Field experiences are a critical component of undergraduate
geoscience education; however, traditional onsite field experiences are not
always practical due to accessibility, and the popularity of alternative
modes of learning in higher education is increasing. One way to support
student access to field experiences is through virtual field trips,
implemented either independently or in conjunction with in-person field
trips. We created a virtual field trip (VFT) to Grand Ledge, a regionally
important suite of sedimentary outcrops in central lower Michigan, USA. This
VFT undertakes all stages of a field project, from question development and
detailed observation through data collection to interpretation. The VFT was
implemented in undergraduate sedimentation and stratigraphy courses at two different liberal arts institutions, with one version of the VFT conducted
in-person and the other online. The VFT was presented from a locally hosted
website and distributed through an online learning platform. Students
completed a series of activities using field data in the form of outcrop
photos, virtual 3D models of outcrops and hand samples, and photos of thin
sections. Student products included annotated field notes, a stratigraphic
column, a collaborative stratigraphic correlation, and a final written
reflection. VFT assessment demonstrated that students successfully achieved
the inquiry-oriented student learning outcomes, and student reflection responses provide anecdotal evidence that the field experience was
comparable to field geology onsite. This VFT is an example of successful
student learning in an upper-level sedimentation and stratigraphy course via virtual field experience with an emphasis on local geology.
Introduction and motivations
Field experiences for undergraduate geoscience students are key exercises in
which students integrate classroom knowledge with real-world examples,
implement skills, gain vocational experience and insight, and practice
collaborating with a field team (Mogk and Goodwin, 2012; Petcovic et al.,
2014). Bringing the field experience to students, rather than always taking
students into the field, is increasingly important for reasons of
accessibility, time, cost, and offering comparable opportunities to online
students (Huntoon, 2012; Arthurs, 2021; Rotzien et al., 2021). Despite a
long history of field trips in the geosciences, some desktop-based virtual
field trips have, in fact, been shown to yield better learning experiences
and outcomes than actual field trips (Zhao et al., 2020).
We both teach undergraduate-level sedimentation and stratigraphy courses that typically include a field trip, often to Grand Ledge, the closest major
suite of sedimentary outcrops in Michigan, with a variety of lithologies and fossils (Kelly, 1933; Martin, 1982). Our goal in the development of this virtual field trip (VFT) was to create an accessible and remote field experience that undertakes all
stages of a field project, from question development through data collection
to interpretation. In the implementation of this VFT, the Albion College
course was entirely online, and the Calvin University course was in-person.
Albion College is a comprehensive liberal arts institution with an
enrollment of ∼ 1500 undergraduate students. Albion
prioritizes building a culture of belonging and experiential learning and preparing students to translate critical thought into meaningful action.
Calvin University is a comprehensive liberal arts college with an enrollment
of ∼ 3000 undergraduate students. Learning at Calvin is rooted
in its Christian Reformed commitment, and in the study of geosciences at Calvin, we pursue intellectual efforts to explore our world's beauty and
engage in stewardship of Earth's resources.
The objectives of this project included (1) giving students an opportunity to explore outcrops in detail, which is valuable as an independent virtual
experience or as preparatory work for going out in the field, (2) creating an expandable structure, with future goals of incorporating subsurface data
and samples from the Michigan Core Repository, (3) addressing issues of accessibility, disorientation, limited data, limited scales of data, and
inflexible implementation, which can make some VFT experiences less
holistic and satisfying than in-person field trips (e.g., Hall et al., 2004; Carabajal et al., 2017), and (4) thoroughly documenting to encourage the preservation of a suite of historically and geologically important
Pennsylvanian outcrops in Grand Ledge, Michigan (e.g., Milstein, 1987a).
For each section that follows, we describe part of the VFT assignment (see Supplement), its importance, and our expectations, discuss how it was implemented, and evaluate the outcomes (including student examples where
relevant). The complete assignment, rubric, and other materials are
available in the Supplement, and further information about the VFT and
materials is available at https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/online_field/activities/242310.html (last access: 22 September 2021).
Student learning outcomes (SLOs)
In this VFT, students focused on skill development instead of working towards a single “right” answer. The dual emphases of the VFT were for
students to develop conceptual understanding (e.g., recognizing and
describing bedding styles) and research skills (e.g., hypothesis testing and
analysis). Upon successfully completing this project, students will be able
to
apply their course knowledge to analyze the stratigraphic characteristics of a real-world field site through a virtual field experience,
identify and describe lithologies from a combination of outcrop photos, 3D models, and thin sections,
recognize and describe bedding styles and geometry from outcrop photos and 3D models,
create a detailed, (litho)stratigraphic column using data from SLOs 2 to 3 and additional stratigraphic column resources,
develop an interpretation of the depositional environment(s) for the stratigraphic column, and
present final products and discuss observations and the strengths and weaknesses of different interpretations.
Deliverables
Through the course of the VFT, students produced three major deliverables.
First, they submitted field notes, including an annotated outcrop sketch,
rock descriptions, and their original paleoenvironmental hypothesis (Parts 2–4 of the assignment; see Supplement). Second, each student submitted an original stratigraphic column with their graphical log, descriptive notes,
and interpretations for each unit (Part 5 of the assignment). Third, after completing all other VFT components and engaging in a group discussion of
the stratigraphic correlations as well as discussing the supporting literature, students wrote a final reflection (Part 7 of the assignment). In our experiences, students were able to complete most VFT components during
the allotted class and lab time: 10 in-person hours for Calvin students, 12 online hours for Albion students. This dedicated in-class time over the
course of 4–5 total days was essential to engage in the group work,
particularly when considering that collaboration and discussion on an
outcrop are key parts of in-person field work. In assessing student learning in this VFT, all students have unique products tied to different primary
outcrops, making plagiarism a non-issue even in a virtual setting. Thus,
rubrics were designed to account for the inherent variability of student
products and focused largely on skill development.
VFT development
Over the course of a month, we invested substantial time to prepare this
virtual experience, which included 2 full days of field work plus several weeks of image and data processing. When collecting field data to prepare this VFT, it was essential to document outcrops through photos and virtual
3D models at many scales and from multiple angles. This resulted in an
experience for students similar to walking around all sides of an outcrop,
stepping back, and moving in closer. In the development phase of the VFT we
documented each outcrop through the following methods.
We explored the outcrop and marked several important places on the outcrop to be used for close-up photos. Previous work at Grand Ledge guided our outcrop choices (e.g., Martin, 1982; Venable et al., 2013).
360∘ photos of each outcrop were taken with a GoPro Max
360∘ camera. The 360∘ photos provided a sense of
orientation for the outcrop and surrounding landscape and context.
Photos of the outcrop were taken at multiple levels in approximately the
same plane and were compiled into an outcrop panorama photo using Adobe
Photoshop (Fig. 1). Of note, photos taken using an iPhone overcame the issue
of dappled shadows on the outcrops significantly better than other cameras
we used. Heavy vegetation, steep cliffs, and limited outcrops created
challenges in photographing all aspects of outcrops from uniform distances;
therefore, panorama photos of outcrops incurred distortion during the
photomerging process.
Additional photos of the outcrop were taken at multiple levels and from
multiple angles and were compiled into a high-resolution 3D outcrop model
using Agisoft Metashape Professional (2020) software and then uploaded to
Sketchfab, where the marked locations of close-ups were added as annotations
to the model (Fig. 2).
Close-up photos were taken of each marked feature. These included examples of bedding for each geologic unit, fossils, and examples of the varieties of
sedimentary structures in the outcrop (Fig. 3).
We collected small, loose hand samples from several close-up areas that would benefit from further imaging or thin sectioning.
Photos of each hand sample were taken using a turntable and were processed
into a 3D hand sample model using Agisoft Metashape Professional (2020)
software and then uploaded to Sketchfab (Fig. 4).
We prepared 14 of the hand samples into thin sections, resulting in 1–3 representative samples from each locality, to capture the lithologic variation through the stratigraphy in each region of the VFT. These thin
sections were photographed under plane-polarized and cross-polarized light
at multiple magnifications to provide a suite of photomicrographs for students to evaluate thin sections in a virtual setting (Fig. 5).
Stitched panorama photo of the American Vitrified 2 outcrop (staff is 1.6 m and has 10 cm increments). This image is used in Parts 2–5 of the
assignment. Figure 2 is the equivalent 3D model of this outcrop, and the corresponding stratigraphic log is in Fig. 6.
Virtual 3D outcrop model of American Vitrified 2 (staff has 10 cm
increments); annotation numbers correspond to other photo and sample data in
the VFT. This is a still image of the fully manipulatable 3D virtual model
of the outcrop, available via Sketchfab. This model is used in Parts 2–5 of
the assignment.
Close-up photo of the base of the American Vitrified 2 outcrop,
with location of the basal mudstone sample (AV 2-1 in Fig. 4) shown with the
black arrow and orange tape (staff has 10 cm increments and is in the same
location in Figs. 1–3). This photo is used in Parts 3–5 of the assignment.
3D virtual models of hand samples from the American Vitrified 2 outcrop: (a) AV 2-1 mudstone from the base of the outcrop (arrow in Fig. 3), maximum diameter of sample 13 cm; (b) AV 2-2 sandstone with Stigmaria from the outcrop model annotation 2 (in Fig. 2), maximum diameter of sample
15 cm. These samples are available as models AV 2-1 and AV 2-2 via Sketchfab; scale bars are provided separately in still photos of these hand samples hosted for students on the project website.
Thin section images from American Vitrified 2, used in Part 3 of the assignment for students to precisely determine lithologies. (a) Sample AV 2-1 in PPL, the organic-rich mudstone from Fig. 4, (b) sample AV 2-1 in XPL from Fig. 4, (c) sample AV 2-2 in PPL, the sandstone from Fig. 4, and (d) sample AV 2-2 in XPL from Fig. 4. Scale bars in (a)–(b) are 1000 µm, and
scale bars in (c)–(d) are 100 µm.
Ethics
This study describes a virtual field experience project completed in our
respective classrooms in the fall of 2020. This was not a research project
involving human subjects, students were not surveyed, and we do not report
data about human subjects. Written permission was obtained from students
whose work is presented here as examples.
Background geology and framework: Part 1 of the assignment
In class periods leading up to the VFT, students engaged with concepts of
lateral and vertical facies relationships, drivers of sea-level change, and
environments of deposition. The first part of the VFT was designed to orient
students to time and place, establishing the background geology of the Paleozoic of the Michigan Basin and making connections to broader sedimentology and
stratigraphy topics (preliminary work on SLO no. 1). The students used Google Earth imagery at multiple scales, both statewide and focused on their
unique outcrops in Grand Ledge, Michigan. Students worked through provided
written and graphical information about the Late Paleozoic structure,
stratigraphy, and climate of the Michigan Basin and surrounding areas
(Milstein, 1987b; Catacosinos et al., 2000; Haq and Schutter, 2008; Towne et al.,
2013; Venable et al., 2013). They also discussed the following two sets of
questions with their small group, coordinating theory with the evidence
presented and recording their hypotheses in their field notes. (1) Why was relative sea level low during the early Pennsylvanian? Hypothesize about the
different drivers of relative sea level change that may have caused this.
How might those drivers have also influenced the sedimentary record we will
observe? (2) What environmental changes can you recognize in the Michigan
Basin stratigraphy of the late Paleozoic? Are there particular times of high
or low relative sea level?
Importantly, students were tasked with developing preliminary hypotheses
about the Pennsylvanian depositional environments of Grand Ledge, which they
would subsequently revise. This step of the VFT introduced important
vocabulary and context and was structured to connect with concepts discussed in class. In the field, this step is about establishing
familiarity with when, where, and what is above and below the interval of
interest so the context can better inform our hypotheses and interpretations.
Discussion of background and framework
Establishing the context for the virtual field experience, including some regional geology and sea-level history, was a critical part of students
understanding why Grand Ledge was an interesting locality to study and visit
virtually. Student response to the background section was mixed, and this is
one aspect that could have benefited from an initial class discussion. On
in-person field trips, the leader or instructor often gives the background
context before participants head to the outcrops, and a similar approach
could be valuable herein. However, the goal of the background section of the
project was also for students to gain more experience reading maps,
stratigraphic columns, and sea-level curves and formulating hypotheses based on these. To that end, a recommended improvement would be to require
students to submit these initial hypotheses immediately or have the instructor validate each hypothesis. Ideally, this part of the VFT should
expand their field notes to address the context around questions 1 and 2
above: time periods of interest, primary depositional environments,
paleoclimate, and field site location information.
Outcrop reconnaissance: Part 2 of the assignment
The second part of the VFT was to become oriented to the outcrop and make an
annotated sketch to record initial observations, similar to how one
approaches a new outcrop in person by first taking in the big picture
(preliminary work on SLO no. 1). The students used Google Earth imagery and 360∘ photos and began exploring all of the outcrop and hand
sample virtual 3D models and photos for their site (Figs. 1–4). In small
groups of two to three, students first accessed the materials for their assigned field site to conduct reconnaissance through a cursory examination of the
available maps, imagery, and descriptions. Students then used the 3D outcrop
model and outcrop photos to make an outcrop sketch in their notes; in their sketch, each student defined distinct lithologic units and annotated their
sketch with any observations they could make. Students were also encouraged
to record preliminary questions and hypotheses to drive their subsequent
investigation. This step of the VFT yielded the primary product of an
outcrop sketch with labeled units and annotated features, accompanied by
notes on preliminary hypotheses about the lithologies and paleoenvironmental
interpretations. This aspect of field work is essential and was incorporated to make sure students could establish their orientation and understanding of
the site in space, which is a challenge both in person and virtually and is a significant accessibility issue (Hall et al., 2004). Utilizing virtual
outcrop models has also been shown to be a positive and effective experience
for students when engaging in virtual field experiences and developing 3D
spatial thinking skills (Bond and Cawood, 2021, this issue).
Discussion of outcrop reconnaissance
Prior to the virtual field trip, we spent time scaffolding by discussing
principles of making a good outcrop sketch, practicing as a class, and
assessing examples (Geology Drawing Skills Handbook, 2018). That preparation
made a difference in the confidence and skill of students as they approached
the VFT data, given the particular challenge of sketching an outcrop with
only virtual materials. One of the challenges for students was to focus on
the original sedimentary features, looking past rubble, fractures or joints,
weathering stains, and vegetation. While most students depicted accurate
shapes and beds for their outcrops, sketches varied from being highly
stylized to largely realistic.
Lithologies: Part 3 of the assignment
The third part of the VFT was to identify and describe lithologies from a
combination of outcrop photos, 3D models, and thin sections (SLO no. 2). The students used close-up photos tied to annotations on the 3D outcrop models
(Fig. 2), 3D hand sample models and photos (Fig. 4), and thin sections made
from the hand samples (Fig. 5). Notes accompanied some of the imagery to
clarify locations and relationships that would aid in understanding
orientations. Students first differentiated distinct units within their
outcrop and then wrote a rock description for each unit. Students then
studied thin sections and completed ternary QFR diagrams (Folk, 1980) with
the goal of refining their rock descriptions. This step of the VFT yielded
products of rock names and their QFR constituent percentages, textural
descriptions, and hypotheses of depositional environments for each
lithologic unit described. Additionally, students experienced the
complexities and challenges of making lithologic observations in the field.
Discussion of lithologies
To accurately describe lithologies, it is important to examine multiple
scales of data. In the VFT, we achieved this through outcrop photos, 3D
models and photos of hand samples, and photomicrographs – this approach
also replicated the order of in-person field work and subsequent laboratory investigations.
The outcrop is the first point of interaction in the field experience,
requiring broad-scale observations. In asking students to define their own units in each outcrop, it rapidly became clear who was looking closely at
details and who was rushing to finish: students who had not examined all
parts of their available data during the reconnaissance stage invariably
noted fewer units than there were hand samples for. This led to revision of
their hypotheses as they collected more data at finer scales.
In the field, it is often more intuitive for students to zoom in and out of
an outcrop, stepping closer to view more details. In the VFT, students had
to learn that the discrete images and models at different scales were the
equivalent experience. Photos of hand samples and 3D models are high enough
resolution that rock texture is visible; therefore, students can make
observations about grain size and mineralogy. Students did need instructor
assistance to determine exactly what information could be gleaned from a
hand sample. This is similar to our experiences with students interacting
with physical samples in the field or lab, with particular emphasis on
encouraging students to look at the primary structures and lithology, as
opposed to weathering rinds or fractures.
Thin section data were a valuable component of the lithology section. At the Grand Ledge outcrops, the differences between some of the rock units are
subtle (e.g., silt versus very fine sand), and grain size information is key
to distinguishing them. Thin section photomicrographs allowed students to
test their hypotheses of grain size, which until this point in the VFT were
based on hand sample data and the general appearance of the outcrop.
Students estimated percent distributions of minerals and plotted these data on QFR diagrams. Incorporating a semiquantitative component was important in
offering students a concrete way to back up their interpretations. With thin
section data students are challenged to revise estimates of grain size,
evaluate sediment provenance, and consider possible depositional
environments.
By presenting highly organized data in the VFT, it seemed possible that
students would approach the VFT as if the instructors had prescribed the
answers. However, students approached the VFT data with fresh eyes and did not necessarily follow the units or order of operations we had planned. This
was a surprising and positive outcome and showed that a VFT can be a genuine exploration for students.
Bedding style and sedimentary structures: Part 4 of the assignment
The fourth part of the VFT focused on recognizing and describing bedding
styles and geometry from outcrop photos and 3D models (SLO no. 3). Students evaluated outcrop photos and 3D outcrop models (Figs. 1–3) to measure bed
thicknesses in their outcrops and assess trends through the section (i.e.,
thinning or thickening up-section). They next identified and carefully
described any sedimentary structures (e.g., flaser bedding, trough
cross-bedding, burrows) and clasts (e.g., rip-up clasts, fossils of plant
material) they saw, which were often difficult to distinguish due to the
nature of the outcrops. Both of these components were added to their outcrop
sketches and notes to refine their initial work. Students then revised their
environmental interpretation hypotheses based on these new data and were encouraged to focus on how the energy, sediment supply and type, and life
present changed over time through the succession of units present. This step of the VFT yielded products of actual measurements of bed thicknesses
and named sedimentary structures for their outcrop, which required students
to step back from the lithologic details and reassess the stratigraphic
patterns. This step presents the challenge of working with incomplete or
obscured evidence, since real outcrops may only show part of a cross-set,
have a highly weathered surface, or present an imperfect version of a
structure.
Discussion of bedding style and sedimentary structures
To accurately describe bedding geometry and other sedimentary structures, it
is important to examine multiple scales and orientations of the outcrop of
interest. In the VFT, we achieved this by using outcrop photos and 3D outcrop models that could be rotated and zoomed in on, in conjunction with
instructor guidance on annotating images virtually on Zoom (e.g., outlining key geometries), as one would point out key features in the field.
The types of bedding at Grand Ledge are limited and often highly weathered
or vegetated, and students did not always pay close enough attention to
distinguish small variations. Interestingly, in some relatively monotonous
outcrops, students simply did not notice major sedimentary structures (such
as large-scale cross-bedding) until an instructor guided their observations.
Encouraging students to “zoom out” and examine the whole outcrop did help
them to see all key sedimentary structures and bedding trends but required instructor guidance. This is not dissimilar to in-person field experiences,
in which students often focus on weathering features or fractures instead of
the primary structures. An important aspect of preparation for the VFT is to
show examples in previous classes of large-scale geometries, such as channel
lenses.
In some outcrops, students took the initiative to zoom in as much as
possible and also utilize the imagery from their lithology investigations, and they identified millimeter- or centimeter-scale features, such as flaser and lenticular bedding or small pockets of coal. This level of detail allowed students to
confirm or revise their environmental interpretations with a high degree of
confidence. Like an in-person field experience, the students who explored
the entirety of an outcrop at all scales collected enough data to make the
most accurate interpretations.
Stratigraphy: Part 5 of the assignment
Part 5 of the VFT was to create a detailed, stratigraphic column using data
acquired in previous sections (SLO nos. 2–4) in order to develop an interpretation of the depositional environment(s). Detailed instructions on
how to construct a stratigraphic column as well as several examples were
provided for the students. Our instructions were adapted from exercises on
constructing virtual graphic logs (Bristow, 2020) and clastic facies
analyses (Anderton, 1985). Our examples came from Geological Field Techniques (Coe, 2010), the Art of Geological Field Sketches (Noad,
2016), Geology Drawing Skills Handbook (2018), various notes on field geology and stratigraphy techniques
(e.g., Susan Kidwell, personal communication, 2014), and our personal field books. A pdf of a blank logging sheet was provided to the students to
construct their log digitally (e.g., in a pdf viewer, Word, PowerPoint, or Google Slides) or on paper by hand in a standardized format.
Prior to the VFT, students prepared by learning how to make a stratigraphic
column. In the online-only format at Albion, students worked through a
virtual graphic logs lab exercise (Bristow, 2020), preparing students to
also draw using their computers. At Calvin, students practiced through
making an in-person outdoor stratigraphic column of campus buildings and using supplements from the VFT.
Example student stratigraphic section drafted from American
Vitrified 2 outcrop data. This is a product from Part 5 of the assignment, using data collected in Parts 1–4 of the assignment (examples of data shown
in Figs. 1–5). Stratigraphic columns that students produce include the
graphic log, descriptions, and interpretations.
It was important to have all students use the same increments in their
stratigraphic column for consistency. This allowed us to compare and
correlate the columns in Part 6. They were instructed to include the data
listed in Table 1 to construct their stratigraphic columns, drafting both a
graphic log and including written notes on their data and interpretations.
Students were instructed to make interpretations and concise notes on their
column, including hypotheses about paleoenvironmental interpretations and
notes on relative sea-level change. Students were encouraged to continually revise their interpretations. This step of the VFT yielded products of
stratigraphic columns, which were explicitly to be their most refined
product, an example of which is provided in Fig. 6. The construction of
stratigraphic columns prepared students for a discussion and comparison of
their data with their peers. In the final stage of this part, students
worked with their partner(s) to assemble a short set of Google Slides that included a map showing their locality, an outcrop sketch, a stratigraphic column, and interpretations to be presented in the next step of the VFT.
Key features to include for drafting a stratigraphic column in the
Grand Ledge VFT.
Key features to include for the VFT stratigraphic column:Thicknesses of beds and sediment geometryLithologies and texture information: lithology is indicated by a pattern or a note beside the column. Grain size is indicated by the width along the x axis, expressed with a ragged or smoothed edge as it changes.Sedimentary structures (physical and biogenic): include symbols in the column and describe them on the side.Fossil content and clasts: include symbols in the column and describe them on the side.Nature of contacts (sharp? erosional features? relief?)Weathering style of individual beds (note changes in color and whether a unit is more recessive vs. more ledgy or resistant)Discussion of stratigraphy
To compile a stratigraphic column with sufficient detail and precision, it
was important for students to incorporate their observations from the
previous sections of the VFT in an organized manner, using a standardized
logging sheet and symbols. The Albion students completed all of their
stratigraphic sections digitally, annotating the log file in pdf-viewing software or inserting the .png file into Word, PowerPoint, or a Google
Slide to draw upon. One consideration is that it took students a long time to construct columns digitally due to the challenge of manipulating a laptop track pad. By typing descriptions and interpretations, students were able to include more details than when handwriting on the same logging sheet. Calvin
students drafted theirs on paper by hand (Fig. 7 shows examples of their
final products). The problems students encountered in drafting their
stratigraphic columns were largely similar for both groups of students,
though none were significant. We describe some of the challenges and
successes below.
Example student correlation constructed in Part 7 of the
assignment by one class group using Google Jamboard, including hand-drawn representative stratigraphic sections drafted in Parts 5–6.
Stratigraphic columns are essentially graphs of data, and yet students often
took artistic liberties, resulting in fanciful bedding scales and unrealistic distributions of features. Students found it challenging to draw
realistic representations of sedimentary structures, such as drawing the
larger-scale cross-beds that included multiple sets; smaller sedimentary
structures such as laminations and fossils were represented more
successfully. They also found it challenging to represent the scope of
outcrop features accurately. For example, students noticed the iron
concretions in one unit and incorporated them accurately into their outcrop sketches but then included the concretions throughout the entirety of the
stratigraphic column, instead of only in the units in which they occurred.
The blank lithologic log provided to students for drafting their sections
did not include a numbered scale. Part of the instructions guided students
through how and where to number their scale, but this was not foolproof. A
future modification could include a numerical scale already on the log,
which will save time and prevent scaling errors between students that hinder
correlations with other sections. Interpretations of the columns yielded
inconsistent results: students varied in their responses, with some simply
reiterating their descriptions, others giving a broad interpretation for the
entire column, and some detailing a paleoenvironmental interpretation for
each unit (the goal). Students were encouraged to create multiple drafts in order to yield a professional final product.
Most students displayed all geologic units accurately and consistently,
incorporating both patterns and descriptions of lithologies. Many sections
included a sufficient level of detail, particularly in the lithologic
patterns and notes of other features, such as fossils, bedding, and
concretions. While students did include joints and fractures in their
realistic outcrop sketches, they successfully excluded those secondary
features from their stratigraphic columns.
Collaborate: Part 6 of the assignment
In the previous part of the VFT, each student drafted a stratigraphic column
for their assigned outcrop (SLO no. 4; Fig. 6). In Part 6, students collaborated with class members to discuss and revise their interpretations
of the depositional environment(s) for their stratigraphic columns (SLO
no. 5). The groups met with one to two other groups (now a “pod”) working at adjacent outcrop localities to collaborate and share ideas. To start, each
outcrop group presented an overview of their outcrop data and
interpretations to the pod. To aid their discussion, the pod organized
representative stratigraphic columns from each outcrop into one document (we
used Google Jamboard, a collaborative online whiteboard), retaining scale
across the sites. With the outcrops in place for comparison, the groups
studied the sites for similarities and differences. Using Google Jamboard,
they began making correlations between outcrops, tracing marker beds or
distinctive contacts or facies changes. To support the graphical
correlations, students also added text to their Jamboard, describing
particular similarities, differences, and uncertainties across the sections
(see Fig. S1 in the Supplement). Additionally, students compared and contrasted individual
environmental interpretations and then worked as a pod to refine a written paleoenvironmental history for their general area.
Discussion of collaboration
Students were successful in this part of the VFT in seeing how adjacent
stratigraphy could be similar or different and how stratigraphic sections could consistently be correlated with key features. For example, students
recognized a coal seam regionally and noted that it was in most sections – this provided a point of familiarity and drove their correlation decisions.
This was the part of the project where students had big “lightbulb”
moments of understanding the connections. For the first time, students were
learning how to relate one stratigraphic column to another.
Uneven amounts of participation and commitment from the small groups within
a pod was a challenge. This could potentially be ameliorated by providing
open access to all groups' stratigraphic columns and interpretations. Some
groups had a very good collaborative dynamic, while others did not. This
dynamic is often challenging to predict in advance, whether students choose
their own partners or are assigned groups. Jigsaw activities and group
projects are contingent on all students being present and participating.
When any student is absent, this presents challenges for the entire group or
pod. We attempted to address this challenge by having pods of three small
groups, so that if one group did not engage, the remaining two groups could
still collaborate. Collaboration was necessary for all students to be
comfortable with the data for their outcrops and adjacent outcrops.
Ideally, students would return to their stratigraphic columns at this point
to correct misconceptions or errors in sketching their observations that
they discovered upon discussion and peer review with the larger pod. A
significant challenge is getting students to ask questions of each other or
of their own work. In the future, it would be beneficial for students to be
provided with examples of useful questions to ask. As instructors monitor
the pods, they could explicitly model the types of questions to ask and how
to modify stratigraphic columns.
For time constraints, it is possible to proceed directly to the full-class
Jamboard (Part 7) from individual sections (Part 5), skipping Part 6.
However, the key realization that different outcrops even within close
proximity to each other can show very different features, or help to fill in
gaps and confusion before doing a larger-scale correlation (addressed in
Part 6), is a useful step. Practice presenting and organizing thoughts in a
pod setting prior to full-class presentations was also important.
Disseminate knowledge: Part 7 of the assignment
Part 7 of the VFT asked students to bring the previous stages of the project
together, collaborating as a full class to develop a correlation and an
interpretation of the range of depositional environments for the entire
field area and then writing final reflections (SLO no. 6). Each small group was tasked with selecting a representative stratigraphic column from their site and presenting the columns and their preliminary interpretations to the
full class. The pods of small groups with adjacent outcrops were also given
the opportunity to present and justify their preliminary correlations. These
virtual presentations were done using either Google Slides or Google
Jamboard. Next, each small group added their representative stratigraphic
column to a full-class Jamboard. The class used the live-annotate functions
of the Jamboard to virtually draft correlations between sections, debate
lateral relationships, and draw upon their knowledge of similar sedimentary
records from readings and class to generate a cohesive set of hypotheses
about the depositional system (Fig. 7). To equip students to make more
explicit environmental interpretations, two additional readings were
assigned, which describe modern examples of tidal inlets and wash-over fans (Pierce, 1970) and discriminate between tidal versus fluvial influences on
sedimentation (Johnson and Dashtgard, 2014).
Following this work of sharing data and interpretations, students read a
short field guide to the Grand Ledge area (Milstein, 1987a), which presents
a clear interpretation of the site for students to evaluate. To conclude the
VFT, students wrote a final reflection summarizing what they learned and discussing how the final class hypotheses and interpretations compared with
their original hypotheses and with published interpretations. In addition,
students reflected on what went well and what to change about the
experience.
Discussion of dissemination of knowledge
Part 7 of the project took a big-picture perspective, bringing all previous
parts together scientifically while also asking students to present their ideas and reflect on their learning. Students were enthusiastic as they saw
how everything fit together. They felt like “real geologists” in this
part and enjoyed seeing how all the data connected and explained a real-world scenario. Students improved their skills at graphically
representing ideas by applying their knowledge from the collaboration in
Part 6 to the bigger picture.
It is important to remind students to draw upon the multiple scales of data
they worked with throughout the VFT. This leads to more nuanced hypotheses
and interpretations by incorporating all available data from different perspectives: for example, sometimes the best evidence to support a final
correlation hypothesis was from the thin sections, which were studied in
Part 3. When it came to interpreting paleoenvironments, it was important to
remind students to zoom out and recognize the lateral variation of
landscapes and consider the expected lateral and vertical successions of facies.
It was challenging to ensure that all students contributed to the
correlation, since the most confident students often take the lead and
complete this work first. Some students struggled to incorporate all their
data and observations into a final interpretation, relying heavily on only
one or two parts of the project for their final reflections, instead of
uniting the sedimentology, stratigraphy, correlations, and related readings.
Since this VFT required teamwork, a useful component to both evaluating
student work and giving students a voice in their outcomes was to collect
peer and self-evaluation reflections. Students were asked to numerically
assess their own and their partners' performance on a scale of 1–5 and also to provide qualitative assessment on how effectively their group worked
together and any behaviors of team members that were particularly valuable
or detrimental to the team. This information was used to assess student
performance and classroom dynamics but has no bearing on our evaluation of the VFT as presented in this study.
Summary of student feedback
In reading student reflections, we selected representative student responses
about their learning outcomes that corresponded to each SLO and coded these responses by SLO and school to ensure an even distribution of comments from
Albion and Calvin students. We focused on feedback related to why students
did or did not like the VFT, what was challenging and how challenges were
overcome, and achievement of the project SLOs. Student experiences and
outcomes were markedly similar between the two schools, and comments from
reflections were aggregated. We excluded student reflection responses that
were not related to an SLO or that were focused on specifics they learned about their particular outcrop. Student reflections were intended to be open-ended, as opposed to a structured survey; thus, further qualitative
data analysis is beyond the scope of this project. Table S1 summarizes a
variety of student reflections related to the SLOs and their experiences
with the VFT overall. Prominent themes from the students' final reflections
include the following.
Students gained a sense for the challenges associated with all aspects of
field work. For example, they identified note-taking as an aspect of field work they had not previously realized was important or difficult.
Students appreciated the opportunity to apply what they had learned in class
to a real-world, imperfect situation with natural variation.
Students reported that they learned how to form hypotheses about sedimentary
environments and revise their hypotheses based on additional information and collaboration.
Students noted how important collaboration was in solving problems and that teamwork was useful even when challenging.
Conclusions
This VFT about Grand Ledge, Michigan, provided an opportunity for a remote field experience for two sedimentation and stratigraphy classes at liberal arts colleges. The success of this VFT depended on all components being
prepared in advance and carefully structured. This created continuity and a
guided experience while still allowing students the freedom to explore within each part of the VFT. Through this VFT, students were able to access
more data than during a traditional field trip (i.e., thin sections),
leading to a complete experience in which they could develop hypotheses and
also access the multiple types of data needed to test the hypotheses and
refine their interpretations. This VFT facilitated a learning process that
asked students to utilize and build upon multiple skill sets and content
areas in a single continuous framework, which students perceived as
important for developing their skills as geologists. The student products
and feedback suggest that the VFT can yield the benefits of a traditional
field experience. The products, such as student field notes, stratigraphic
columns, and group interpretations support this, as well as the prominent
themes from the student feedback. Therefore, the VFT is viable if used
independently or could be used in conjunction with an in-person field trip.
Importantly, this VFT provided students with a realistic experience related
to a local field area and all of its natural variations and complexities,
all within an accessible format and achievable within the designated class time.
Data availability
Access to the collection of Grand Ledge virtual 3D models of outcrops and hand samples created by Madeline S. Marshall and used in this VFT is via Sketchfab (https://sketchfab.com/albionsedpaleo/collections/grand-ledge) (last access: 22 September 2021, Marshall, 2021) (in the collections of albionsedpaleo).
All other VFT data and materials are available at
https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/online_field/activities/242310.html (last access: 22 September 2021, Marshall and Higley, 2021).
The supplement related to this article is available online at: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-461-2021-supplement.
Author contributions
MSM developed the VFT concept; MSM and MCH collected the VFT data and designed and co-wrote the paper.
Competing interests
The contact author has declared that neither they nor their co-author has any competing interests.
Disclaimer
Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Special issue statement
This article is part of the special issue “Virtual geoscience education resources”. It is not associated with a conference.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our students at both Albion and Calvin, the 2020 NAGT Early Career Workshop, Ralph Stearley, John VanRegenmorter, and Ian Winkelstern for field-work discussions and assistance, and Crystal Bruxvoort and William Bartels for helpful suggestions and feedback on our manuscript. Additionally, our thanks to Anita Marshall and Kent Syverson, whose reviews
helped improve this article.
Review statement
This paper was edited by Marlene Villeneuve and reviewed by Anita Marshall and Kent Syverson.
References
Anderton, R.: Clastic facies models and facies analysis, in: Sedimentology: Recent Developments and Applied Aspects, edited by: Brenchley, P. J. and Williams, B. P. J., Geological Society, London, Special Publications, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 18, 31–47, 1985.AgiSoft Metashape Professional (Version 1.6.3), Software, available at: https://www.agisoft.com/downloads/installer/ (last access: 22 September 2021), 2020.Arthurs, L.: Bringing the Field to Students during COVID-19 and Beyond,
GSAT, 31, 28–29, 10.1130/GSATG478GW.1, 2021.Bond, C. E. and Cawood, A. J.: A role for virtual outcrop models in blended learning – improved 3D thinking and positive perceptions of learning, Geosci. Commun., 4, 233–244, 10.5194/gc-4-233-2021, 2021.Bristow, C.: Observe, Record, Interpret: some examples of teaching
sedimentology by distance learning including virtual graphic logs,
Sedimentary Record, 18, 4–11, 10.2110/sedred.2020.2.4,
2020.Carabajal, I. G., Marshall, A. M., and Atchison, C. L.: A Synthesis of
Instructional Strategies in Geoscience Education Literature That Address
Barriers to Inclusion for Students With Disabilities, Journal of Geoscience
Education, 65, 531–541, 10.5408/16-211.1, 2017.
Catacosinos, P. A., Harrison III, W. B., Reynolds, R. F., Westjohn, D. B.,
and Wollensak, M. S.: Stratigraphic nomenclature for Michigan, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality, Geological Survey Division, Lansing, Michigan, USA, 2000.
Coe, A. L. (Ed.): Geological Field Techniques, Wiley-Blackwell, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, 336 pp., 2010.
Folk, R. L.: Petrology of sedimentary rocks, Hemphill Publishing Company, Austin, Texas, USA, 182 pp., 1980.
Geology Drawing Skills Handbook: Geological Drawing, Version 1, Oxford
Cambridge and RSA, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 2018. Hall, T., Healey, M., and Harrison, M.: Fieldwork and disabled students:
discourses of exclusion and inclusion, J. Geogr. Higher Educ., 28, 255–280, 10.1080/0309826042000242495, 2004.Haq, B. U. and Schutter, S. R.: A Chronology of Paleozoic Sea-Level Changes,
Science, 322, 64–68, 10.1126/science.1161648, 2008.
Huntoon, J.: Demonstrating the unique benefits of field experiences, Science,
175–176, 2012.Johnson, S. M. and Dashtgard, S. E.: Inclined heterolithic stratification in
a mixed tidal–fluvial channel: Differentiating tidal versus fluvial
controls on sedimentation, Sediment. Geol., 301, 41–53,
10.1016/j.sedgeo.2013.12.004, 2014.Kelly, W. A.: Pennsylvanian Stratigraphy near Grand Ledge, Michigan, J. Geol., 41, 77–88, 10.1086/624006, 1933.Marshall, M. S.: Grand Ledge 3D Models, Sketchfab [data set], available at: https://sketchfab.com/albionsedpaleo/collections/grand-ledge, last access: 22 September 2021.Marshall, M. S. and Higley, M. C.: Virtual Field Trip to Grand Ledge, Michigan: Interpreting Sedimentary Environments, Teach the Earth, available at: https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/online_field/activities/242310.html, last access: 22 September 2021.
Martin, J. R.: Pennsylvanian Deltaic Sedimentation in Grand Ledge, Michigan, MS thesis, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA, 131 pp., 1982.Milstein, R. L.: The Ledges of the Grand River, Michigan, in: North-Central
Section of the Geological Society of America, edited by: Biggs, D. L.,
Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, USA, 311–314,
10.1130/0-8137-5403-8.311, 1987a.
Milstein, R. L.: Bedrock Geology of Southern Michigan, Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan, USA, 1987b.Mogk, D. W. and Goodwin, C.: Learning in the field: Synthesis of research on
thinking and learning in the geosciences, in: Earth and Mind II: A Synthesis
of Research on Thinking and Learning in the Geosciences, edited by: Kastens, K. A. and Manduca, C. A., Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, USA, Special Paper, 486, 10.1130/2012.2486(24), 2012.
Noad, J.: The (Forgotten?) Art of Geological Field Sketches, AAPG Annual
Convention and Exhibition, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19–22 June 2016.Petcovic, H. L., Stokes, A., and Caulkins, J. L.: Geoscientists' perceptions
of the value of undergraduate field education, GSAT, 24, 4–10,
10.1130/GSATG196A.1, 2014.Pierce, J. W.: Tidal Inlets and Washover Fans, J. Geol., 78,
230–234, 10.1086/627504, 1970.Rotzien, J., Sincavage, R., Pellowski, C., Gavillot, Y., Filkorn, H.,
Cooper, S., Shannon, J., Yildiz, U., Sawyer, F., and Uzunlar, N.:
Field-Based Geoscience Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Planning,
Execution, Outcomes, and Forecasts, GSAT, 31, 4–10,
10.1130/GSATG483A.1, 2021.
Towne, S., Barnes, D., Westjohn, D. B., and Harrison III, W. B.: A core
workshop: Late Mississippian (Chesterian) through early Pennsylvanian
(Atokan) strata, Michigan Basin, USA, in: Insights into the Michigan Basin:
Salt Deposits, Impact Structure, Youngest Basin Bedrock, Glacial
Geomorphology, Dune Complexes, and Coastal Bluff Stability, edited by: Gillespie, R., Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, USA, Field Guide, 31, 119–148,
2013.Venable, N. B. H., Barnes, D. A., Westjohn, D. B., and Voice, P. J.:
Pennsylvanian fluvial-deltaic depositional systems in central lower Michigan:
sedimentology, stratigraphy, and hydrogeology of the Saginaw Aquifer, in:
Insights into the Michigan Basin: Salt Deposits, Impact Structure, Youngest
Basin Bedrock, Glacial Geomorphology, Dune Complexes, and Coastal Bluff
Stability, edited by: Gillespie, R., Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, USA, Field Guide, 31, 119–148, 2013.
Zhao, J., LaFemina, P., Carr, J., Sajjadi, P., Wallgrun, J. O., and Klippel,
A.: Learning in the Field: Comparison of Desktop, Immersive Virtual Reality,
and Actual Field Trips for Place-Based STEM Education, in: 2020 IEEE
Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), Atlanta, GA, USA,
893–902, 10.1109/VR46266.2020.00012, 22–26 March 2020.