TEACHING UNCERTAINTY IN A VIRTUAL GEOLOGY FIELD COURSE MODULE

We designed a week-long, capstone virtual field camp module with two explicit goals: 1) Recreate the process of doing field-based geology research; and 2) Make thinking about uncertainty explicit for student geologists. The field area was the Sage Hen pluton in the White Mountains of eastern California, where two published maps have different interpretations. We recreated the process of science by providing the students each day with new, unpublished datasets that provided new information relevant to the interpretations. The central theme of the module was uncertainty, and this contribution highlights this aspect of the module. Students completed activities around data and model uncertainty. As part of these activities, the students learned to rank uncertainty on a 1-5 scale (permissive, suggestive, presumptive, compelling, or certain). As part of the uncertainty modules, students practiced assigning uncertainty rankings and then were provided with an expert geologist’s uncertainty ranking and explanation of the reasoning for the ranking. Evaluation of uncertainty was incorporated into each day’s activities.

We measured student understanding of uncertainty with pre- and post-assessments. In each assessment students were given two scenarios (one with data uncertainty, one with model uncertainty) where geologists had arrived at different conclusions. Students were asked to state what may have resulted in different conclusions by different geologists, and rank the likelihood of the differences being caused by measurement error, data quality, variability in the natural environment, prioritization of the individual geologists’ sub-disciplines, and prior assumptions while collecting and analyzing the data. As part of the post-assessment, students were also surveyed about their experience with the module. Findings indicate that in situations where data is uncertain, students attributed this variation to the different priorities of geologist sub-disciplines and prior assumptions while analyzing and collecting the data. Students also reported finding the module useful with average ratings for all components above 4.0 on a 1-5 scale. This was echoed in students' qualitative responses about the course, and an informal expression of how helpful uncertainty ratings would have been for prior field work.