ABSTRACTTraditionally at Washington and Lee University teachingin the field has been the core of our geology curriculum.We emphasize fieldwork at all levels of our instructionfrom the field-based introductory courses to our seniortheses. We are fortunate to be located in a geologicallydiverse location (in the Valley and Ridge of Virginia andwithin minutes of the Blue Ridge Mountains). The closeproximity of geologic variety allows us to spend nearlyevery class or laboratory period outside. We viewfieldwork, however, as just the beginning of geoscienceeducation. A crucial aspect of field geology is makingobservations and synthesizing the data collected. It isequally important for students to have well-developedskills in field methods, in analytical techniques, incomputation and modeling, and in synthesis andpresentation. To emphasize all of these aspects, ourcoursework is largely focused on emulating the processof research. Because we have had such a strong fieldemphasis, we are striving to strike a balance in ourcurriculum. We will present 3 examples of integratedexercises in our geology courses (including introductorygeology, sedimentary geology, and geochemistry).

INTRODUCTIONWashington and Lee University is located in the Valleyand Ridge province of Virginia and within minutes of theBlue Ridge Mountains (Figure 1). Our department issituated in the Appalachian fold and thrust belt atopCabro-Ordivician carbonates. Grenville age igneous andmetamorphic complexes are approximately 10 km to theeast and Silurian sandstones and Devonian shales 20 kmto the west. The close proximity of geologic varietyallows us to spend nearly every class or laboratoryperiod outside. We are a 4-faculty department within asmall liberal arts college. Our introductory courses havean average of 20 students per class and our upper-levelcourses an average class size of 8 or 9. For us, fieldworkhas traditionally been the core of our geologycurriculum. The solid basis for our field-intensiveinstruction has been founded on years of regionalgeological experience (Spencer, 1990; www.wlu.edu).

We emphasize fieldwork at all levels of ourinstruction from the field-based introductory courses toour senior thesis projects. Learning in a hands-on fieldsetting is one of the best ways to reinforce topics learnedin the classroom, to integrate academic and experientiallearning and to demonstrate the interrelationships ofgeoscience sub-disciplines (e.g. Lord, 1999; Noll, 2003).Learning to be an effective field scientist, however, is justthe beginning of a balanced geoscience education. A

crucial aspect of field geology is making observationsand synthesizing the data collected. It is equallyimportant for students to have well-developed skills infield methods, in analytical techniques, in computationand modeling, and in synthesis and presentation. Toemphasize all of these aspects, our coursework isevolving to focus on emulating the process of research.We are working to fold parts of our own local researchinto the classroom and to have our students completeprojects that begin with field data collection and followthrough the analysis and computational phases. We alsowork heavily with students in our summer research andbelieve this is one of our most valuable teaching tools.We attempt to make an integrated approach to ourteaching. In the following three examples we present arange of activities from our curriculum (introductorygeology, sedimentary geology and geochemistry) thatemphasize our incorporation of a field component.

EXAMPLE 1: INTRODUCTORY PHYSICALGEOLOGY PACE AND COMPASS / GPS /GIS MAPPINGThis is the first project of our introductory physicalgeology class. The course attracts both prospectivemajors and those satisfying a general educationrequirement because it has a large field component. Thepurpose of this lab is to familiarize students with 2instruments commonly used by field geologists (acompass and a GPS unit), ways of acquiring spatial data,and evaluating the quality of the data collected. Inaddition, students are exposed to the techniques of GISmapping that are so commonly employed today byprofessional geologists. Our exercise is based onprevious studies that have incorporated and emphasizedthe importance of using pace and compass in fieldinstruction (Reichard, 2002), using GPS in introductoryclasses (Herrstrom, 1999), and using GIS and GPS in fieldinstruction (Onasch and Frizado, 1996; Ludman, 2000;Purk and Pair, 1998). Our exercise extends theseexamples to give introductory students exposure to fielddata collection using pace, compass and GPS, andanalysis using spreadsheet analysis and GIS.

Data Collection - After an introduction to pace andcompass surveying, and to a GPS unit, students work ingroups of 3 collecting pace, bearing, and GPS waypointsas they conduct a survey loop on campus at surveystations of their choosing. They have a USGSorthorectified aerial photo of campus on which theymark the location of each station. In addition, one GPSunit is left in a fixed location and the entire classcontributes to repeat measures of this location.

Knapp et al. - Field-based Instruction 103

Field-based Instruction as Part of a Balanced GeoscienceCurriculum at Washington and Lee UniversityElizabeth P. Knapp Department of Geology, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA 24450,

knappe@wlu.eduLisa Greer Department of Geology, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA 24450Christopher D. Connors Department of Geology, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA 24450David J. Harbor Department of Geology, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA 24450

Data Analysis - Students input the data into Excel andthen reduce the pace and compass data to UTM locationsusing simple trigonometry (Figure 2). This givesstudents an appreciation for data reduction as they needto construct simple formulae and input them into Excel.

We next have the students run some simple statisticson the repeat GPS measurements including calculatingthe 95% confidence of the sample to determine theprecision of the GPS measurements. Students generallythink the GPS unit is the "correct" measurement of thelocation because they can see an exact number in thedigital read out, and thus they interpret this as theprecision of the unit. This analysis shows them that thereis indeed uncertainty in the measurements, and givesthem an objective measure of this uncertainty that theycan use later in their evaluation of the results.

Students next open an ArcMap GIS project to loadtheir data into the GIS. The project has a digital version ofthe orthorectified aerial photo of campus, and after somedata manipulation the students are able to take their datafrom Excel into ArcMap and display their survey stationson the orthophoto.

Data Interpretation - After analysis, students turn in aprintout of their orthophoto with survey points plottedand labeled (Figure 3). They also turn in a plot of the GPSuncertainty analysis with 95% confidence displayed as abox around the mean of the sample. With these plotsstudents turn in a discussion detailing the quality of thedifferent location methods. An excerpt from theassignment:

State in meters how accurate the GPS andpace-and-compass points are relative to locatingusing the orthophoto. Discuss the possiblesources of error for each method of determininglocation and what you believe is the greatest errorwith each method (GPS vs. pace-and-compass).Also discuss the nature of these errors. That is, arethe errors operator or instrument dependent, arethe errors cumulative or dependent on each

individual measurement, etc.? Finally, discussways in which you could test your hypotheses asto which errors are most significant. Could youset up a method of determining the uncertainty ofyour pace-and-compass measures as we did forthe GPS measurements? Much of your grade isdetermined by the thoughtfulness of yourdiscussion.

How well does this exercise work? - We have foundthis is an excellent way to expose students to dataanalysis, reduction, and GIS while learning to use somebasic field instruments. It is equally important for us toteach these skills to potential geoscientists and to liberalarts students. Many students feel overwhelmed with thecomputer work at first, but learn that they are fullycapable of doing the work with some assistance. In theiranalysis students generally overestimate humanmeasurement error with the pace and compass, and missthe fact that local magnetic fields on campus probablyplay the largest role in inaccuracies of the pace andcompass measures. They also overestimate the quality ofthe GPS measurements. This is one reason we added therepeat measurements section of the exercise. Thisdemonstrates a method for setting up a determination ofthe measurement uncertainty. Many students use this isas a template for suggesting other ways they could set upto test their hypotheses, for example: conducting repeatmeasurements of a bearing at a particular location orfrom varying distances along a line of bearing and thencalculating the 95% confidence of this sample.

EXAMPLE 2: SEDIMENTOLOGY CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL WEATHERINGPROCESSESThe following 2 exercises are integrated as part of ourupper-level sedimentology and stratigraphy course. Theobjectives of these integrated field/lab exercises are toexplore weathering processes, to develop and conduct a

104 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 2, March, 2006, p. 103-108

Figure 1. Simplified Geologic Map of Virginia (Bailey, 1999) showing the location of Washington and LeeUniversity.

scientific experiment, and to understand science as acollaborative effort. Exercise A is focused on the effects ofchemical weathering on various rock types, and ExerciseB explores physical weathering processes, differentialweathering, and provenance. The students are chargedwith hypothesis development and testing.

Data Collection - The introduction to each experimentbegins in the field. The class is taken to a granitic outcropin the Blue Ridge Mountains to observe, document, anddiscuss chemical and physical weathering processes.Students collect specimens of fresh and weatheredgranite, as well as sediments that have accumulated insitu and down slope of the outcrop. For Exercise A,

students travel to other sites to collect samples ofdolomite, fossiliferous and crystalline limestone, lithicpebble conglomerate and quartz arenite sandstone. ForExercise B, students travel to several streams, creeks andrivers located throughout the region to collect sedimentsand observe each body of water.

Experiment Design - Students are given guidance,rather than instruction, in developing their scientificresearch. Students work as a group to design theexperiment based on very broad questions posed by theinstructor. All students must be equally involved in theexperimental design and maintenance but may agree tosplit up tasks once the project is underway. The group

Knapp et al. - Field-based Instruction 105

Figure 3. Plot of GPS locations (boxes) and pace-and-compass (circles) derived locations on top of anorthorectified aerial photo.

106 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 2, March, 2006, p. 103-108

Figure 4. W&L students preparing samples in asedimentary geology laboratory.

Figure 5. Smelting iron ore at the Woods Creek Forge,Lexington, VA.

Figure 3. Web page showing the directions given to introductory geology students for data reductionduring the pace and compass / GPS / GIS exercise.

determines the best way to answer one or all of thequestions posed, using the samples they collected.

• Exercise A sample questions: How can you measurethe susceptibility of each sample to chemicalweathering? How might these samples weatherdifferently? How can you describe the differentweathering effects qualitatively in a scientificallymeaningful way? How can you quantify the rate ofchemical weathering for each sample? Doesweathering occur at a linear or non-linear pace? Whyor why not?

• Exercise B sample questions: How might thesediments you collected from various river/streamsettings differ and why? How does the geologic setting(and bedrock) the stream crosses affect the sedimentcharacteristics of each sample? What role doesdifferential weathering play in determining thesediment characteristics at each site? Will all yourhand specimens and sediment samples contain thesame ratio of major mineral constituents? Willsediment grains be the same size, shape, etc. at eachlocation? If not, how should your samples differ? Whyor why not?

Hypothesis Development - Students are provided withthe following materials to conduct their experiments:Sieve sets, spatulas, balance, beakers, graduatedcylinders, 1% and 10% hydrochloric acid solutions,stereomicroscopes, hand lenses, geologic andtopographic maps of the study area, label tape, Petridishes, permanent markers, rock hammers, weigh paper,access to a low temperature oven, and any othermaterials practically available (Figure 4). Each group isinstructed to formulate several working hypotheses to beexplored during data collection and analysis.

This step will vary depending on the experimentdesign of each group. However, the instructor can posequestions to help guide the students in theirexperimental work. Sample questions for Exercise A: Arereplicates necessary to accurately test weathering of eachrock or sediment sample? If so, how many replicatesshould you test? At what time intervals should you testyour samples to get high-resolution data on weathering?If using acid, should the acid be replaced during theexperiment?

Each person in the group is responsible for writing afinal individual report (less than 5 pages) that consists of:Initial hypotheses, methods, a data table, graphs ofresults, written results, discussion, conclusion, and whatyou would do differently next time. Students may allchoose to pursue the same hypothesis, differenthypotheses, or several hypotheses in their paper.

How Well Does this Exercise Work? - After completingExercise A students enjoyed developing their ownexperiment protocol and spent more time and effort onthe project than expected. They accepted problems withexperiment design and adjusted accordingly. They likely would have appreciated a more thorough follow-upafter the experiment period. After completing Exercise Bstudents indicated in an informal group discussion thatmore background information should have beenprovided before the sample collection and that moredirection should have been provided during hypothesisdevelopment. They also agreed that the interpretation ofresults (the paper) should have been more structured.However, students indicated they liked the

brainstorming process of developing hypotheses andmost students appreciated working with their ownsamples. In the end of course evaluations in Winter term2004, 2 of 5 students cited this experiment when asked,'What did you like the best about this course?'

EXAMPLE 3: GEOCHEMISTY REDOXPROCESSES: IRON ORE FORMATION AND IRON SMELTING The following example is taught as part of ourgeochemistry course for upper-level majors with thepurpose of introducing students to oxidation andreduction reactions using a field example of local irongeochemistry. The early economy of our community wasfounded on the iron industry and the proximity to these(now abandoned) ore deposits. The project includesinvestigation of the composition of local ore formation asan oxidation process (weathering of charnokite) andsmelting of iron (to iron metal) as a reduction process.The series of exercises teaches the concepts of fieldsample collection, laboratory analysis, and dataprocessing and computation.

The multi-phase exercise includes introductorylectures on oxidation / reduction chemistry, fieldcollection of ore along the western flank of the BlueRidge, collection of possible source rocks (chosen fromstudent investigation of geologic maps and historical oremining maps), exploration of nearby 19th century ironfurnaces, dissolution (of the whole rock and ores) andanalysis of elemental chemistry using ICP andmineralogy using XRD. The students also participate inthe smelting of iron ore at the Rockbridge Bloomery(operated by a local blacksmith, Lee Sauder, along withcolleagues interested in the history of iron production;for more information about this unique bloomery pleasevisit iron.wlu.edu). Students help to produce a bloom(elemental iron) using ore collected from the field (Figure5). Here the students learn the direct reduction processfirsthand as well as the history of the industry. Thestudents then determine possible ore source andcalculate the redox reactions for both the oxidationreactions in ore formation and reduction in the smeltingprocess.

How Well Does this Exercise Work? - The skills taughtin this exercise include an introduction to local geologyand geochemical concepts, field techniques, sampleprocessing and rock dissolution, analyticalinstrumentation (ICP - including standard preparationand calibration and XRD) and redox reactioncalculations and interpretation.

The field sampling and laboratory processing haveall gone well. Students enjoy investigating theabandoned iron mines and old furnaces. They like beingable to process their own samples and learn analyticalinstrumentation. Students find the use of ICP and XRD tobe instructive except for untimely equipment failures.The interpretation of the data is challenging for thestudents unless they are given additional backgroundand previous work with which to compare their results(Friedel, 2002). The iron smelting is complicated to setupbut the students find the process instructive and aweinspiring.

An alternative laboratory that has worked well for usis in our Chemistry of the Earth class (Knapp, et al., 2003).This laboratory demonstrates reduction reactions with abronze alloy smelt using an in-house furnace (Dunn,

Knapp et al. - Field-based Instruction 107

2003). The "bronze" laboratory is a quantitative study ofore reduction that can work well in any laboratory with afurnace (Dunn, 2003).

SUMMARYThe Washington & Lee University Geology departmenthas a strong tradition of emphasizing field work. We arestriving to balance classroom, field and analyticaltechniques in our curriculum. We use a skills matrixadapted from Carleton College (Savina, et al., 2001) and ayearly departmental programmatic review to ensure thatwe are providing the best geologic preparation for ourstudents. We recognize that the skills gained in each ofour classes and laboratories are different. Whereas oureducational philosophies in the department are similar,our approaches to teaching differ. The multi-phaseexercises we use (as demonstrated in these examples) gobeyond field observation and emphasize geologicalskills, field observation and data collection, laboratoryand analytical skills, computation and modeling, andscientific writing and presentation. We believe that usingfield experiences as an overall part of integrativeexperiences provides the best education for our students.

REFERENCESBailey, C. M., 1999, Simplified geologic map of Virginia,

http://www.wm.edu/geology/virginia/geologic_map.html (31 January, 2005).

Dunn, K. M., 2002, Caveman Chemistry: 28 Projects,from the Creation of Fire to the Production ofPlastics, Universal Publishers, 424 p.

Friedel, T., 2002, Determination of iron ore depositionconditions in the Blue Ridge Mountains, Departmentof Geology Senior Thesis, Washington and LeeUniversity, 28p.

Herrstrom, E. A., 1999, Putting GPS receivers into thehands of non-majors in introductory geology classes,Geological Society of America Abstracts withPrograms, v. 31, p. 265.

Knapp, E.P., Dejardins, S. G. and Pleva, M.A., 2003, Aninterdisciplinary approach to teaching chemistry togeology students, Journal of Geoscience Education,v. 51, p. 481-483.

Lord, M. L., 1999, Progressive development of scienceand research skills in a project-focusedgeomorphology course, Geological Society ofAmerica Abstracts with Programs, v. 31, p. 320.

Ludman, A., 2000, Field geology courses and GIS;teaching in the next century, Geological Society ofAmerica (Northeastern Section) Abstracts withPrograms, v. 32, p. 32.

Noll, M. R., 2003, Building bridges between field andlaboratory studies in an undergraduategroundwater course, Journal of GeoscienceEducation, v. 51, p. 231-235.

Onasch, C. M. and Frizado, J. P., 1996, Integration oflaptop computers, GPS, and GIS with traditionalfield methods in a summer field geology course,Geological Society of America Abstracts withPrograms, v. 28, p. 268.

Purk, T. J. and Pair, D. L., 1998, Using geographicinformation systems (GIS) to teach spatial reasoningto science majors, Geological Society of AmericaAbstracts with Programs, v. 30, p. 131.

Reichard, J. S., 2002. A computer program for use withpace and compass exercises, Journal of GeoscienceEducation, v. 50, p. 544-548.

Savina, M. E., Buchwald, C.E., Bice, D.M., Boardman, S.J.,2001, A skills matrix as a geology departmentcurriculum planning tool, Geological Society ofAmerica Abstracts with Programs, v. 33, p. 191.

Spencer, E. W., 1990, Introductory Geology with FieldEmphasis, Journal of Geoscience Education, v.38, p.246-248.

108 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 2, March, 2006, p. 103-108