Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

Planet

ISSN: 1473-1835 (Print) 1758-3608 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhep12

Student difficulties in learning geoscience

Helen King

To cite this article: Helen King (2012) Student difficulties in learning geoscience, Planet, 25:1,
40-47

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.11120/plan.2012.00250040

Copyright 2006 Taylor & Francis

Published online: 15 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 122

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rhep12

Download by: [186.188.88.52] Date: 23 September 2017, At: 19:27


Helen King
Earth Science Senior Advisor, GEES Subject Centre (now Head of Academic Staff Development, University of Bath)

Student difficulties in
learning geoscience

Abstract Introduction: student difficulties


Downloaded by [186.188.88.52] at 19:27 23 September 2017

A small-scale pilot study with three institutions (from in learning geoscience


the UK, USA and Canada) tested a methodology for Since the 1970s, science education research has
identifying student and staff perceptions of difficulties focused on identifying difficulties learners encounter
in learning geoscience. A mixed-methods approach in the study of scientific concepts and phenomena
was used with questionnaires, interviews and a (e.g., Wandersee et al., 1994, Bransford et al., 2000). A
card-sort exercise. number of models have been proposed to account for
difficulties in learning, including alternative
Seven difficult topics were identified by both students conceptions (e.g. Wandersee et al., 1994; Duit and
and staff: Treagust, 2003), learning impediments (Taber, 2001),
conceptual prisms (Kusnick, 2002), critical conceptions
mineralogy, (Schoon and Boone, 1998), critical barriers (Hawkins,
crystallography, 1978) and threshold concepts (Meyer and Land, 2003).
maps,
structural geology, Studies on student learning difficulties in the
space / time relationships, geosciences have emerged only relatively recently
chemistry / geochemistry, (Libarkin and Kurdziel, 2001) but a body of research is
metamorphism. being established which discusses alternative
conceptions held by learners about geoscientific
Also, six reasons for learning difficulties were found in concepts (Dove, 1998) together with classroom tools
common across all participant groups: for identifying and mitigating these (e.g. the
Geoscience Concept Inventory: Libarkin, 2005).
terminology and memorisation, Discussions on the nature of geoscience, although
spatial literacy, extremely useful for describing the discipline, have
problems with maths / science, largely been restricted to the expert point of view
abstract concepts, (Frodeman, 1996; Frodeman, 2000; Raab and
issues with teachers or learners, Frodeman, 2002; Manduca et al., 2003; Manduca and
understanding the depth of geological time. Mogk, 2006; Seddon, 1996). Student or novice
perceptions are rarely heard, though exceptions
The methodology has established some categories include a study of the ontology (the nature of being or
PLANET ISSUE 25

above, but additional tools, including checklists and existence) of geoscience (Libarkin and Kurdziel, 2006),
problem-solving exercises are required to better the investigation of issues related to interest in the
quantify the extent of the difficulties across the subject for purposes of recruitment to higher
student population and to explore more deeply the education or public literacy (King et al., 2007; Bezzi,
reasons for these difficulties. 1999), and recent research on conceptions of
geoscience (Stokes, 2010).

40
Despite the relative newness of geoscience research institutions, although the University of Calgary also
in this area, there is some agreement as to what required clearance to be sought through their Conjoint
aspects might present difficulties for students (Kortz Faculties Research Ethics Board.
and Murray, 2009), including (in no particular order):
In order to maintain a manageable dataset the study
Holistic understanding of the Earth as an integrated focused primarily on difficulties encountered at
system (e.g. Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and Orion,2005; Blake, introductory level geoscience. Participants included
2005; Dal, 2007), self-selected staff and students (all levels including
Spatial scale (the magnitude of rock formations undergraduate and postgraduate) who responded to
and Earth processes; e.g. Ault, 1984; Kusnick, 2002; an email requesting their help with the research. The
Dickerson et al., 2005), nature of the institutions and respondents was such
Geological time (the depth of time compared with that non-majors (students taking geoscience as a one
human existence and the formation / deformation or two module science option) were mostly
of rocks over long timescales; e.g. Trend, 2001; represented by the University of Colorado at Boulder,
Kusnick, 2002; Dodick and Orion, 2003; Libarkin et and majors by the University of Calgary and the
al., 2007), University of Plymouth.
Transience of landscapes (human observers may
have difficulties perceiving changes in rocks and Methods
land features over time; e.g. Kusnick, 2002; Blake, Rather than proposing and testing a hypothesis, the
Downloaded by [186.188.88.52] at 19:27 23 September 2017

2005; Dal, 2007), study took an inductive approach that allowed the
Abstract concepts (those that are intangible or theory to emerge from the data. A mixed-methods
visually unseen such as the Earths interior methodology was used which combined
structure; e.g. Dove, 1998), questionnaires, interviews, and a card-sort exercise.
3D Visualization (e.g. Dove, 1998; Kali and Orion,
1996; Kastens and Ishikawa, 2006). An Internet questionnaire was designed using the
Bristol Online Survey tool (2010) including open-
Methodology ended response-type questions together with
The aim of this pilot project was to establish a demographic data collection. A draft version of the
methodology for identifying novice (student) and questionnaire was piloted at the Universities of
expert (staff) perceptions of geoscience learning Plymouth and Colorado with three volunteer students
difficulties and the reasons for these difficulties. Other and one member of staff. The final questionnaire was
research reported in the literature focuses on in-depth completed by 151 respondents. An introductory
studies within small, specific contexts (as listed question asked: What aspects of geoscience do you
above); however, the findings may not necessarily be find the most interesting? And why?. Participants
generalised as they are only relevant to the particular were then asked to describe, through a structured
cases studied (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). This does not series of questions, up to three geoscience concepts
make them any less valid or valuable. Indeed, as which they found difficult. To ensure that respondents
demonstrated in the list above, similar findings have didnt leave with an overly negative perception of
been reported by multiple researchers. geoscience focused on their difficulties, a question
was then posed to seek views on how learning
The study population geoscience had transformed their way of seeing or
Three higher education institutions were involved: the understanding the world. A final section provided an
University of Plymouth (UK), the University of Colorado invitation to comment on any other aspect of their
at Boulder (USA) and the University of Calgary learning experience which came to mind whilst
(Canada). These were selected as convenience completing the questionnaire. Separate but
samples from the authors personal contacts, as well equivalent questionnaires were provided for each
as providing an opportunity for gathering data across institution to reflect cultural differences in
different institutions and curricula (a convenience or terminology (for the UK participants levels one, two,
opportunity sample is one that is easily accessible to three and four were substituted for freshman,
PLANET ISSUE 25

the researcher and, as such, may not necessarily be sophomore, junior and senior; staff for faculty; and
generalisable to the whole population). Ethics lecturer for professor). Also, in the staff
clearance for this research was obtained from the questionnaire, respondents were asked to comment
University of Plymouth Faculty of Science Ethics on their perceptions of their students experience
Committee. This covered the study at all three rather than their own.

41
Student difficulties in learning geoscience
Helen King

Table 1a and b: The number of face-to-face interviews conducted is shown in parentheses

Gender Years Teaching


Table 1a: Demographics Staff Female Male <5 610 1120 >20

University of Calgary 9 (3) 5 4 5 2 0 2


University of Colorado 3 (1) 1 2 1 1 1 0
University of Plymouth 8 (30) 2 6 1 0 5 2
Total 20 8 12 7 3 6 4

Gender Level
Table 1b: Students Female Male Fresh Sophomore Junior Senior Masters Not
Demographics man level 1 level 2 level 3 /PhD specified
Downloaded by [186.188.88.52] at 19:27 23 September 2017

University of 16 (4) 13 3 0 2 7 6 0 1
Calgary

University 31 (0) 17 14 5 4 6 4 12 0
of Colorado:
Majors

University of 80 (6) 51 29 25 25 14 15 1 0
Colorado:
Non-Majors

University of 24 (3) 14 10 0 10 4 7 3 0
Plymouth

Total 151 95 56 30 41 31 32 16 1

The accuracy of the questionnaire responses was the online questionnaire deadline and the interview
cross-checked through face-to-face interviews with process it was not possible to carry out a full analysis
20 volunteer respondents (distributed across the of the questionnaire data in order to produce this
three institutions as illustrated in Table 1a and b). exercise. However, for the purposes of testing the
These interviews also provided an opportunity to methodology these initial 25 aspects were considered
ensure that the researcher attributed the correct appropriate. Participants were asked to talk through
meaning to their written responses. Participants were their thinking as they selected categories for each
asked to talk about any aspects of learning card and this was recorded as part of the interview. In
geoscience that had caused them (or their students) addition, written notes were made on the rankings of
difficulty, and to describe a concept that may have each area of difficulty.
changed how they viewed the world around them.
The interviews were recorded using a hand-held Data analysis
digital device and transcribed verbatim. The questionnaire data were imported into a
spreadsheet for ease of coding. Each response under
The interviews provided an additional opportunity to the questions What geoscience concept has been
establish participant validation. A very brief scan of difficult for you to understand? and Describe any
PLANET ISSUE 25

the survey responses revealed 25 potential areas of other aspect of learning geoscience that you have
difficulty. These were then used as the basis for a found difficult was coded to produce a list of
card-sort exercise undertaken by the interviewees difficulties. Each response under the question In
(Rugg and McGeorge, 2005) in which they were asked what ways was this concept difficult for you? was
to rank each of the areas from not at all difficult to coded to produce a list of reasons for difficulties. Once
very difficult. Due to the short period of time between each response had been coded, a process of constant

42
comparison was undertaken to reveal a number of geoscience, including topics (e.g. structural geology),
categories arising from the analysis. Use of the methodologies (e.g. radiometric dating), activities
modified constant comparison method means that (e.g. field courses) and theories (e.g. plate tectonics).
the researcher continually compares the new data Hence, rather than restricting the analysis to
with existing data and categories until a perfect fit is concepts, it was widened to consider any difficult
achieved between the categories and data (Cohen et aspect of learning geoscience.
al., 2007).
Results and discussion
The difficult topics and reasons for difficulties noted Difficult aspects of learning geoscience
during the interviews were compared with the The respondents identified a large number of difficult
participants questionnaire responses to check for aspects of learning geoscience. Each group (students
consistency. The interviewees card sort responses or staff from each institution) added to the list of
were collated and the topics selected as very difficult difficulties, suggesting that saturation has not yet
or fairly difficult were quantified. The students been reached (as the number of variables continued
occasionally mentioned topics not previously noted in to increase). However, several difficulties were
the survey. This difference may be due to students identified by multiple respondents.
very recent encounters with new topics. For example,
one student noted in the survey that the concept of After this first phase of coding, it was noted that some
glaciation was difficult for her but she began the aspects could be categorised together; for example,
Downloaded by [186.188.88.52] at 19:27 23 September 2017

interview by stating that currently right now Im partial melting, solid solutions and metamorphism.
learning about ... radiometric dating... Thats just so Figure 1 below illustrates those categories and codes
difficult for me. There was close agreement, however, which are represented by more than one response.
between the interviews and surveys in the reasons for Not all respondents completed each section of the
difficulties. questionnaire. Percentages were therefore calculated
based on the number of participants who provided
Although respondents were specifically asked about responses to each question, not the total number of
difficult concepts, they tended to discuss any respondents who submitted questionnaires.
difficulties that they had encountered in learning

PLANET ISSUE 25

Figure 1: Illustration of the second


phase of coding of difficult aspects
in learning geoscience (combined
data across all three institutions).

43
Student difficulties in learning geoscience
Helen King

Six categories of difficult aspects were mentioned by own difficulties. When the interviewees undertook the
student (major and non-major) and staff card sort exercise to categorise pre-determined topics
respondents. These were (in descending order of they often noted difficulties in areas they had not
percentage of all responses): mentioned themselves. This suggests that open-
ended questionnaires (and / or interviews) alone are
Mineralogy and crystallography not enough to quantify the extent of the
Map reading and interpretation including cross- commonalities of difficulties across the population.
sections
Structural geology Reasons for difficulties
Stratigraphy and space-time relationships including A similar process of coding was used for the responses
erosion to the question In what ways was this concept
Chemistry/geochemistry difficult? Again, the second phase of coding revealed
Partial melting, solid solutions and metamorphism a short-list of categories as illustrated in Figure 2:
Downloaded by [186.188.88.52] at 19:27 23 September 2017

In addition, all student groups, but no staff, noted Six categories were mentioned by student (major and
that terminology and memorisation were difficult. In non-major) and staff respondents. These were (in
addition, only student respondents reported no descending order of percentage of all responses):
difficulties.
Terminology and memorisation
The open-ended online and interview questions Spatial literacy (including visualising in 3D and
provided no prompt to help respondents identify their undertaking 2D to 3D transformations)
PLANET ISSUE 25

Figure 2: Illustration of the second phase of coding of reasons for difficulties in learning geoscience (combined data
across all three institutions).

44
Problems with maths or science As each group of respondents was added to the data,
Abstract concepts / visualising the unseen new difficulties and reasons arose. This suggests that
Issues with teachers or learners (some students saturation has not yet been reached and that more
felt that the instructor had hindered their learning research is required to firmly establish the key
and some staff felt that students needed to be learning difficulties in geoscience as perceived by
more self-motivated) students and staff. In addition, the card sort exercise
The depth of geological time (particularly with conducted within the interviews revealed that
respect to humans relatively short existence). respondents did not list all their difficulties within the
survey (not least because they were asked to mention
All student groups but no staff noted that some only a maximum of three). Hence, in order to better
concepts were simply hard to grasp or counter-intuitive. quantify the extent of the common difficulties in
learning, it is suggested that further research includes
The data appear to suggest that there are qualitative a check-list of difficulties for respondents to select.
differences in perceptions of difficulties between staff
and students, and that there may be differences In the same way that geoscience is the study of
between major and non-major students. The samples complex interacting systems, so the learning of it
used in this study are too small to identify statistically requires the acquisition and interaction of complex
significant differences and caution would be advised knowledge and multiple skills. For example, staff
in doing so as the students would have studied suggested that stratigraphy presents problems due to
Downloaded by [186.188.88.52] at 19:27 23 September 2017

different aspects of geoscience at each institution. spatial literacy issues and difficulties with visualising
However, the presence of different student and staff unseen processes (such as the production of
perceptions indicates that this topic is fertile for unconformities through erosion and subsequent
further study. deposition). This overlaps with difficulties with
mapping and cross-sections as well as
Conclusion and directions for comprehending geological time. Also, although
future research geological time is commonly recognised as a barrier
This research illustrates that, as one colleague noted, to learning by students and staff, for some this refers
the aspects of learning geoscience that students find to the difficulty of grasping the depth of time:
difficult are Highly variable and student dependent. comprehending rates of processes, thermodynamics,
However, a number of common aspects emerged and solids behaving like liquids (i.e. rock deformation over
three of the reasons for difficulties matched those time) [staff interview response]; whereas for others it
noted in the literature: was about memorisation of the timescale: its
difficult for me to differentiate/remember all of the
Spatial literacy; different time periods [student survey response]. For
Abstract concepts; and staff (and some students), geological time is an
Geological time. abstract concept to be grasped, whilst some students
simply see it as a concrete list of names and dates.
These factors impinge on many (if not all) aspects of The complexity of geoscience and the nature of its
geoscience but again respondents identified common ways of thinking and practising are issues that both
topics, such as mineralogy and crystallography, map teachers and learners need to consider.
reading and interpretation, structural geology,
stratigraphy and space/time relationships, General agreement of these research findings with
geochemistry, and metamorphism. the existing literature suggests that there are a
number of difficulties in learning geoscience common
The fact that many student respondents noted that to many students. However, this pilot study has
the concepts were simply hard to grasp suggests a illustrated the need for further research to establish
deeper underlying cause for the difficulty such as these more firmly. The methodology described here
alternative conceptions (Duit and Treagust, 2003), offers a broad-brush approach to determining
ritual, inert or tacit knowledge (Perkins, 2006), or categories. Other tools are required to quantify the
PLANET ISSUE 25

cognitive development (McConnell, 2005). Open- extent of these barriers across the student population
ended questionnaires and interviews are insufficient and to explore more deeply the underlying causes of
to explore these areas and additional research is difficulties.
required, using more complex problem-solving type
exercises, to establish these.

45
Student difficulties in learning geoscience
Helen King

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the staff and students who participated in this research for sharing their
perspectives on learning Geoscience and Dr Andrea Bair (University of Colorado at Boulder), Dr Yolande
Knight (GEES Subject Centre), Prof Leslie Reid (University of Calgary) and Dr Alison Stokes (University of
Plymouth) for all their help with the project. This research was funded by a grant from the GEES Subject
Centre.

References
Ault C.R. 1984 The everyday perspective and exceedingly unobvious meaning, Journal of Geological
Education, 32, 89-91
Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and Orion N. 2005 Development of system thinking skills in the context of Earth System
Education, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 518-560
Bezzi A. 1999 What is this thing called geoscience? Epistemological dimensions elicited with the
repertory grid and their implications for scientific literacy, Science Education, 83, 6, 675-700
Downloaded by [186.188.88.52] at 19:27 23 September 2017

Blake A. 2005 Do childrens ideas about the Earths structure and processes reveal underlying patterns
of descriptive and causal understanding in earth science, Research in Science Technological Education,
23, 1, 59-74
Bransford J.D., Brown A.L. and Cocking R.R. 2000 How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school,
National Academy Press: Washington D.C.
Bristol Online Survey Tool, 2010 http://www.survey.bris.ac.uk/ Accessed 18 April 2011
Dal B. 2007 How do we help students build beliefs that allow them to avoid critical learning barriers and
develop a deep understanding of geology?, Eurasian Journal of Maths, Science and Technical Education, 3,
4, 251-169
Dickerson D., Callahan T. J., Van Sickle M. and Hay G. 2005 Students conceptions of scale regarding
groundwater, Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 374-380
Dodick J. and Orion N. 2003 Cognitive factors affecting student understanding of geologic time, Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 4, 415-442
Dove J.E. 1998 Students alternative conceptions in Earth Science: A review of research and implications
for teaching and learning, Research Papers in Education, 13, 183-201
Duit R. and Treagust D.F. 2003 Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science
teaching and learning, International Journal of Science Education, 25, 6,671-688
Frodeman R. 1995 Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science, GSA Bulletin,
107, 8, 960-968
Frodeman R. Ed. 2000 Earth matters: The Earth Sciences, Philosophy and the Claims of Community,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Hawkins D. 1978 Critical barriers to science learning, Outlook, 29, 323
Kali Y. and Orion, N. 1996 Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geologic
structures, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 369-391
Kastens K.A. and Ishikawa T. 2006 Spatial thinking in geosciences and cognitive sciences. In Manduca C.
and Mogk D (Eds.) Earth and Mind: How geoscientists think and learn about the earth, Geological Society
of America Special Publication, 413, 53-76
King H.L., Hill A., Deverill S., Kirby N. and Stokes A. 2007 Understanding public perceptions of
geoscience, Geological Society of America Annual Meeting: Denver
Kusnick J. 2002 Growing pebbles and conceptual prisms understanding the source of student
misconceptions about rock formation, Journal of Geoscience Education, 50, 1, 31-39
Libarkin J.C. 2005 Conceptions, cognition, and change: student thinking about the Earth, Journal of
PLANET ISSUE 25

Geoscience Education, 53, 4


Libarkin J.C. and Kurdziel J.P 2001 Research methodologies in science education: assessing students
alternative conceptions, Journal of Geoscience Education, 49, 4, 378-383
Libarkin J.C.and Kurdziel J.P. 2006 Ontology and the teaching of Earth Science, Journal of Geoscience
Education, 54, 3, 408-413

46
Libarkin J.C., Kurdziel J.P. and Anderson S.W. 2007 College student conceptions of geological time and
the disconnect between ordering and scale, Journal of Geoscience Education, 55, 413-422
Lincoln Y.S. and Guba E. 1985 Naturalistic inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, California
Manduca C.A. and Mogk D.W. Eds. 2006 Earth and Mind: How geologists think and learn about the earth,
The Geological Society of America Special Paper, 413.
Manduca C.A., Mogk D.W. and Stillings N. 2003 Bringing Research on Learning to the Geosciences,
Science Education Resource Center. http://serc.carleton.edu/files/research_on_learning/
ROL0304_2004.pdf Accessed on 18 April 2011.
McConnell D. A., Steer D.N., Owens K.D. and Knight C.C. 2005 How students think: implications for
learning in introductory geoscience courses, Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 4, 462-470
Meyer J.H.F. and Land R. 2003 Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: linkages to ways of
thinking and practising within the disciplines, ETL occasional report 4, University of Edinburgh, UK
Perkins D. 2006 Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In Meyer J.H.F. and Land R.(Eds.)
Overcoming barriers to student understanding, threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge,
Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 33-47
Raab T. and Frodeman R. 2002 What is it like to be a geologist? A phenomenology of geology and its
epistemological implications, Philosophy & Geography, 5, 1, 69-81
Rugg P. and McGeorge P. 2005 The sorting techniques: a tutorial paper on card sorts, picture sorts and
item sorts, Expert Systems, 22, 3, 94-107
Schoon K.J. and Boone W.J. 1998 Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice
Downloaded by [186.188.88.52] at 19:27 23 September 2017

elementary teachers, Science Education, 82, 553568


Seddon G. 1996 Thinking like a geologist: The culture of geology. Mawson lecture 1996, Australian
Journal of Earth Sciences, 43, 5, 487 495
Stokes A. 2010 in press A phenomenographic approach to investigating students conceptions of
geology, Qualitative Inquiry in Geoscience Education Research, Geological Society of America Special
Paper
Taber K.S. 2001 The mismatch between assumed prior knowledge and the learners conceptions: a
typology of learning impediments, Educational Studies, 27, 2, 159-171
Trend R.D. 2001 Deep time framework: a preliminary study of UK primary teachers conceptions of
geological time and perceptions of geoscience, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 2,191-221
Wandersee J.H., Mintzes J.J.and Novak J.D. 1994 Research on alternative conceptions., in Gabel, D.L.
(Ed.) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, Macmillan, New York

Helen King helen@helenkingconsultancy.co.uk

PLANET ISSUE 25

47

S-ar putea să vă placă și