ADAPTING BEST PRACTICES FROM PLACE-BASED EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION TO ASSESS THE TEACHING POTENTIAL OF THE GEOLOGIC HERITAGE MOVEMENT

The geologic heritage movement, robust in much of the world and ascendant in the USA, offers new field-based and place-based geoscience teaching opportunities. These carry with them a challenge to authentically evaluate the impacts of geologic heritage places and programs on public geoscience literacy. Such evaluation differs from the evaluation of a geologic heritage place for its scientific significance, heritage value, economic or cultural impact, and so on. Best evaluation practices from formal education, informal education, and interpretation start with a coherent set of evaluable learning outcomes, ideally recapitulated in one or more “big ideas” that capture the essential attributes. Learning outcomes may be classified as cognitive, affective, or psychomotor.

Cognitive learning outcomes in a geoheritage context are the Earth-science concepts a visitor or student would be expected to uncover through on-site or virtual exploration of the stratigraphy, structure, landforms, and processes in a place. The Earth Science Literacy Principles (ESLP), and related Earth system literacy documents offer a template for mapping localized concepts onto more global ones. Instruments to evaluate understanding of the ESLP are in development, and the ESLP also map directly onto the Next Generation Science Standards for K-12 education in the USA. Nongeological place meanings suggest other cognitive outcomes. Affective outcomes for teaching in geoheritage sites are less readily defined, but may include place attachment, attitudes, and interest. Multiple quantitative and qualitative methods of evaluating these outcomes exist. Psychomotor learning outcomes are muddier still, but accessibility offers a potential starting point.

Evaluation may be done synchronously or asynchronously with actual engagement in the geoheritage place or program, and is constrained by access and practicality. Synchronous methods include observation, semi-structured interviews, rapid prototyping and surveys. Asynchronous methods include interviews, surveys, and tracking. Evaluation tools may require content or instrument validation for the specific context in which they are used. Illustrative examples from evaluation of public engagement with geologic features in the Southwest USA offer useful context.