved from http://www.earthscienceedrevolution.org/ 5 September 2011.

Bilke, L. et al., 2014, TESSIN VISLab—laboratory for scientific visualization. Environmental Earth Sciences, 72, 3881–3899. doi:10.1007/s12665-014-3785-5.

Bjornerud, M. (2018). Timefulness: How thinking like a geologist can help save the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Boulter, C., & Buckley, B. (2000). constructing a typology of models for science education. In J. Gilbert & C. Boulter (Eds.), developing models in science education (pp. 41-58). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic publishing.

Boutsi, A., Ioannidis, C., and Soile, S., (2019). Interactive online visualization of complex 3D geometries. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLII-2/W9, 6–8.

Boyle, A., Maguire, S., Martin, A., Milsom, C., Nash, R., . . . Conchie, S. (2007). Fieldwork is good: The student perception and the affective domain. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31(2), 299-317.  

Budd, D. A., van der Hoeven Kraft, K. J., McConnell, D. A., & Vislova, T. (2013). Characterizing teaching in introductory geology courses: Measuring classroom practices. Journal of Geoscience Education, 61(4), 461-475.  

Bussey, T. J., Orgill, M., & Crippen, K. J. (2013). Variation theory: A theory of learning and a useful theoretical framework for chemical education research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(9), 9-22. doi:10.1039/c2rp20145c

Çaliskan, O. (2011). Virtual field trips in education of earth and environmental sciences. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3239-3243.  

Carrivick, J.L., Smith, M.W., and Quincey, D.J., 2016, Structure from motion in the geosciences: Oxford, UK, Wiley-Blackwell.

Cervato, C., & Frodeman, R. (2012). The significance of geologic time: Cultural, educational, and economic frameworks. In K. A. Kastens & C. A. Manduca (Eds.), Earth and mind II: A synthesis of research on thinking and learning in the geosciences (pp. 19–29). Denver, CO: The Geological Society of America.

Cheek, K. (2010). Commentary: A summary and analysis of twenty-seven years of geoscience conceptions in research. Journal of Geoscience Education, 58(3), 122–134.  

Chesley, J.T.T.T., Leier, A.L.L.L., White, S., and Torres, R., (2017). Using unmanned aerial vehicles and structure-from-motion photogrammetry to characterize sedimentary outcrops: An example from the Morrison Formation, Utah, USA: Sedimentary Geology, 354, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2017.03.013.

Clary, R. M., & Wandersee, J. H. (2010). Virtual field exercises in the online classroom: Practicing science teachers’ perceptions of effectiveness, best practices, and implementation. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(4), 50-58.  

Cleland, C. E. (2013). Common cause explanation and the search for smoking gun. In V. R. Baker (Ed.), Rethinking the fabric of geology: Geologic Society of America Special Paper 502 (pp. 1–9). Denver, CO: Geologic Society of America.

Clement, J. J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordercht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Cowan, J. (2017). The potential of think aloud protocols for educational action research. Active Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 219–232.

Dodick, J., & Argamon, S. (2006). Rediscovering the historical methodology of the earth sciences by analyzing scientific communication styles. In C. A. Manduca & D. W. Mogk (Eds.), Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413 (pp. 77-93). Denver, CO: Geological Society of America.

Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2006). Building an understanding of geologic time: A cognitive synthesis of the "macro" and "micro" scales of time. In C. A. Manduca & D. W. Mogk (Eds.), Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413 (pp. 77-93). Denver, CO: Geological Society of America.

Dolphin, G., & Benoit, W. (2016). Students' mental model development during historically contextualized inquiry: How the 'tectonic plate' metaphor impeded the process. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 276–297.  

Dolphin, G., Benoit, W., Burylo, J., Hurst, E., Petryshen, W., & Wiebe, S. (2018). Braiding history, inquiry, and model-based learning: A collection of open-source historical case studies for teaching both geology content and the nature of science. Journal of Geoscience Education, 66(3), 205-220. doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2018.1475821

Dolphin, G., Dutchak, A., Karchewski, B., & Cooper, J. (2019). Virtual field experiences in introductory geology: Addressing a capacity problem, but finding a pedagogical one. Journal of Geoscience Education. doi:10.1080/10899995.2018.1547034

Drummond, C. N., & Markin, J. M. (2008). An analysis of the Bachelor of Science geology degree as offered in the United States. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56(2), 113-119.  

Durkin, P.R., & Hubbard, S.M. (2017). Evolution of Cretaceous fluvial meander-belt deposits in outcrop, Dinosaur Provincial Park: International Conference on Fluvial Sedimentology, Field Trip Guidebook, 72 p.

Eggers, A., E. (2019). The field as touchstone. Journal of Geoscience Education, 67(2), 97–99.  

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215–251.  

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fildani, A., Hubbard, S.M., & Romans, B.W. (2009). Stratigraphic evolution of deep-water architecture: examples of controls and depositional styles from the Magallanes Basin, Chile: Society for Sedimentary Geology, Field Trip Guidebook 10, 79 p.

Fletcher, S., France, D., Moore, K., & Robinson, G. (2002). Fieldwork education and technology: A GEES perspective. Planet, 7(1), 17-19.  

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.:  

Frodeman, R. (1995). Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 107, 960–968.  

Frodeman, R. (2013). The geoscience, climate change and the virtues of ignorance. In V. R. Baker (Ed.), Rethinking the fabric of geology: Special paper 502 (pp. 145–152). Denver, CO: Geological Society of America.

Gates, A. E., McNeal, K., Riggs, E., Sullivan, S., & Dalbotten, D. (2019). New developments in diversity and inclusiveness in geosciences. Journal of Geoscience Education, 67(4), 285–286.  

Gilbert, S., & Watt Ireton, S. (2003). Understanding models in earth and space science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Gilley, B., Atchison, C., Feig, A., & Stokes, A. (2015). Impact of inclusive field trips. Nature Geoscience, 8, 579-580.  

Gobert, J. D. (2005). The Effects of Different learning Tasks on Model-building in Plate Tectonics: Diagramming Versus Explaining. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 444-455.  

Hambrick, D. Z., Libarkin, J. C., Petcovic, H. L., Baker, K. M., Elkins, J., Callahan, C. N., . . . Ladue, N. D. (2012). A test of the circumvention-of-limits hypothesis in scientific problem solving: The case of geological bedrock mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 397-403.  

Herbert, B. (2006). Student understanding of copmplex earth systems. Special Paper 413. In C. A. Manduca & D. W. Mogk (Eds.), Earth and mind: How geologists think and learn about the earth (pp. 95-104). Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America.

Hoffman, M., & Barstow, D. (2007). Revolutionizing earth system science education for the 21st century: Report and recommendations from a 50- state analysis of earth science education. In. Cambridge, MA: TERC.

Hubbard, S.M., & Bain, H.A. (2015). A long-lived submarine canyon-channel system, Late Cretaceous Nanaimo Group, Hornby and Denman islands, BC: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Student Chapters Fieldtrip, 33p.

Hurst, S. D. (1998). Use of “virtual” field trips in teaching introductory geology. Computers and Geosciences, 24(7), 653-658.  

Hutchins, E., & Renner, N. (2012). Situated and embodied learning in the field. In K. A. Kastens & C. A. Manduca (Eds.), Earth and Mind II: A Synthesis on Research on Thinking and Learning in the Geosciences: Geological Society of America Special Paper 486. (Vol. 2, pp. 181-182). Denver, CO: Geological Society of America.

Jacobson, A. R., Militello, R., & Baveye, P. C. (2009). Development of computer-assisted virtual field trips to support multidisciplinary learning. Computers & Education, 52(3), 571-580.  

Jee, B. D., Uttal, D. H., Gentner, D., Manduca, C., Shipley, T. F., Tikoff, B., . . . Sageman, B. (2010). Commentary: Analogical thinking in geoscience education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 58(1), 2-13.  

Johnson, J. K., & Reynolds, S. J. (2005). Concept Sketches - Using Student- and Instructor-generated, Annotated Sketches for Learning, Teaching, and Assessment in Geology Courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 85-95.  

Kali, Y., & Orion, N. (1996). Relationship between Earth sincere education and spatial visualization. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 369-391.  

Kastens, K. A., & Ishikawa, T. (2006). Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences: A cross-disciplinary look at the intersection of the two fields. Special papers(413), 53-76.  

King, C. (2008). Geoscience education: an overview. Studies in Science Education, 44(2), 187-222.  

King, C. (2013). Third international geoscience education survey - 2012 with 2013 updates. Retrieved from International Geoscience Education Organisation:  

Kump, L. R., Kasting, J. F., & Crane, R. G. (2010). The earth system (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

LaDue, N. D., & Shipley, T. F. (2018). Click-on-diagram questions: A new tool to study conceptions using classroom response systems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(6), 492-507.  

Leighton, J. P. (2017). Using think-aloud interviews and cognitive labs in educational research. Oxford University Press.  

Li, S., & Liu, Q. (2003). Interactive groundwater (IGW): An innovative digital laboratory for groundwater education and research. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 11(4), 179-202.  

Liben, L. S., & Titus, S. J. (2012). The importance of spatial thinking for geoscience education: Insights from the crossroads of geoscience and cognitive science. In K. A. Kastens & C. A. Manduca (Eds.), Earth an Mind II: A Synthesis of Research on Thinking and Learning in the Geosciences: Geological Society of America Special Paper 486 (pp. 51-70). Denver, CO: Geological Society of America.

Litherland, K., & Stott, T. A. (2012). Virtual field sites: Losses and gains in authenticity with semantic technologies. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(2), 213-230.  

Macdonald, H., Manduca, C. A., Mogk, D. W., & Tewksbury, B. J. (2005). Teaching methods in undergraduate geoscience courses: Results of the 2004 On the Cutting Edge Survey of U.S. Faculty. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(3), 237-252.  

Martinez-Rubi, O., de Kleijn, M., Verhoeven, S., Drost, N., Attema, J., van Meersbergen, M., van Nieuwpoort, R., de Hond, R., Dias, E., and Svetachov, P., (2016), Using modular 3D digital earth applications based on point clouds for the study of complex sites. International Journal of Digital Earth, 9, 1135–1152. doi:10.1080/17538947.2016.1205673.

Mogk, D. W., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Learning in the field: Synthesis of research on thinking and learning in the geosciences. In K. A. Kastens & C. A. Manduca (Eds.), Earth and Mind II: A Synthesis of Research on Thinking and Learning in the Geosciences (Vol. 2, pp. 131-164). Denver, CO: Geological Society of America.

Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 1-19.  

Nesbit, P.R., Durkin, P.R., Hugenholtz, C.H., Hubbard, S.M. and Kucharczyk, M. 2018. 3-D stratigraphic mapping using a digital outcrop model derived from UAV images and structure-from-motion photogrammetry. Geosphere, 14(6), pp.2469-2486. doi:10.1130/GES01688.1.

Nesbit, P.R., and Hugenholtz, C.H., (2019). Enhancing UAV-SfM 3D model accuracy in high-relief landscapes by incorporating oblique images. Remote Sensing, 11. doi:10.3390/rs11030239.

Nesbit, P.R., Boulding, A.D., Hugenholtz, C.H., Durking, P.R., and Hubbard, S.M. (2020). Visualization and sharing of 3D digital outcrop models to promote open science: GSA Today, 30, 4-10. doi:10.1130/GSATG425A.1.

Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory-guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding. Science Education, 96(5), 849–877.  

Nieminski, N.M., and Graham, S.A., 2017, Modeling stratigraphic architecture using small unmanned aerial vehicles and photogrammetry: Examples from the Miocene East Coast Basin, New Zealand. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 87, 126–132 doi:10.2110/jsr.2017.5.

Nuhfer, E. (2007). Developing science literacy using interactive engagements for conceptual undertanding of change through time. Journal of Geoscience Education, 55(1), 36.  

Núñez-Oviedo, M., & Clement, J. (2008). A competition strategy and other modes for developing mental models in large group discussion. In J. Clement & M. A. Rae-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (Vol. 2, pp. 117–138). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Ornek, F. (2008). An overview of a theoretical framework of phenomenography in qualitative education research: An example from physics education research. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 1-14.  

Pavlis, T.L., and Mason, K.A., (2017). The new world of 3D geologic mapping: GSA Today, 27, 4–10. doi:10.1130/GSATG313A.1.

Pessoa, L. (2008). On the relationship between emotion and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 148–158.  

Petcovic, H. L., Stokes, A., & Caulkins, J. L. (2014). Geoscientists' perceptions of the value of undergraduate field education. GSA Today, 24(7), 4-10.  

Rankey, E., & Ruzek, M. (2006). Symphony of the Spheres: Perspectives on Earth System Science Education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54(3), 197.  

Rudwick, M. J. S. (2014). Earth's deep history: How it was discovered and why it matters. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Rugg G (2006) Reports. Available at: http://www.scm.keele.ac.uk/research/knowledge_modelling/km/Blogs/reports.php (accessed 25 January 2020).

Smith, M.W., Carrivick, J.L., and Quincey, D.J., (2015). Structure from motion photogrammetry in physical geography. Progress in Physical Geography, 40, 247–275, doi:10.1177/0309133315615805.

Someren, M. W. v., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. (1994). The think aloud method : a practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. Academic Press.

Stainfield, J., Fisher, P., Ford, B., & Solem, M. (2000). International virtual field trips: A new direction? Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24(2), 255-262.  

Stokes, A. (2011). A phenomenographic approach to investigating students' conceptions of geoscience as an academic discipline. In A. Feig & A. Stokes (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in geoscience education research. Special Paper 474 (pp. 23-36). Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America.

Stott, T., & Nuttall, A. (2010). Design, development and student evaluation of interactive virtual field guides for teaching geosciences at Liverpool John Moores University, UK. Paper presented at the Tunku Abdul Rahman TAR) College Second International Conference on Learning and teaching (TIC2010), Emerging

Stumpf, R. J., Douglass, J., & Dorn, R. I. (2008). Learning desert geomorphology virtually versus in the field. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(3), 378-399.  

Taber, K. S. (2003). Mediating mental models of metals: Acknowledging the priority of the learner's prior learning. Science Education, 87(5), 732-758.  

Tavani, S., Granado, P., Corradetti, A., Girundo, M., Iannace, A., Arbués, P., Muñoz, J.A., Mazzoli, S., Munoz, J.A., and Mazzoli, S., (2014). Building a virtual outcrop, extracting geological information from it, and sharing the results in Google Earth via OpenPlot and Photoscan: An example from the Khaviz Anticline (Iran): Computers and Geosciences, 63, 44–53. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2013.10.013.

Trends in Higher Education Learning and Teaching, Kuala Lampur.  

Turcotte, D. L. (2006). Modeling geocomplexity: "A new kind of science". In C. A. Manduca & D. W. Mogk (Eds.), Earth and mind: How geologists think and learn about the earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413 (pp. 39-50). Denver, CO: Geological Society of America.

Turner, D. (2013). Hisotrical geology: Methodology and metaphysics. In V. R. Baker (Ed.), Rethinking the fabric of geology: Geological Society of America Special Paper 502 (pp. 11-18). Denver, CO: Geological Society of America.

Whitehead, K., and Hugenholtz, C.H., (2014). Remote sensing of the environment with small unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), part 1: A review of progress and challenges: Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems, 2, 1–17, doi:10.1139/juvs-2014-0007.