Journal of Geoscience Education

ISSN: 1089-9995 (Print) 2158-1428 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujge20

Virtual field experiences in introductory geology: Addressing

a capacity problem, but finding a
pedagogical one

Glenn Dolphin, Alex Dutchak, Brandon Karchewski & Jon Cooper

To cite this article: Glenn Dolphin, Alex Dutchak, Brandon Karchewski & Jon Cooper
(2019) Virtual field experiences in introductory geology: Addressing a capacity problem,
but finding a pedagogical one, Journal of Geoscience Education, 67:2, 114-130, DOI:
10.1080/10899995.2018.1547034
To link to this article:

https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2018.1547034

© 2018 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor and Francis Group, LLCView supplementary material

Published online: 17 Jan 2019. Article views: 2191

Submit your article to this journal View related articles

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?
journalCode=ujge20
JOURNAL OF GEOSCIENCE EDUCATION
2019, VOL. 67, NO. 2, 114–130
https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2018.1547034

Virtual field experiences in introductory geology: Addressing a capacity

problem, but finding a pedagogical one
Glenn Dolphina , Alex Dutchaka, Brandon Karchewskia , and Jon Cooperb
a
Department of Geoscience, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada; bDepartment of
Geography, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada

ABSTRACT
Recent literature has demonstrated the importance of fieldwork in
Introduction
geology. However, as resources become scarce, field experiences From the earliest days of geology, investigating the
are often targeted for cuts. This was the case at the University of
Calgary when massive enrollments placed a tremendous burden on processes on Earth happened largely in the field. In fact,
resour ces. In courses throughout, field trips and other excursions field observations have played a role in many of the “big
were eliminated, making it so students do not have any field ideas” concerning how we understand Earth—from the
experiences until their third year. In response, we have developed
three virtual field experiences (VFEs) of geologically relevant designation of eons, periods, and epochs of the geologic
locations near Calgary. A burgeoning technology, VFEs offer time scale (Rudwick, 1985), to the historical nature of
advantages of convenience and versatility when compared to actual Earth (Cutler, 2003; Rudwick, 2014), to the idea of deep
field trips. Our VFEs comprise drone-captured images used to form
high-resolution 2-D photomosaics and 3-D computer models. We time (Repcheck, 2003; S¸engor, € 2001), and finally to
piloted one VFE in an introductory geology course. We wanted to the development of a consensus view concerning the
understand how students engaged with the models so that we could dynamics of Earth: the theory of plate tectonics (Frankel,
make the VFE as effective as possible. Observing student engage 2012; Glen, 1982; Oreskes, 1999; Oreskes & LeGrand,
ment over two iterations allowed us to make changes to the activity.
We found that stu dents had difficulties with the VFE’s open 2001). Furthermore, some evidence supports that
endedness. They also demonstrated difficulty with the relationship students learn more effectively about Earth through
between observations and inferences. This is indicative of a broader engaging
issue with how geology (or science in general) is taught. Traditional
instruction in geology places great emphasis on the “what” of in fieldwork (Elkins & Elkins, 2007). More recently,
geology as opposed to the “how.” We contend that teach ing geology
with more emphasis on how geology works will help students although much investigation takes place in the lab, it is
develop a better understanding of the relationship between inference typical for queries to end in students heading back out
and observation, enhancing their field work and their understanding into the field to collect samples, test predictions, develop
of science. initial interpretations, or garner more evi dence to
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 22 March 2018 Revised 21 August 2018 and 07 November 2018 support an earlier interpretation. According to most
Accepted 08 November 2018 Published 17 January 2019
geologists, “the field” is an indispensable part of teaching
KEYWORDS and learning in the discipline of geology (Petcovic,
Virtual field experiences; geology; computer modeled landscapes; drone Stokes, & Caulkins, 2014). Mogk and Goodwin (2012)
photography
summarized that fieldwork helps stu dents learn how
geology is done through embodied experiences, develop
inscriptions—artifacts of the data collection and
management derived from fieldwork— and get socialized
into the community of practic ing geologists.

CONTACT Glenn Dolphin glenn.dolphin@ucalgary.ca Department of Geoscience, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB
T2N 1N4, Canada.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ujge.
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.
2018 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by nc-nd/4.0/), which permits noncommercial reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

It makes sense within such a learning context that traditionally a multiweek course involving a small class of
geoscience departments maintain, as a staple of their students (20 to 40) who travel to areas of geologic
programs, at least one and often multiple field courses or interest to spend time observing and ideally interpreting
field schools (Drummond & Markin, 2008). Field school is geologic features, usually by devel oping maps with
associated cross-sections. It is an indispensable part of a are intended to help novice students begin to develop
student’s socialization into the community of some process skills that are emphasized in field school
geoscientists. Short, class-based field excursions also while also encouraging upper-level stu dents to further
typify geoscience programs, in which the instructor might practice such skills as making inferen tial claims based
take a class on a multistop trip, from a few hours to a on data and reaching some understandings of general
couple of days, to see aspects of the local geology content material. Our goal with this article is to describe
pertinent to the course work. This supplementary work our process in imple menting a new teaching tool by
helps students have embodied and situated experiences observing student interactions with that tool and revising
(Hutchins & Renner, 2012) and develop visual-spatial and reimple menting it in light of those observations.
skills (Hutchins & Renner, 2012; Kastens & Ishikawa, Specifically, we wanted to answer these questions: How
2006) important for doing geology. A geophysics class do intro ductory geology students approach and manage
may also incorporate lab or field-based activities using a the tasks of the VFE? And what are the implications of
particular instrument (e.g., radar, gravimeter) to measure these data for future iterations of VFE implementa tion?
variations in material properties, and then discuss We will also make some guiding generalizations based
potential limita tions in the measurements that aid on those observations.
interpretations of the data. With both types of activities,
developing that capacity to make logical conclusions that
Review of the literature
flow from the available data is a key focus of the learn
ing experience. In tandem with the rapidly developing digital technol ogy
Taking a group of students on a trip away from their useful for scientific inquiry is the growing popu larity of
college or university campus presents many chal lenges, virtual field experiences or virtual field trips. Many
however; so much so that in some cases these peak software programs have been generated for cre ating
learning opportunities are out of reach. Challenges digital images: ArcGIS, Google Earth, and Prezi, among
include the logistics of finding time to spend out in the others, are being used as platforms for housing this
field, transporting students from the campus to the field, digital data.1 This has allowed many instructors to create
and creating an experience that maximizes achievement such activities for their students; further, many different
of course learning goals while not becoming an event kinds of VFEs exist. Some are highly structured, with a
that students perceive as sim ply time away from specific sequence of designated “stops” at each site,
academic learning. Another hur dle can be as mundane along with text describing the geology of that particular
as class sizes. As an example, over the past decade our location. Others allow stu dents the freedom to process
introductory geology course has climbed from about 100 data derived from loca tions of interest within the data at
students in its first year of 2007 to just over 400 students their own pace and inclination. The VFEs our group
in 2017, with a peak of over 500 students in 2013. With designed are consid erably more open ended, with few
this increased stu dent load, maintaining quality learning designations of points of interest to attract students’
experiences for students has placed undue stress on the attention.
depart ment’s resources, with the unfortunate casualty
being class field trips. Taking 500 students out to a road- 1
For an extensive list of programs that lend themselves nicely to the
development of virtuality, go to http://virtualfieldwork.org/CZO/VFEtools_
cut and expecting useful learning to occur is tech_CZ.html.
unreasonable (apart from the obvious transportation, 116 G. DOLPHIN ET AL.
resources, and safety considerations for such a large
group). Thus, geology students in our department do not Instead, they actually display the data en masse. This
get an actual field experience until they start their third affords students the freedom to pan and zoom where
year, they wish as they try to make sense of the data, as if
JOURNAL OF GEOSCIENCE EDUCATION 67, 114–130 (2019) 115
they had been left in the field with limited back ground
information about the area (e.g., topographic maps,
when they take the mandatory field school that has also surface geology maps, or rock samples) and they had to
been altered to accommodate the burgeoning stu dent explore and interpret it themselves. Although VFEs have
numbers. This article discusses one viable way to fill this become more prevalent in instruction, few researchers
gap: virtual field experiences (VFEs). have studied their efficacy. Most of the published
VFEs are the result of collecting, curating, compil ing, information about VFEs focuses on rationales for
and processing visual data from a geologic loca tion of instituting such activities in class, as well as accounts of
interest, and provide the means to augment students’ the advantages and disad vantages of incorporating
field experiences within the confines of the allotted VFEs in instruction.
resources. In the introductory geology course, we
created a number of VFEs that were integrated into
students’ scheduled lab time. The design of the VFEs What the VFEs afford
allows students to explore a location and use the image
There are many reasons why instructors have chosen to
data to help answer questions posed by the lab. VFEs
create and implement VFEs in their courses. With ever structure, the VFE could be a source of greater
tightening budgets, many have seen the VFE as a way engagement for students. Nonetheless, as with any
to avoid the cost of field excursions (Jacobson, Militello, model, some authors using VFEs in instruction have
& Baveye, 2009; Litherland & Stott, 2012). Also, increas pointed out some significant limitations.
ingly, educators are aware of creating a more inclusive
classroom environment. Fieldwork, by its nature, can
The limitations of VFEs
pose obstacles to some, especially those with mobility
constraints. Thus, the VFE can be a way to level the The literature reveals only a few reported limitations to
field, so to speak, for those who would otherwise have consider when implementing VFE-type activities in class.
trouble navigating it (Atchison, 2011; Stainfield, Fisher, The predominant concern is that VFE activities cannot
Ford, & Solem, 2000). Boyle et al. (2007) and Litherland reproduce the collaborative/social interactions that would
and Stott (2012) also pointed out that the predictable occur in the field (Bailey et al., 2012; C¸aliskan, 2011;
classroom location of the VFE activities can mitigate the Stumpf, Douglass, & Dorn, 2008), and thus instructors
anxiety some students (especially novices) feel about need to be explicit about emphasizing teamwork
investigating in the field. These various factors therefore (Arrowsmith et al., 2005). The second noted limitation is
can open up the number of students who actually par that the VFE is not able to reproduce other actual
ticipate in the VFE, which in turn increases the intellec sensations that students would experience in the field—
tual talent involved in the investigation (Gilley, Atchison, for example, smells, sounds, and the sensation of the
Feig, & Stokes, 2015). body in that particular space (Hurst, 1998). These types
Not only does the incorporation of the VFEs into of experiences are rarely given much consideration, but
course instruction help increase accessibility for stu recent investigations into the embodied nature of the
dents in lieu of actual fieldwork, they can also use it to mind (Clark, 2011; Hutchins & Renner, 2012; Lakoff &
supplement fieldwork that does take place within the Johnson, 1999; Shapiro, 2011) tell us that a great deal of
course (Litherland & Stott, 2012; Peat & Taylor, 2005). student thinking and learning takes place through modes
Hesthammer and colleagues (2002) found that VFEs other than just the visual.
helped to give students an overview of the field work to As the previous section demonstrates, incorporating
be done. Others have found that VFEs are also useful in VFEs into instruction has several benefits for students;
providing previews and reviews of field work (C¸aliskan, however, we still know little about how the learning that
2011), and they can give structure to postfieldwork takes place when students engage in such activ ities
activities (Bentley, 2014). compares to that which takes place during real field
Whether VFEs are used to supplement fieldwork or to activities. Litherland and Stott (2012) reported increased
fill the need for fieldwork, many instructors have participation in classes when VFEs were
expressed the advantages of incorporating this type of
instructional strategy into their courses. For instance,
students have a great deal more freedom to explore implemented, and Clary and Wandersee (2010) noted
that students self-reported that VFEs had enhanced their
learning of the course work. When actually measuring
with a VFE than with traditional fieldwork. They can work knowledge gains, Stumpf et al. (2008) found these to be
at their own pace (Arrowsmith, Counihan, & McGreevy, similar between virtual and actual field experiences,
2005; Fletcher, France, Moore, & Robinson, 2002), whereas Stott and Nuttall (2010) reported that students
revisit locations as often as necessary (Hurst, 1998), and did not develop better under standings after a VFE than
manage their time better, as there are fewer time they did through actual fieldwork. Given the limited
constraints and more overall flexibility. In addition, research to date on VFEs, these findings are promising,
physical barriers in the field no longer present as they suggest that the use of virtual fieldwork—in place
impediments (Arrowsmith et al., 2005). Other logistical of actual fieldwork—achieves at least similar learning
barriers—such as poor weather conditions, access to outcomes.
food, transportation issues, and directions to the site—
also become nonissues with the VFE. Finally, the
Our theoretical framework for VFE development
versatility of the models helps students develop a better
idea of scale (Bailey, Whitmeyer, & DePoar, 2012), as According to the National Research Council (2006, p.
well as giving them opportunities to develop 195), the goals of laboratory experiences (this could be
understanding of the physical processes occurring within in lab or field experiences) are multifaceted. These
the context of the VFE (Li & Liu, 2003). include:
We want to point out that experiences in the field are
superior for students compared to experiences with the enhancing mastery of subject matter,
VFEs. The VFE is a reasonable alternative when developing scientific reasoning,
resources are otherwise strained. Also, due its novelty in understanding the complexity and ambiguity of
 empirical work,
developing practical skills understanding the nature of
science,
cultivating interest in science and in learning sci ence,
and
developing teamwork abilities.
In general, we wanted to create an activity that
addressed as many skills associated with fieldwork as
possible (e.g., Mogk & Goodwin, 2012), with the
understanding that although we might not be able to
address all of these skills, our activity would be an
improvement relative to the current student experi ence.
Skills we considered transferrable to the VFE platform
included the iterative or hermeneutic analysis and
interpretation of data, temporal and spatial visual ization
(being able to see what a geologist sees), and working in
a community of geoscientists.
As Frodeman (1995) described, geology is a histor ical
and interpretive science. Geologists observe the
environment, record observations from the rocks or
landscape, and interpret them in the process of con
structing a history responsible for those observed phe
nomena. Part of our motivation was to provide this
experience to students without needing to enter the field.
The VFE allows students to explore the terrain at various
scales and offers some structural compo nents, allowing
for the interpretation and development of a geologic story
for the field site. This type of
JOURNAL OF GEOSCIENCE EDUCATION 67, 114–130 (2019) 117
activity would also help students hone their visual spatial
(Kastens & Ishikawa, 2006) and temporal rea soning
skills (Dodick & Orion, 2003, 2006).
Multiple sketching activities were incorporated into the
VFE in order to facilitate improvement in visual spatial
reasoning. Mogk and Goodwin (2012, p. 145) noted, “the
field setting is where geoscientists initially translate
nature into culture, i.e., where we begin to create
representations based on communally tested and
118 G. DOLPHIN ET AL.
accepted practices (i.e., maps, graphs, visualiza tions)
that explain, confirm, rationalize, and external ize our
understanding of Earth.” In our VFE, students had the
opportunity to sketch the entire field site as well as any
points of interest to them. In addition to the orthomosaic
of the expanse of Mount Yamnuska, we included one
important area of the field site as an inset image with
higher resolution. This inset was an exposure of the
McConnell Thrust Fault, which forced Paleozoic
limestones over the top of Mesozoic fluvial sandstones.
The intent with this inset was to encour age students to
start separating useful data from “noise” in a virtual field
setting, to start seeing what a geologist sees. This would
be a first step in introduc ing students to the hermeneutic
process of geology (Frodeman, 1995). Students retrieve
data, start to for mulate a hypothesis for the problem,
and go back to look at the field again with “new eyes”
influenced by the hypothesis or multiple working
hypotheses (Chamberlin, 1965/1890). New data might
then affect the initial hypothesis, subsequently changing
the nature of data from the site, and on, and on.
Mogk and Goodwin (2012, p. 149) also pointed out the
sociocultural benefits of doing fieldwork that we hoped to
encourage with our VFEs. Socialization into a community
of practice includes examples of “language translated
into practice, tools used to acquire organize and advance
community knowledge, shared ethics and values, and
collective understanding of limits and uncertainties.” In
this vein, students were encouraged to explore the VFE
field site in groups, discriminating data from noise and
coming to understand the limits of interpretation as that
inter pretation developed over time. Such skills are not
the focus in classrooms and lecture halls.
Where our VFE does not overlap well with the goals of
fieldwork as outlined in Mogk and Goodwin (2012) is the
embodied experience of fieldwork compared to the lab
setting and virtual landscape of the VFE. Mogk and
Goodwin asserted that “[s]trong sensory inputs
associated with immersion in a physical field setting are
ascribed to impacts on the affective domain, which in
turn, are strongly coupled with cognitive memory
 Figure 1. Google Earth image of Calgary, Alberta, with the three VFE sites (Mount Yamnuska, Saskatchewan
Glacier, and East Coulee) highlighted. The width of the image represents approximately 370 kilometers.

functions” (2012, p. 135). The idea is that the act of making the VFEs, we were not short on possibilities.
simply being in the field—scrambling over rocks, smell With our location, near the Canadian Rocky Mountains
ing the fragrances of the outdoors, and hearing the to the west and the badlands of southern Alberta to the
sounds of nature—is connected to the actual science in east, we could choose between several locations with
which the students are partaking. This, of course, is not regional relevance that would generate considerable
happening in our laboratory experiences. However, student engagement. We also had as a secondary goal
although these experiences are not available first hand, that the VFEs be infused with suffi cient detailed data
there is the possibility the VFE could evoke the memo that they might become inquiry projects in more upper-
ries of such experiences in students who have them level geoscience classes, in addition to the introductory
through a “cascade of associations” (Kahneman, 2011) classes that were our immediate focus. This would allow
or “experiential gestalt” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999), upper-level stu dents to see the same sites but through
thereby maintaining a connection between the lab and different lenses, as they encountered them in additional
the natural environment. courses (for instance, surficial geology, sedimentology,
In our initial research, we did not aim to measure or structural geology). We picked three locations: Mount
knowledge gains of students as a result of engaging in Yamnuska, the Saskatchewan Glacier (part of the
the VFE. Our main priorities were instead to explore how Columbia Icefields on the border between Banff and
the students actually approached the tasks asked of Jasper National Parks), and an outcrop in East Coulee,
them during the VFE, and to use that information as a near Drumheller, Alberta (Figure 1).
way to enhance the design of the VFE and increase its
efficacy. Below, we report on two successive
implementations of the Mount Yamnuska VFE (see Mount Yamnuska
description below) in a large-enrollment (n 400 stu Driving west from the city of Calgary on the Trans
dents), introductory geology class for science majors. Canada Highway, Mount Yamnuska (Figure 2) is the first
peak as one enters the Front Ranges. From the
Methods and findings highway, Yamnuska displays an approximately 500 m
vertical cliff face and is about 2.5 km across. The cliffs
Picking locations of geologic interest are made up of Paleozoic limestones, which sit on
When considering which locations would be ideal for Mesozoic fluvial sandstones. We picked this location
because it is familiar to the majority of the students,
JOURNAL OF GEOSCIENCE EDUCATION 67, 114–130 (2019) 119
 Fig

ure 2. Photomosiaic of Mount Yamnuska showing Paleozoic cliff-forming carbonate rocks overlying Mesozoic fluvial
sandstones, forming the slope beneath the cliff. The McConnell Thrust Fault trace is visible at the base of the cliff
toward the right, middle of the photograph, to just before the tree coverage starts.

but also because of this chronological anomaly of older
rocks sitting atop younger rocks. The contact between
the two rock units (the McConnell Thrust) is visible along
some of the base of the cliff face. Site access is relatively
easy, as it is a 45-minute drive (approximately) west from
Calgary, followed by a two- to four-hour round-trip hike to
the base of the escarpment, where the fault contact is
visible. We saw the accessibility of the site as a positive
feature, as stu dents could visit it on their own after
completing the VFE to reinforce their learning and build
on their understanding of the site.
make up the Columbia Icefields. The surrounding
mountains are mainly Paleozoic carbonates and create
impressive relief all through this area. The location is
visually stunning. We picked it because of its visual
appeal, but also because some wonderful surficial
geology features—both glacial and fluvial—are visible
with the active melting of the glacier, which students can
focus on during their engagement with the VFE.
Although it is a longer drive from Calgary than
Yamnuska and access is more challenging, it can still be
considered a site of local interest.

Saskatchewan Glacier East Coulee

The Saskatchewan Glacier (Figure 3) is located
approximately a four-hour drive north and west of
Calgary on the Icefields Parkway through Banff National
Park. It is one of eight major glaciers that
120 G. DOLPHIN ET AL.
The badlands of the Red Deer River Valley are a two
hour drive to the east of Calgary, where ice and melt
water from the last glacial maximum have carved
through the overlying glacial sediments into the flat lying
Mesozoic strata, which include fluvial sands and
 F

igure 3. The toe of the Saskatchewan Glacier (left) showing meltwaters running from the glaciers into the adjacent
lake. The val ley width is approximately 270 meters across.

silts, volcanic ash beds, tongues of marine shale, and data and built the photo mosaics and the three
plenty of dinosaur fossils. East Coulee (Figure 4) is just dimensional models.2 We piloted the Mount Yamnuska
minutes outside of Drumheller, the home of the Royal VFE with students first, as it was the first for which we
Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology. The museum is collected data. In building the VFE and associated tasks
famous for its dinosaur collection, which breathed life for students, we relied on a recent report about how to
back into the old coal-mining town; it would be well structure effective laboratories for science classes. The
known to many of our geoscience students. In addition to National Research Council (2006), in its executive
name recognition, we picked this site because of its summary of this report on laboratory work in U.S. high
relatively simple stratigraphy. schools, made four recommenda tions to educators for
producing effective laboratory experiences:

Collecting, compiling, and curating VFE data
We had originally planned to collect digital imagery in a
number of different modes, such as GigaPan pho tos
and 360-degree stitched photos, but eventually we
decided to use the expertise of Automated Aeronautics,
which operates unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones,
with attached cameras. The data collected by Automated
Aeronautics produced a far superior product for what we
were looking to do than our first plan. With their setup,
we were able to capture thou sands of georeferenced
images of each site of interest that could later be
assembled into large photo mosaics, and also three-
dimensional computer models.
Once the data were gathered in each location (Mount
Yamnuska in August 2016; East Coulee and
Saskatchewan Glacier in July 2017), V-GEO Tours (a
subsidiary of Automated Aeronautics) processed the
1. Maintain clear learning outcomes.
2. Sequence laboratories to follow course instruction. 3.
Emphasize learning content along with scien tific
processes.
4. Incorporate enough student reflection and discussion.
The learning outcomes we sought to emphasize were
more oriented to process than content. We wanted
students to develop a strategy for approaching the field
—specifically, how to scan the location for significant
features and how to use the zoom-in/out tool to begin
building their “big picture” by using smaller sections of
focus. We wanted them to develop an iterative approach,
moving between the big picture and the details; between
inferences and observations;
2
These models can be viewed at https://geoscience.ucalgary.ca/tamaratt
chair/virtual-field-experiences.
JOURNAL OF GEOSCIENCE EDUCATION 67, 114–130 (2019) 121
 F

igure 4. Image of the outcrop at East Coulee. Note the characteristic “bad lands” topography as well as the regular
sediment ary layering.

between theory and data. We implemented the VFE as
the last lab of the fall 2016 term to take advantage of
students having been exposed to the most geologic
information by that point in the course content. This
would give them the best chance of identifying the most
salient portions of the VFE and thus interpreting them
accurately. We developed the VFE to fit within the
students’ three-hour weekly lab period.
In contrast to many available virtual field trips that
highlight specific points of interest and give an expert’s
interpretation, we thought it important to emphasize a
more inquiry-based approach. Inquiry, in a science
education context, is a messy term with about as many
definitions as there are definers. The idea we had in
mind most closely resembles that of Bybee (2006), in
This is similar to the field school experience they will
have when they reach that milestone. We encouraged
students to work in groups of two to four, so they might
rely on each other during the interpretation of the data,
thereby leveraging the potential benefits of teamwork
and social interaction.
Pilot implementation
Due to the number of students in the course (about 400),
there were approximately 20 lab sections of 20 students
run every week. Prior to the lab implementa tion,
students downloaded Google Earth onto their computers
and printed out the lab sheet (see
122 G. DOLPHIN ET AL.

that we interpret inquiry as:

Supplemental file) with the instructions and questions.
1. engaging the learner in scientifically ori ented During the lab, they downloaded the Mount Yamnuska
questions, photo mosaic, saved as a .kmz file, into Google Earth.
2. prioritizing evidence in support of an explanation, 3. This placed the photo mosaic onto the landscape in
connecting knowledge with the broader scientific base, Google Earth, so they could see it in the context of the
and surrounding topography. To under stand how the
4. encouraging students to communicate/argue their students were experiencing the VFE, we asked for
explanations to others. volunteers who would be willing to be observed during
With this in mind, instead of identifying all the places the implementation. One of the authors acted as
of interest in the VFE and pointing students to them for participant observer and took field notes while observing
interpretation, we chose to leave the photo mosaic open two different groups of students engaged in the VFE. We
and free of any annotations that would direct students also gathered observational data and reported
about what to look at and how to interpret it. We wanted perceptions of the graduate teach ing assistants (GTAs)
students to approach the VFE as if they were walking of each of the 24 different lab sections. We did not give
into the field for the first time, looking for their own points the GTAs any special train ing for implementing the VFE,
of geologic interest and making their own interpretations, except for the tech nical portion for how to get the .kmz
based on what they had learned in the course so far. file into Google Earth. We did tell the GTAs that the
emphasis was on geologic process and not product, so
they were to limit the amount of direction they might give
stu dents. They were to answer student questions not by
pointing out the answer but by turning the question back
on them; have it be their investigation.
Student population of GLGY 201, 2016, and 2017
GLGY 201 is an introductory geology course and draws
students from the entire campus. In 2016, there were
387 students enrolled, of them, 54% were female, 58%
came from the faculty of science—the vast majority of
whom were biological science majors, and 10% geo
science majors—32% came from the faculty of arts,
almost 5% from business, and the last 5% from various
other faculties. The average age of the students was
20.2 years. The vast majority classified themselves as
Canadian residents (94%). The demographics of the
2017 cohort are very similar to 2016, although the total
number of students was down by 60 students (327) from
the previous year. There were 56% female stu dents.
The majority of students, again, came from the faculty of
science (52%), followed by the faculty of arts (38%),
business (5%), and other (5%). The average age of the
students (20.1) was also similar to the previous year.
Again, the vast majority of students claimed Canadian
residency (94%). Although most students claimed
Canadian residency, they did identify as citi zens from 44
different countries.
3. Students did not use the ability to zoom in and out of
Researcher observations
The following summarizes our findings from direct
observation of student groups by the project principle
investigators (PIs). We found that the students had
difficulties with the open-ended nature of the VFE, and
also demonstrated other, broader study issues.
1. Students struggled with what constitutes good field
notes. They were much more concerned with the
precision of their sketches than more fundamental
relationships among formations, so they often spent
up to an hour creating, tracing, erasing, and
recreating their initial sketch of the field site—to
make it “just like” the photo. One participant stated, “I
wish I had taken an art class.”
2. Students appeared to feel compelled to use tech nical
vocabulary, but their usage was often incor rect. For
instance, one of the participants, when trying to
identify the type of rock presenting on the upper
portion of Mt. Yamnuska, said, “I’m going to go with 4. Students had difficulty picking out the geologic ally
metamorphic because the rocks are inconsistent.”
When discussing some apparent linear features in
the rock face, one student asked, “Would that be a
horizontal bedding or a vertical bedding? Would that
be a bedding? A striation?” Here students observed
light colored portions of the cliff face in a vertical
orientation with darker colored rock between the
lighter colored rock ver tically bedded. In the photo,
the color difference was really an artifact of
weathering, as all the rock was a bedded (10s
centimeter to meter thick) limestone with a slight dip
to the southwest. As this vocabulary was quite new
to them, it was not surprising perhaps that their
understanding was not comparable to expert
understanding. Unfortunately, this lack of clarity did
slow their progress considerably: Although ostensibly
they used a common language, their definitions often
actually differed and so they frequently talked past
each other. In several instances, they tried to impose
a concept onto the image based on the vocabulary
they thought was relevant, and then proceeded to
shoehorn the data into that concept (a top-down
approach), as opposed to developing descriptions
from the relationships in their obser vations (a
bottom-up approach). In another example, a pair of
students decided that the color difference between
the rocks in the upper carbon ate unit indicated an
igneous intrusion where the darker rock had intruded
into the lighter rock. One had reasoned that, “Since
intrusions cause deformed strata, the light grey rocks
must be deformed strata.”
the data to develop their understanding iteratively, as
was the goal. One big advantage of this VFE over
actual fieldwork is that it allows the students to see
the whole picture at once and then, in seconds,
zoom in to observe detailed structures, going from a
2.5 km mountain face to viewing structures on a
decimeter scale. It was our hope that students would
pick out places of geologic interest when viewing the
entire moun tain, and then investigate these areas of
interest by zooming in, making observations, and
then viewing them again within the context of the
whole picture by zooming out once more. Our
expectation was that they would develop an
understanding about the need for such an itera tive
approach to fieldwork. However, the students we
observed rarely took advantage of this feature, even
after having it demonstrated. Forty minutes into the
first observation, the observer made the following
note: “There is not much zooming in or out going on.”
Thirty minutes later, the same observer noted, “Is
there any way to emphasize [in the second
implementation] iterations/zoom in and out?”
relevant data from the overall picture. Students were
very interested in the shapes along the ridge of the
Mount Yamnuska, erosional gul lies (strong vertical
features) where vegetation was growing, and the
 shapes of the talus slopes. As pointed out earlier, presented in the lecture portion of the course,
some students identified layers but then attributed students did not have some of the requisite
them to metamorphism and did not choose to background necessary for developing reliable
explore the nature of the layers any further. explanations for why Mount Yamnuska looks the way
it does. This caused issues, espe cially as the major
feature of the site is the thrust fault that placed the
GTAs’ general comments Paleozoic carbonates on top of the Mesozoic
We had 20 GTAs to manage 24 lab sections for this sandstones.
course. The week after the implementation at our regular 5. Open-ended questions gave students some diffi culty.
weekly meeting, we discussed the GTAs’ com ments Many of the labs leading up to this one were
about the implementation of the VFE. The fol lowing structured, with clear direction, and relied on closed
represent the most salient points from the perspective of questions for which a definite, correct answer
the GTAs, concerning what they observed and how they existed. In fact, according to research on school
might approach improving the VFE in light of these science labs, many laboratory activities could also
observations. be classified in the same manner (National Research
Council, 2006). In contrast, the questions students
1. Students had trouble with the idea of taking “field responded to in the VFE
124 G. DOLPHIN ET AL.
notes.” This was similar to our observations about
students taking an overly long time to generate
sketches that were precise to the photo but did not were more open in character, with various pos sible
demonstrate enhanced understanding of the answers. Because no single correct answer was
JOURNAL OF GEOSCIENCE EDUCATION 67, 114–130 (2019) 123 sought—but rather, responses based on the
students’ observations—GTAs noticed that stu dents
site from the interpretation of features. Students did were hesitant to record their answers for fear of not
not see the activities to help them develop field notes having the correct one.
as a way to express what they observed, 6. The “big picture” aspect of the VFE—seeing
emphasizing particular aspects of the site in a way everything all at once—seemed to overwhelm the
that they might learn from it. Rather, they wanted the students, according to the GTAs. This may be
field notes to be only a record, like a photograph, because, as described, students had difficulties
reflecting everything and giving each aspect equal taking advantage of the zoom in/out feature of the
weight. VFE, and they did not identify the geologic ally
2. Students could have used the hand samples of the significant aspects of the VFE. With the view of the
rocks available on the VFE to aid their identifica tion entire mountain at once, perhaps they experienced it
of the rock samples, but they did not choose to do as more than they could consider at once, not
so. Although they had been exposed to the various recognizing that they could break the site down into
kinds of rocks and had some experience with hand chunks that would have made interpretation more
samples in their labs, to see actual samples of these manageable. Indeed, C¸aliskan (2011) noted that
rocks displayed on their com puter screen would students with too much free dom become
have helped to shift their abstract understanding of overwhelmed and cannot manage the whole site, or
the visual model toward something more concrete. It possibly just focus on one aspect to the exclusion of
might have also helped students who had identified the rest. Either way, students do not develop a whole
the carbonates as metamorphic rocks to consider picture under standing of the field site, because they
alternatives to that interpretation upon viewing hand are not considering the whole picture.
samples up close.
3. The geologic map overlay on Google Earth was
Redesign
insufficient and confusing. To help students grasp
some of the context of the geology of the area (and Given these observations, we modified the VFE and its
the fact that there were Paleozoic rocks sit ting on implementation to improve its effectiveness, in the hope
top of Mesozoic rocks), we also placed an overlay in that this would give students more tools and therefore
Google Earth of a surficial geology map. However, more confidence. We made three key changes, in the
the map was not of a fine enough resolution to following order:
provide unambiguous information about the ages of
the rocks under investigation. 1. We instituted a short lab activity the week prior to the
4. Some questions asked on the VFE concerned con second VFE implementation. We called the activity
cepts not yet covered in the lecture or lab. Because “What a geologist sees,” using images pulled from
the structural geology topic (dealing par ticularly with the internet of road cuts and other outcrops with very
faulting and folding of rocks) was the last topic distinctive geologically signifi cant structures
 exposed: faults, folds, dune cross stratification, and We implemented the second Mount Yamnuska VFE in
so forth (see Supplemental file). The scaffolding the fall of 2017, again as the last lab of the term.
process entailed three steps:
3
As an aside, this bureaucratic delay highlights that it is important to know
Students viewed each image, one at a time, and where the VFE site is situated with respect to public parks and the affiliated
rules for sample collecting. Also, when drones collect data, it is worthwhile for
spent several minutes making a sketch of what researchers to have a good understanding of the flying regulations within the
park boundaries. In our situation, we did include rock samples of the same units
they observed. We directed them to look for that occur at Mount Yamnuska but from locations outside of park lands. We
patterns and changes in patterns, abrupt changes continue to work on getting samples from the Mount Yamnuska site, so we can
actually designate on the photomosaic where the sample came from.
in color, obvious breaks or folds in layers, and so
on.
Once their sketches and notations were com plete, Unfortunately, the lecture material had once again not
students then saw another image of the same yet reached the structural geology topic. However, stu
outcrop with white markings drawn onto dents were given the opportunity to read ahead, with the
lab sheet stating that information from the chapter
(pertinent pages in the textbook were given) could help
it, to point out the geologically relevant struc tures
them in interpreting the observations they would have
—in other words, what a geologist would see.
made during engagement with the VFE. This time we
Finally, students were shown a third image for each
had more observational data than during the pilot
outcrop that did not include the original digital
implementation because (a) many more student
image of the outcrop, but just the markings (now
volunteers were available to be observe, and (b) two of
black on a white background) to model for them a
the project PIs and a graduate research assistant were
sketch on a piece of note paper.
available to make multiple observations each. These
data follow.
Students completed six drawings with this process,
and then three more sketches from just the outcrop
images, with no other scaffolding provided. Researcher observations
2. We included hand samples of the rocks seen in the
All three observers noted that participants were very
VFE. Unfortunately, we were unable to acquire
concerned with the drawing aspect of the assignment.
actual rocks from Mount Yamnuska because the site
is located within the boundaries of Kananaskis They were more interested in a precise recreation of the
Provincial Park and we could not procure permits to outcrop, spending 30 to 60 minutes developing the
collect samples within the park prior to the VFE overview sketch. In addition to getting the shape of the
ridge just right, they also spent a lot of time plac ing and
implementation.3 However, the specimens used were
drawing the vegetation, trees in particular. From these
deemed sufficiently similar to native Yamnuska rock
observations, it seems that the prior lab (“What a
to be useful diagnostic tools. Students were able to
geologist sees”) might not have been enough experience
test for the presence of calcite with hydrochloric acid,
as well as examine the hand samples for the for the students to understand how to cre ate succinct
presence of fossils, sediment and mineral composi field notes. Furthermore, students were heard to say that
tions, and other diagnostic properties. they did not understand why they were making the
3. We asked the GTAs to do several specific things with sketches, which may be a clue as to why they appeared
the students: to have difficulties with sketching task. Certainly, if they
did not know why they needed to collect data, they would
Remind them as often as they thought neces sary not know what data they should collect. This point will
that they could zoom in and zoom out of the continue to be prevalent in the other observations and
photomosaic to make their observations and may actually be reflect ive of a larger, structural issue in
interpretations. instruction.
Encourage them to construct their overall dia Observers also reported that many of the groups were
grams so that their detailed diagrams were dis quick to settle on a classification of metamorphic for the
played as a small piece located within a larger cliff-forming unit of Mount Yamnuska. They noted the
diagram of the mountain. irregular and tilted layers or “deformed stra ta” as
Ask student groups to (a) describe how the feature foliation; once they made this designation, they placed
they were focused on looked if they zoomed in, all other observations into that classification. They talked
and (b) how it might fit into the rest of the site if about how burial would have caused the irregular layers.
they zoomed out. Also, when they tested the hand sam ples with
hydrochloric acid, which did react strongly, they identified
them as marble. In other words, with their interpretation
Second iteration implementation (“the answer”) already established, they proceeded to
justify it by forcing their other observations to align with
that interpretation.
In addition to this behavior—of settling on an inter
pretation early and then adjusting their observations to
conform to that context—students also seemed to miss
the connection between observations and inferences.
JOURNAL OF GEOSCIENCE EDUCATION 67, 114–130 (2019) 125
Students used hydrochloric acid to test if rock samples
reacted, but then did not use this information to inform
their interpretations. They sketched the various parts of
the outcrop but did not understand why the diagrams
were important. They used descriptive ter minology (for
instance, deformed strata), but did not incorporate this
into their overall interpretation (meta morphic rocks).
Using the provincial geological map overlay on Google
Earth that was also part of the VFE, they discovered that
there was a sequence of older rocks sitting on top of a
sequence of younger rocks, but similarly they did not
integrate this observation into their explanations about
what was happening.
In contrast to this general report from the GTAs and
two of the three investigators, the third investiga tor (a
coauthor) did observe students being more iterative in
their approach of using data to form and reform
hypotheses. As he recorded in his field notes:
Observed students initially developed a hypothesis that
the rocks on the upper part of the outcrop were
metamorphic. This hypothesis only incorporated
observations of the digital image of the outcrop, which
does not allow one to distinguish between “layering” of
sedimentary rock and “foliation” of metamorphic rock.
Students only observed roughly horizontal patterns but
were not able to make the correct interpretation. Later, in
discussion with a teaching assistant, a student
commented:
zoom in on the image, they did, and replaced the vertical
features with horizontal layering
126 G. DOLPHIN ET AL.
that was more obvious at a closer vantage point. For
instance, one of the investigators (and coauthor) made
these notes while observing students in one lab group:
Observed students experienced this as they viewed the
virtual field site in digital form at a variety of zoom levels.
Initially, when viewing the site at large scale, they
sketched features that were prominent at this scale such
as the shape of the upper surface of the cliffs, vertically
oriented erosional features such as gullies, and trees and
other vegetation. Later, when viewing the rocks at a
higher zoom level, the features that were more important
geologically—such as depositional surfaces—became
more apparent and led to changes in their hypotheses
about rock type and formation process. After zooming in
on the outcrop and panning around one student
commented: “I am starting to notice that there are these
horizontal lines here.”
Following this, they promptly began to erase vertical
lines representing gullies from their sketch and focus
more on sketching roughly horizontal lines representing
depositional surfaces.
One student stated, “It’s easier to see the ‘big pic ture’
[when doing virtual fieldwork] … as opposed to when you
are in the field and you can only see what is right in front
of you. Also, it’s easier to zoom in to see the rock face,
rather than having to hike up a mountain.” Some
expressed the desire to be able to zoom in to get a
detailed view of the smaller scale structures of the rock,
although that was the intended purpose for the hand
samples.

“I am wondering if I am on the right track. Don’t look at

this [covers writing and sketch about metamorphic Limitations
rocks]. Would the mountain have formed by deposition
and compression over time in the ocean to form We viewed only a few groups of students as they worked
limestone?” on the VFEs over these two implementations. Although
we understand that such qualitative explora tions are not
The observer asked why the student had reconsidered easily generalizable, “[s]tudies that explore student
their rock identification, to which they responded: thinking in depth … go further than just identifying
alternative conceptions or preferred mental models, but
“Well, we noticed that the rock [hand sample] reacted
with HCl, so the most basic rock type we know that rather … inform teachers about the learning process
reacts with HCl is limestone, and it makes sense with the itself” (Taber, 2003, p. 752). It was the process we were
layering since it is an accumulation of shells and things. looking at to see how stu dents experienced the VFE and
And maybe this sediment at the bottom [fault contact] is how we might be able to mitigate any struggles they
from wave action in the past on the ocean floor. That’s
our basic hypothesis.” were having. We did use GTA comments based on their
general observa tions of students as they implemented
It is clear that, although the students have not made an the VFE lab. In many cases, they corroborated our
entirely correct interpretation at this point, they are using observations of individual students. Another limitation is
newly acquired data to revise their working hypothesis in that the VFE, as we are presenting it here, is still under
an iterative fashion.
con struction. We are continuing to collect data on how
Students did seem to be influenced by the ability to students experience the Mt. Yamnuska VFE, and
zoom in and out of the photomosaic. Many noted the
vertical erosional features running the height of the cliff
face. Once reminded to take advantage of the ability to others we are currently building, to enhance student
 engagement with them. ing process for these students. In general, students can
Limitations in the VFE as an instructional strategy see the big picture, or broad concept, like metamorphic
have been discussed in the literature review and are only rocks or mountain landscape. They can also discern
limitations in comparison to doing actual field work. small bits of information through their observations, like
There is a diminished emphasis on working as a group. deformed strata and rocks reacting to hydrochloric acid.
What we noticed with our observations is, as groups What seems to be difficult for them is meshing the two
started to work, they often divided into small groups together: understanding that the concepts context ualize
(from four or five to two or three). This may be because the observations at the same time the observa tions
fitting around a laptop screen might favor smaller groups. build the concept. Not seeing the relationship between
Also, the fact that students are in a “known” environment the big-picture concepts and the individual details
with portable data might allow more for solitary work or explains why they can settle on a concept that is not
work with a single partner as opposed to a larger group. coherent with the data and then try to force the data to fit
Our VFE lab was also very open ended. This came as the concept. This is very like settling on the notion that
a shock to many of the students who were used to labs the upper formation of Mount Yamnuska is meta morphic
(both geoscience and other sciences) that were mainly and trying to fit the sedimentary rock hand samples—the
confirmatory activities. Because there was no “one right very old rocks sitting on top of the younger rocks—and
answer” to many of the tasks, students were the deformed strata into that inter pretation. It is why they
uncomfortable performing the VFE. They often asked if can take so much time sketch ing the precise shape of
what they were doing was “right.” Depending on the the ridge of Yamnuska, placing in their sketch exactly
goals for the VFE, the instructor may want to do more where the trees should be, and observing the reaction of
scaffolding so the open-endedness of the activities is rocks exposed to hydrochloric acid, but then
more acceptable, or just place more struc ture into the demonstrate little regard as to how or if it is useful for
VFE. developing a coherent explanatory model for Mount
Also, the fact that students are not in the great out Yamnuska.
doors was a perceived limitation that came out in the According to Dolphin and Benoit (2016), students
observational data we collected. As reported by one of need time to develop a descriptive model of an object or
the investigators: phenomenon of study, before attempting to generate an
Observed students also noticed some of the physical explanatory model. This is because explanation is the
limitations. When asked about the limitations of virtual most sophisticated form of thinking in science (Thagard,
fieldwork, one student commented: “It’s not as easy to 2012). To address this learning goal means being
make a physical assessment of the rocks [in the lab purposeful with the scaffolding from descriptive to
compared to in situ].” Further questioning revealed this
explanatory models (in both activity and time). One
observation to be related to the lack of context from the
surrounding rocks and environment afforded by presence feasible way to enhance success would be to have stu
at the field site, but not by hand samples in the lab. dents draw the spatial/static aspects of the model and
then add arrows and notations to show causal/dynamic
These students are also not experiencing the sun (or processes (Gobert, 2005; Johnson & Reynolds, 2005).
rain) on their cheeks, smelling the balsam in the air, or
There is a more fundamental piece of the puzzle,
eating lunch on a tree stump; this part of the embodied
however, that can explain why the participants seem to
experience—the part that connects the affective learning
have so much trouble completing the tasks as described.
with the conceptual learning—is missing from the VFE
Our interpretation is that the issue is more foundational.
structure. It is certainly worth repeating that we in no way
John Dewey (1916, p. 220) once wrote about teaching
advocate for replacing true field experiences with VFEs.
science:
Our motivation was to fill a void (as best we could) in the
students’ geo science experiences. There is a strong temptation to assume that presenting
subject matter in its perfected form provides a royal road
to learning. What more natural
JOURNAL OF GEOSCIENCE EDUCATION 67, 114–130 (2019) 127
Implications and next steps
We set out to develop an alternative to the lack in field than to suppose that the immature can be saved time
experiences our students were getting due to and energy, and be protected from needless error by
commencing where competent inquirers have left off?
The outcome is written large in the history of education.
capacity issues in our department. That alternative was Pupils begin their study with texts in which the subject is
organized into topics according to the order of the
the VFE. As with the development of any new technol specialist. Technical concepts and their definitions are
ogy, we did not expect implementation to be flawless. introduced at the outset. Laws are introduced at an early
We took an iterative approach, observing students’ stage, with at best a few indications of the way in which
experiences with the VFE and amending the VFE based they were arrived at. The pupil learns symbols without
on those experiences. Through this study, we have dis the key to their meaning. He acquires a technical body of
information without ability to trace its connections [to
cerned patterns that have informed us about the learn
what] is familiar—often he acquires simply a vocabulary.
 This description was written 100 years ago. If the 2017), facts with theory (Chalmers, 2013).
textbooks currently used for introductory geology By modeling in our teaching how we develop
courses are any indication for what gets taught in knowledge in geology—how data help develop theory
classrooms, there probably has not been much change and then how theory helps us define and find data— we
in that 100 years. Textbooks continue to place a great explicitly and reflectively highlight these aspects through
emphasis on facts, with evidence sometimes, but mainly the course (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000;
just “this is this.” They rarely bother with the original Lederman, 2007). This strategy should help stu dents to
questions or the observations used to develop answers understand the importance of data and its relationship to
to those questions. The process of developing actual interpretation, abductive reasoning, hypothesizing, and
scientific knowledge—what we asked our stu dents to do amending hypotheses in light of new data, as well as
in the lab VFE exercise described in this article—is not building a history of past events. Ultimately, this
demonstrated. The typical approach is to simply teach framework emphasizes how students should approach
the answers, and so the relationship between the doing this when using a VFE, why they should make
observations and interpretations is not emphasized. observations, what they should be trying to do with those
Instead, we should be teaching how observations have observations once they have them, how they should let
led to the development of explana tions, iteratively. their hypotheses guide them to making additional
Without this, the relationship between the pieces and the observations, and that it is accept able for an initial
big picture is obscured. We need to demonstrate more of hypothesis to change in light of new evidence. Added to
the process (the how) of geology rather than simply the this strategy, we suggest including multiple smaller
products (the what) of geology. This revised approach exposures to the VFE throughout the term to have
could address the issue of students asking, “What are students look only at particularly relevant aspects of the
we doing here?” or, “Why are we doing this?” or, “What
whole. This will familiarize them with the sites without
do I do now that I have this information?”
being overwhelming. One additional strategy would be to
Studies have shown that experts think differently
make the other labs in the course more open ended, so
about their field of expertise than novices do (Clement,
that students have more experi ence taking intellectual
2008). Our job in producing geologists is to socialize
risks throughout the course, rather than saving it for the
these students into thinking like an expert, seeing what a
last lab.
geologist sees. It is not as easy as Herbert Harold
Read’s (1957) famous quote implies: “I suggest that the
best geologist is he who has seen the most rocks.” Conclusion
Rather, it is really the ability to take the experiences with
those rocks and put them into the context of the bigger We attempted to address a resource constraint with a
picture, thereby con structing a descriptive or technological remedy. With the vast number of students
explanatory model that makes sense of otherwise taking introductory geology, the department lacked the
disparate observations. Confirmatory labs and closed-
ended questions do not give students the experience of
synthesizing models, which is essential to the process of capacity to maintain a necessary component of the pro
developing more sophisticated thinking. gram: the field experience. Our solution was to create
128 G. DOLPHIN ET AL. simulations students could use to gain some insight into
the process of fieldwork and, indeed, knowledge
According to Gasparatou (2017), teaching an idealiza development with our VFEs. As happens so often in
tion of science, as in Dewey’s description above, hides science, the attempt to solve one problem uncovered
the dynamic relationship between observation and the other problems that were not even considered in the
ory. He asserted, “Whenever teaching science as merely original conception. In our case, it seems that the stu
describing facts, we miss all the creativity, all the social dents who had trouble completing the activities of the
factors: the entire struggle of data-theory coordination” VFE may not have been demonstrating a problem of
(Gasparatou, 2017, p. 806). This is relevant to geology, engagement, but instead were exhibiting a symptom of a
as much of the knowledge development in this discip line more systemic problem—one of how we teach geol ogy
is historic and hermeneutic in character (Cleland, 2013; to introductory students. If we truly want to pro duce
Frodeman, 1995; Parcell & Parcell, 2009; Turner, 2013). geologists, or even just science-literate citizens, it
In general, geologists look for signs in the rocks and then behooves us to pay attention to how emerging profes
piece together a history of those signs to explain their sionals and scientists develop specialized knowledge
origins or identify a cause that explains most reliably all and expertise. We must make an effort to meet these
the available data. This explanation is what Giere (1988), learn ing needs in the most effective way possible.
called “constructed reality.” This brings into full view the
intimate rela tionship between observations and
Acknowledgments
interpretation. One of the key aspects of doing science is
connecting observations with interpretation (Gasparatou, We would like to acknowledge the keen eyes and words of the
 reviewers and editors who have helped shape this docu ment Clark, A. (2011). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action,
to be readable for its audience. and cognitive extension. London, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Clary, R. M., & Wandersee, J. H. (2010). Virtual field exer
cises in the online classroom: Practicing science teachers’
Funding perceptions of effectiveness, best practices, and imple
mentation. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(4), 50–
We would also like to acknowledge the Tamaratt Teaching 58.
Professorship (project code 10006135) and the Taylor Institute Cleland, C. E. (2013). Common cause explanation and the
for Teaching and Learning (project code 10014211) for the search for smoking gun. In V. R. Baker (Ed.), Rethinking the
financial support that made this project possible. fabric of geology: Geologic Society of America Special
Paper 502 (pp. 1–9) Denver, CO: Geologic Society of
America.
ORCID Clement, J. J. (2008). Creative model construction in scien
tists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and men
Glenn Dolphin http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8914-434X tal simulation. Dordercht, Netherlands: Springer.
Brandon Karchewski http://orcid.org/0000-0001- 7009-3845 Cutler, A. (2003). The seashell on the mountaintop: A story of
science, sainthood, and the humble genius who discov ered
a new history of the Earth. New York, NY: EP Dutton.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction
References to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving sci ence Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2003). Cognitive factors affecting
student understanding of geologic time. Journal of Research
teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review
in Science Teaching, 40(4), 415–442. doi:10.1002/
of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, tea.10083
22(7), 665. doi:10.1080/09500690050044044 Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2006). Building an understanding of
Arrowsmith, C., Counihan, A., & McGreevy, D. (2005). geologic time: A cognitive synthesis of the "macro" and
Development of a multi-scaled virtual field trip for the "micro" scales of time. In C. A. Manduca & D. W.
teaching and learning of geospatial science. International JOURNAL OF GEOSCIENCE EDUCATION 67, 114–130 (2019) 129
Journal of Education and Development using Information
and Communication Technology, 1(3), 42–56. Mogk (Eds.), Earth and mind: How geologists think and
Atchison, C. L. (2011). The significance of access: Students learn about the earth: Geological Society of America Special
with mobility impairments constructing geoscience know Paper 413. Denver, CO: Geological Society of America.
ledge through field-based learning experiences (Doctoral Dolphin, G., & Benoit, W. (2016). Students’ mental model
dissertation 3476983). The Ohio State University, Ohio. development during historically contextualized inquiry: How
the ‘tectonic plate’ metaphor impeded the process.
International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 2–22.
Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_ file? Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.
accession¼osu1306333072&disposition¼inline Bailey, J., 1140247
Whitmeyer, S., & DePoar, D. (2012). Introduction: The Drummond, C. N., & Markin, J. M. (2008). An analysis of the
application of google geo tools to geo science education and Bachelor of Science geology degree as offered in the United
research. In S. J. Whitmeyer, J.E. Bailey, D. G. De Paor & T. States. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56(2), 13–119.
Ornduff (Eds.), Google earth and virtual visualizations in doi:10.5408/1089-9995-56.2.113
geoscience education and research (Vol.492, pp. vii–xix). Elkins, J. T., & Elkins, N. M. L. (2007). Teaching geology in the
Denver, CO: Geological Society of America. field: Significant geoscience concept inventory gains in
Bentley, C. (2014, October). Telling the story of the Canadian entirely field-based introductory geology courses. Journal of
Rockies via Google Earth and gigapan. Paper presented at Geoscience Education, 55(2), 126–132. doi: 10.5408/1089-
the 2014 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting and 9995-55.2.126
Exposition, Vancouver, BC. Fletcher, S., France, D., Moore, K., & Robinson, G. (2002).
Boyle, A., Maguire, S., Martin, A., Milsom, C., Nash, R., Fieldwork education and technology: A GEES perspective.
Rawlinson, S., … Conchie, S. (2007). Fieldwork is good: Planet, 7(1), 17–19. doi:10.11120/plan.2002.00070017
The student perception and the affective domain. Journal of Frankel, H. (2012). Paleomagnetism and confirmation of drift
Geography in Higher Education, 31(2), 299–317. doi: (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
10.1080/03098260601063628 Frodeman, R. (1995). Geological reasoning: Geology as an
Bybee R. W. (2006). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In interpretive and historical science. Geological Society of
L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and America Bulletin, 107, 960–968. doi:10.1130/0016-
nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and 7606(1995)107<0960:GRGAAI > 2.3.CO;2
teacher education (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Gasparatou, R. (2017). Scientism and scientific thinking: A
Springer. note on science education. Science and Education, 26,
C¸aliskan, O. (2011). Virtual field trips in education of Earth 799–812. doi:10.1007/s11191-017-9931-1
and environmental sciences. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach.
Sciences, 15, 3239–3243. doi:10.1016/ Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Gilley, B., Atchison,
j.sbspro.2011.04.278 C., Feig, A., & Stokes, A. (2015). Impact of inclusive field trips.
Chalmers, A. (2013). What is this thing called science? Nature Geoscience, 8, 579–580. doi:10.1038/ngeo2500
Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press. Glen, W. (1982). The road to Jaramillo: Critical years of the
Chamberlin, T. C. (1965). The method of multiple working revolution in earth science. Stanford, CA: Stanford
hypotheses (reprint of the 1890 version). Science, 148, 754– University Press.
759. Gobert, J. D. (2005). The effects of different learning tasks on
 model-building in plate tectonics: diagramming versus estimation. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57(5), 379–
explaining. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 444– 389. doi:10.5408/1.3544288
455. doi:10.5408/1089-9995-53.4.444 Peat, M., & Taylor, C. (2005). Virtual biology: How well can it
Hesthammer, J., Fossen, H., Sautter, M., Saether, B., & replace authentic activities. CAL-Laborate, 13, 21–24.
Johansen, S. E. (2002). The use of information technology to
enhance learning in geological field trips. Journal of
Geoscience Education, 50(5), 528–538. doi:10.5408/1089- Petcovic, H. L., Stokes, A., & Caulkins, J. L. (2014).
9995-50.5.528 Geoscientists’ perceptions of the value of undergraduate
Hurst, S. D. (1998). Use of “virtual” field trips in teaching field education. GSA Today, 24(7), 4–10. doi:10.1130/
introductory geology. Computers and Geosciences, 24(7), GSATG196A.1
653–658. doi:10.1016/S0098-3004(98)00043-0 Read, H. H. (1957). The granite controversy. London, UK:
Hutchins, E., & Renner, N. (2012). Situated and embodied Thomas Murby & Co.
learning in the field. In K. A. Kastens & C. A. Manduca (Ed.), Repcheck, J. (2003). The man who found time: James Hutton
Earth and mind II: A synthesis on research on thinking and
and the discovery of the Earth’s antiquity. Cambridge, MA:
learning in the geosciences: Geological society of America
Perseus.
special paper 486. (Vol. 2, pp. 181–182). Denver, CO:
Rudwick, M. J. S. (1985). The great Devonian controversy:
Geological Society of America.
Jacobson, A. R., Militello, R., & Baveye, P. C. (2009). The shaping of scientific knowledge among gentlemanly
Development of computer-assisted virtual field trips to specialists. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
support multidisciplinary learning. Computers and Rudwick, M. J. S. (2014). Earth’s deep history: How it was
Education, 52(3), 571–580. doi:10.1016/ discovered and why it matters. Chicago, IL: Chicago
j.compedu.2008.11.007 University Press.
130 G. DOLPHIN ET AL. S¸engor, A. M. C. (2001). € Is the present the key to the past
or is the past the key to the present? James Hutton and
Adam Smith versus Abraham Gottlob Werner and Karl Marx
Johnson, J. K., & Reynolds, S. J. (2005). Concept sketches:
in interpreting history (Vol. 355). Boulder, CO: Geological
Using student- and instructor-generated, annotated
Society of America.
sketches for learning, teaching, and assessment in geology
Shapiro, L. (2011). Embodied cognition. New York, NY:
courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 85–95.
Routledge.
doi:10.5408/1089-9995-53.1.85
Stainfield, J., Fisher, P., Ford, B., & Solem, M. (2000).
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow (1st ed.). New
York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. International virtual field trips: A new direction? Journal of
Kastens, K. A., & Ishikawa, T. (2006). Spatial thinking in the Geography in Higher Education, 24(2), 255–262. doi:
geosciences and cognitive sciences: A cross-disciplin ary 10.1080/713677387
look at the intersection of the two fields. Special Papers Stott, T., and Nuttall, A. (2010, October). Design, develop ment
(413), 53–76. and student evaluation of interactive virtual field guides for
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The teaching geosciences at Liverpool John Moores University,
embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New UK. Paper presented at the Tunku Abdul Rahman TAR)
York, NY: Basic Books. College Second International Conference on Learning and
Lederman, N. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present and teaching (TIC2010), Emerging Trends in Higher Education
future. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Learning and Teaching, Kuala Lampur.
research in science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Stumpf, R. J., Douglass, J., and Dorn, R. I. (2008). Learning
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. desert geomorphology virtually versus in the field. Journal of
Li, S., & Liu, Q. (2003). Interactive groundwater (IGW): An Geography in Higher Education, 32(3), 378–399.
innovative digital laboratory for groundwater education and Taber, K. S. (2003). Mediating mental models of metals:
research. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, Acknowledging the priority of the learner’s prior learn ing.
11(4), 179–202. doi:10.1002/cae.10052 Science Education, 87(5), 732–758.
Litherland, K., & Stott, T. A. (2012). Virtual field sites: Losses Thagard, P. (2012). The cognitive science of science:
and gains in authenticity with semantic technolo gies. Explanation, discovery, and conceptual change. Cambridge,
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(2), 213–230. MA: MIT Press.
doi:10.1080/1475939X.2012.697773 Turner, D. (2013). Historical geology: Methodology and
Mogk, D. W., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Learning in the field: metaphysics. In V. R. Baker (Ed.), Rethinking the fabric of
Synthesis of research on thinking and learning in the geology: Geological Society of America Special Paper 502
geosciences. In K. A. Kastens & C. A. Manduca (Eds.), (pp. 11–18). Denver, CO: Geological Society of America.
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.
National Research Council. (2006). America’s lab report:
Investigations in high school science. Retrieved from
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11311/americas-lab-report
investigations-in-high-school-science
Oreskes, N. (1999). The rejection of continental drift: Theory
and method in American earth science. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Oreskes, N., & LeGrand, H. E. (2001). Plate tectonics: An
insider’s history of the modern theory of the Earth. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Parcell, W. C., & Parcell, L. M. (2009). Evaluating and com
municating geologic reasoning with semiotics and cer tainty