the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
08 Jun 2021
08 Jun 2021
Transformation of geological sciences and geological engineering field methods course to remote delivery using manual, virtual, and blended tools in fall 2020
- Department of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, K7L 3N6, Canada
- Department of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, K7L 3N6, Canada
Abstract. Geological (Engineering) Field Methods (GEOE/L 221) is a core course for two programs at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada where students learn foundational knowledge, skills, and methods to conduct field work that is used to investigate geological and geological engineering aspects of the Earth. Typically, this fall-term course involves weekly field trips in the Kingston area to visit a variety of rock outcrops to learn and practice methods of field navigation, observation, and measurement. Remote delivery of this course in fall 2020 due to COVID-19 without in-person field trips required a significant transformation, which included creating field and demonstration instructional videos, using 3D digital photogrammetry models of rock samples and outcrops, developing independent outdoor activities for pace and compass navigation, manual sketching and graphical measurements on paper, and utilizing a culminating immersive 3D video game style geological field mapping exercise. This paper examines these new course elements, how well the course learning objectives were achieved in a remote setting, and the successes and limitations of remote delivery. Although many new virtual elements enhance the course and should be incorporated to future offerings, a return to in-person field methods teaching for geological sciences and geological engineering courses is strongly recommended.
Jennifer Jane Day
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on gc-2021-18', Steven Rogers, 25 Jun 2021
Hello Jennifer,
I enjoyed reading this preprint, its really good to see what others have been upto when delivering geol courses over the past year! A few thoughts I have, which I hope are constructive and think could help increase the use and scope of the peice:
The changes you made are clearly communicated, but I think the pedagogical context of the innovations used is sometimes missing - what are the educational frameworks that support these innovations? -It feels like the digital mapping excercise was ultimately scaffolded by the field videos etc, for example. An interesting (and probably important/useful) addition could also look into student engagement - did the students engage? Why? What had to be taught differently (other than the virtual nature) e.g. with stereonets (which are known troublesome knowledge/associated with a concept threshold) did the online sessions work the same as they would have previously? Something on student attainment would be useful too - how did the students perform, and again, why might this be? Were the tools used potentially more inclusive/accessible (being able to rewatch videos etc.). My final thought would be what happens now? You highlight the need to return to the field (and I dont think anyone can argue that virtual trips can truely replace in situ fieldwork!) but would there be a case for keeping elements of the virtual fieldwork - could this prepare students for field work? Are you planning to keep some of the digital sessions or resources - you briefly mention this in the conclusions - how would you see this working and how might that work pedagogically (how might you build a blended learning environment)?
Sorry, lots to think about there - I really think sharing our practice of the last year is super important, so think this could be a really useful "case study" for some bestpractice, and do think that some additional pedagogic framework/supporting theory would be of benefit. Happy to chat if you would like? s.l.rogers@keele.ac.uk or I am also on Twitter @SLRogersGeol
Cheers,
Steve Rogers (Keele Uni)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gc-2021-18', Jacqueline Houghton, 08 Jul 2021
It is always interesting to read other people’s experiences of virtual field teaching, particularly courses created quickly due to the COVID-19 restrictions. Overall, I enjoyed the paper, it is well written and goes into great detail on what was planned and the technical details of how this remote delivery field methods course was delivered. However, for others to learn from the experience, there needs to be more on what actually happened in practice. I wanted to know more about the experience of delivering the course from both the instructor and student point of view. What worked, what didn’t and why? For example, what difficulties did student’s face using the software and how were they overcome? How well did student’s engage with the activities? What checks did you have in place to catch students who were struggling? How did instructors find creating the course? What advice would you offer to others doing the same? How did student results from this year compare with previous years and can you break this down to see if there were elements where they did noticeably better or worse than when in the field? And if you had to deliver it again, if restrictions were to remain in place, what would you do differently next time? You strongly recommend returning to in-person field methods teaching; something the majority of us will whole-heartedly agree with. Some virtual teaching elements can supplement and enhance in person field teaching though. They can act as pre-trip training or post-trip recaps, exercises that can supplement alternative field experiences for those unable to fully participate in fieldwork, they can even be used as “wet weather day” activities. You do mention some new course elements should be integrated into the in-person delivery, and it would be good to know which these were and why they would be a positive addition to the teaching fieldwork repertoire.
There are quite a few places through the text (particularly sections 3 and 5) where information could be presented as tables or figures for clarity and to reduce the need for repetition.
Section 3: Regular in-person course delivery. This has too much detail, given it is the virtual field course being discussed, and needs editing down. The bullet points on the field trips could be presented as a table or perhaps in an appendix if they are essential, and a similar graphic to figure 2 (which gives a lot of information in a concise manner) would condense the text and allow an easy comparison between the two.
Section 4: Remote course delivery. What was your thinking behind choosing these particular virtual learning course elements? Why did you choose the particular rock virtual rock samples and outcrops? Were there exercises you would have liked to have done but could not find the resources or insufficient time to create them? Out of interest – would students normally be required to purchase compass, notebook drafting equipment or was this an additional financial burden due to COVID-19?
Section 5: Discussion. There is an interesting debate to be had here; if all the learning outcomes can be covered by a remote exercise then why go in the field given the costs and accessibility issues involved? As students had no opportunities to learn or practice some techniques, it would be useful to consider whether all the outcomes were really fully achieved or whether they could only be partly achieved by remote teaching. Again, a table comparing what students would learn in the field against what they learnt in the virtual classroom would give clarity to this section. As mentioned above it would be good to have more on student feedback, for example, what was it about the lab assignments they found more difficult verses the practice exercises and is this something you see in the in-person classes too or is it unique to the remote environment?
Thank you for sharing your experience of remote learning. This is an interesting paper, but it does need more on the experiential aspects of the course and the practical lessons learnt to make it a fully rounded case study. I note the comment already posted makes similar suggestions.
Best wishes and fingers-crossed we can all return to the field in the near future!
-
RC2: 'Comment on gc-2021-18', Eric Pyle, 23 Aug 2021
The manuscript "Transformation of geological sciences and geological field methods course to remote delivery using manual, virtual, and blended tools in fall 2020", was submitted for review and was a delight to read, having had to do much of the same sort of work during 2020 and 2021, as well. This manuscript not only defines a contingent course design forced by public health considerations, but does so in terms of well-defined course learning objectives focused on geologic mapping skills development. Assessments are described in general and mapped to course learning outcomes. A logical spiraled course curriculum is also defined in a clear and succinct manner. Many of the course activities are traditional, transposed to an asynchronous format, while others are rather innovative and suggestive of further possible development.
Despite the strengths of this manuscript, there are a few shortcomings, none of which are fatal. They would simply strengthen the manuscript and broaden its utility to the field learning audience. As it stands, the manuscript is a rich narrative description of the design and delivery of what would normally be an immersive and experiential course experience, modified to fit an online delivery with asynchronous individual experiences. What is missing at the beginning is a justification of field instruction to start with, that is, providing a rationale for the considerable effort in organizing the course, rather than simply diverting students to a different type of offering.
Another shortcoming in this manuscript is the discussion of the assessments employed. There is a clear map of the assessment specifications to learning outcomes, but the specific details of the assessment instruments or tasks are limited. Scoring examinations can be straightforward, but how the artifacts or products were assessed is not presented – were there rubrics, and if so, can they be presented? An extension of the assessment discussion are the actual results, and the extent to which they represent the extent to which students met the intended outcomes. Furthermore, a comparison of these results compared to prior (normal) offerings of the course would provide support to the declarative statement in Line 333, where the effort was described as “very successful.” Given the relative lack of a theoretical framework or assessment results, it is difficult to accept this assertion.
Overall, this is a very well-written manuscript that can be made even better with a few more supporting details.
Jennifer Jane Day
Jennifer Jane Day
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 179 | 94 | 14 | 287 | 8 | 6 |
- HTML: 179
- PDF: 94
- XML: 14
- Total: 287
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1