quantitative assessment of a ﬁeld-based course on ...sheppard/patrickmary/09geos195dsop.pdf ·...

International Research in Geographical and Environmental EducationVol. 19, No. 4, November 2010, 295–313

Quantitative assessment of a field-based course on integrative geology,ecology and cultural history

Paul R. Shepparda∗, Brad A. Donaldsonb and Gary Huckleberryc

aLaboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; bGeneral BiologyMS Program for Teachers, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; cDepartment of

Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA

A field-based course at the University of Arizona called Sense of Place (SOP) covers thegeology, ecology and cultural history of the Tucson area. SOP was quantitatively assessedfor pedagogical effectiveness. Students of the Spring 2008 course were given pre- andpost-course word association surveys in order to assess awareness and comprehension ofthe geology, ecology and cultural history of the Tucson area. Students who had previouslytaken SOP (2005–2007) and students who had never taken SOP also completed thesurvey. The survey consisted of 12 stimulus terms, all of which represent conceptsintegral to an understanding of environmental geography of the Tucson area. The studentswrote words that they associate with each stimulus term. Differences between the pre-and post-course responses showed clear improvement in awareness and comprehensionof the geology, ecology and cultural history of the Tucson area. Results from studentswho took SOP in past years indicate that long-term retention of course content is good.The word association technique proved to be effective for collecting data and evaluatingthe course. The field trips of SOP are described in the Appendix, which also contains theword association survey used in this research.

Keywords: field-based education; geology; ecology; cultural history; word association

Introduction

This paper describes a quantitative assessment of a field-based environmental geographycourse at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA. This course is entitled Senseof Place (SOP), borrowing the phrase from extensive literature on place-based theory aswell as from a biography of the same title about Forrest Shreve, the internationally renownecologist of the early twentieth century, who studied the deserts and mountains of southernArizona and thereby had a profound understanding of the geography and environments ofthe region (Bowers, 1988). The phrase “sense of place” often implies subjective feelings ofattachment to a place based on personal experience of being there (Holloway & Hubbard,2001; Holloway, Rice, & Valentine, 2003; Johnston, Gregory, & Smith, 1994; Stokowski,2002). Given such flexibility in definition, a sense of place can differ for different people,even for the same place, with no single sense of place being more or less valid than others(Gruenewald, 2003; Yung, Freimund, & Belsky, 2003).

However, sense of place can include other definitions and themes (Kaltenborn, 1998;Semken & Freeman, 2008; Williams & Stewart, 1998). For example, a foundational basis

∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 1038-2046 print / 1747-7611 onlineC© 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/10382046.2010.519150http://www.informaworld.com

Downloaded By: [University of Arizona] At: 15:52 15 November 2010

296 P.R. Sheppard et al.

of sense of place can include awareness and comprehension of natural environments ofa place (Brandenburg & Carroll, 1995; Shamai, 1991; Stedman, 2003a), such as geologyand ecology (Semken, 2005), as well as human interactions with environments (Stedman,2003b), including those of the past (Stedman, Beckley, Wallace, & Ambard, 2004). Thegeology, ecology and cultural history of a place are less open to personal interpretation andtherefore can constitute a concrete curriculum for the academic study of a place (Brown &de Lacerda, 1986).

Knowing the geology, ecology and cultural history of a place and thinking criticallyabout human–environment interactions can lead to strong community leadership (Smith,2002), an essential and desirable outcome as humanity grapples with complex ecosystemmanagement (Williams & Stewart, 1998). Because of the cross-cutting nature of ecosystemmanagement, interdisciplinary instruction should be made available to all students, not justto students of academic majors that fall within environmental science (Carter, 1993).

Learning any one of the disciplines of geology, ecology or human–environment in-teraction can be a daunting task, in and of itself. Integrating all three together into acomprehensive understanding can be even more formidable. Field trips can help in thisregard (Paradis & Dexter, 2007). Field-based pedagogy has long been touted as being ef-fective, to the point of being transformative (Whitmeyer & Mogk, 2009). Hands-on, activelearning, which typifies field-based education (Orion, 1989; Tueth & Wikle, 2000), fosterscomprehension and retention of course content (McKenzie, Utgard, & Lisowski, 1986).Additionally, other benefits accrue from field-based instruction, including self-confidence(McConnell, 1979), critical thinking (McNamara & Fowler, 1975), self motivation(Giardino & Fish, 1986) and socialization skills (Falk, Martin, & Balling, 1978), all ofwhich are desired outcomes of education generally. Field-based education is even extolledin the literature, for example in the following declaration by the sixteenth-century Danishphysician Peter Severinus (Geikie, 1962), which has been adopted as a guiding philosophyby SOP as well as by other field-based courses:

Go my children, . . . burn your books, . . . buy yourselves stout shoes, get away to the mountains,. . . the deserts, . . . and the deepest recesses of the earth; mark well the distinction betweenanimals, the differences among plants, the various kinds of minerals . . . . In this way, andno other, will you arrive at a knowledge of things, and of their properties. Idea MedecinaePhilosphicae, 1571

SOP aims for integrated comprehension of the geology, ecology and cultural historyof the Tucson area, the hometown of the University of Arizona (Butler, Hall-Wallace, &Burgess, 2000). To achieve this goal, SOP takes four all-day field trips during a regularsemester, with field trips thereby comprising 82% of the student–instructor contact time.SOP visits sites in and around Tucson that feature educational examples of geology, ecologyand cultural history (narratives and maps of trips are in the Appendix). Geology coversvolcanic origins, recent tectonic events and natural hazards, and students actively learnand practice identification of rocks and structural aspects of modern topography as well asassessment of flood hazards. Ecology covers the Sonoran Desert, one of the world’s mostinteresting deserts, and Sky Islands, also world renowned, and students actively learn andpractice identification of plants and biotic communities, measurement of ecosystem healthand productivity, and assessment of wildfire hazards. Cultural history covers human habi-tation of southern Arizona spanning thousands of years, and students actively describe andinterpret material aspects of archaeological sites (e.g., room blocks, bedrock mortars, pot-tery and rock art). During trips, students keep field journals of notes, drawings, calculationsand comprehensive, integrative summaries (Stanesco, 1991).


International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 297

Unfortunately, field-based instruction is generally at risk of being cut from universitycourse offerings (Berliner & Pinero, 1985), largely because of funding and striving forefficiency in academia, i.e. moving toward large lecture classes and/or distance learning(Salter, 2001). Evidence of effectiveness of field-based instruction can serve as a defense formaintaining field trips (Keown, 1984). The assessment of field-based instruction is largelyqualitative (Jenkins, 1994; Kastens et al., 2009; Orion & Hofstein, 1991). For example,quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of SOP has yet to be done, even though SOPhas run for 20 years now. Accordingly, the objective of this project was to quantitativelyassess the effectiveness of SOP, in particular for awareness and comprehension of thegeology, ecology and cultural history of the Tucson area.

Methods

Techniques for assessing course effectiveness

Multiple techniques exist for assessing the effectiveness of educational courses, includingexamination, interviewing (Dawson & Caulley, 1981) and questionnaires (Suskie, 1996).Unfortunately, assessment techniques have various drawbacks, including taking a longtime to administer and complete (Gaddis, 1998), imparting bias (McKeachie, 1978) andinaccurately assessing comprehension of content matter (Aikenhead, Fleming, & Ryan,1987).

The assessment technique called word association avoids these drawbacks. Word as-sociation allows free, unconstrained responses by test subjects, thereby minimizing ex-perimenter bias (Kjeldal, 2003; Wagner, Valencia, & Elejabarrieta, 1996). Stimulus termsare chosen to reflect content of key importance, thereby accurately assessing compre-hension of the course material (Bahar, Johnstone, & Sutcliffe, 1999). Word associationsurveys are usually quick and easy to administer and complete, thereby avoiding surveyfatigue and allowing large numbers of samples to be collected (Schmitt, 1998). Becauseof these attractive features, word association has been used in assessing academic courses(Hovardas & Korfiatis, 2006). Accordingly, word association was chosen here for assessingthe effectiveness of SOP.

SOP word association survey

Stimulus terms for the SOP word association survey were chosen to reflect key content ofthe course (Bahar et al., 1999), i.e. the geology, ecology and cultural history of the Tucsonarea. In all, 12 stimulus terms were tested (Table 1). These terms were listed in the surveyin a random order (Szalay, Windle, & Lynse, 1970). The word association survey used inthis research is given in the Appendix.

Participants were instructed to write up to four words and/or phrases that came to mindfor each stimulus term in the survey. Allowing for multiple responses, instead of just oneresponse, improves the likelihood of accurately assessing comprehension of stimulus terms(Schmitt, 1998). Drawing from their knowledge and experience, participants responded inspaces provided next to each stimulus term. The survey was anonymous and therefore hadno connection to grading in the course. At most, the survey needed only 10 minutes tocomplete, and participants knew that they could decline taking it at any time.

The principal survey group was of students enrolled in the 2008 edition of SOP. Twentystudents enrolled that year and took the word association survey before the beginning ofthe course. Sixteen of these students completed the course and took the same survey again



Table 1. Stimulus words or expressions used in this word association survey, plus representativeanswers for each grade of good, intermediate and poor.

Stimulus Grade 3 (good) Grade 2 (intermediate) Grade 1 (poor)

Desert High evaporation-to-rainfall ratio

Sand and rocks Hostile environment

Arizona Diverse landscapes Desert A state of the USHohokam Prehistoric desert

dwellersNative Americans Hard life

Geology Plate tectonics Mining RocksSonoran Desert High biodiversity Cactus Dry, like all desertsTucson In desert, but near

mountainsLittle water Dusty

Ecology Interrelated life Urban encroachment A scienceWild fire Cycle of landscape

disturbance andrenewal

More common nowthan before

Ugly, charred woodsremain

American Southwest Long history of humanhabitation

Drought Western movies

Flooding Sediment for farming Lots of murky water Destroys houses, roadsO’Odham Modern native

SouthwesternersSan Xavier mission Near Tucson

Archaeology Past human cultures,related to present

Study of old things Egypt

at the end of it, thereby establishing a pre- versus post-course comparison to assess theeffectiveness of SOP (Bahar et al., 1999).

To serve as a control or comparison group (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002), other studentsof the University of Arizona who had not taken SOP were recruited to take this survey.These participants were acquaintances of students of the course, but they were not so closeto SOP students that they knew about the course or its content. In total, 14 control studentstook this survey.

To assess long-term retention of the SOP content, students who had taken SOP duringthe years 2005 to 2007 and who were still in or around Tucson also completed this survey.In total, 10 alumni of SOP completed this survey.

Quantification of SOP word association responses

Word association surveys yield qualitative data, which have a strong place in assess-ment research (Hoepfl, 1997) but can be difficult to analyze statistically because oftheir non-numeric nature (Chi, 1997). To facilitate statistical analysis of this survey, re-sponses were converted to numeric values (Vazquez-Alonso, Manassero-Mas, & Acevedo-Dıaz, 2006) by a panel of three people (each of us authors) knowledgeable in the ge-ology, ecology and cultural history of the Tucson area. Independent from each other,we graded responses for knowledge and comprehension of the geology, ecology andcultural history of the Tucson area based on extensive literature on environmental ge-ography of the area (background references on the trips and their academic contentare cited in the Appendix). A coarse grading scheme was chosen for this conversion(Rubba, Bradford, & Harkness, 1996): a grade of 3 represented good to excellent compre-hension; a grade of 2, average comprehension; and 1, little comprehension (Table 1). A



grade of 0 was given for no response and for answers that had no relevance to the stimulusterm.

For each response to each stimulus term, our three grades were compared. For the mostpart, our grading fell into reasonable agreement and the modal grade was taken as the finalgrade. If our grades diverged widely from one another, e.g. one of us grading a response tobe a 3 while another of us grading it as a 1, we discussed the discrepancy and a consensusgrade was agreed upon for that particular response (Rubba et al., 1996).

Response grades were summed for each stimulus term for each participant of the survey.The maximum sum possible for each stimulus term was 12, i.e. with each of four possibleresponses being graded a 3. The minimum sum possible for each stimulus term was 0, i.e.when no responses were given for a stimulus term.

Sums of stimulus terms were statistically analyzed. T -tests of means (Sokal & Rohlf,1981) of participant sums were performed to determine the significance of differencesbetween survey responses given before and after the course for students enrolled in SOP.T -tests were also performed to determine the significance of differences between studentswho took SOP and students who had not. Analysis of variance (ANOVA), which is relatedto the t-test but allows comparisons between more than two samples (Sokal & Rohlf,1981), was used to determine the significance of differences between students who hadcompleted SOP in the years 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008. ANOVA was also used to determine ifdemographic variables were important predictors for how students responded to the stimulusterms.

Demographic variables

The survey collected demographic information about participants, including the following:

� Year in college: 25% were freshmen, 11% were sophomores, 11% were juniors, 44%were seniors and 9% percent were postgraduate students.

� Science or nonscience major: 40% were non-science majors and 60% were sciencemajors.

� Gender: 58% were female and 42% were male.� Race: 86% were white, 11% were Hispanic and 3% were Asian.� Location of hometown: 25% were from Tucson, 11% were from Arizona outside of

Tucson, 58% were from the US outside of Arizona and 6% were from outside the US.

Results

Pre-course and control-group comparison

No significant differences were found between pre-course survey results of students enrolledin SOP and the survey results of current University of Arizona students who never tookthe course (Figure 1). Serving as a control group, students not enrolled in SOP producedslightly higher mean sums in response to some stimulus terms and slightly lower mean sumsto other stimulus terms. The lack of significant difference between these two groups showsthat students enrolled in SOP were not particularly knowledgeable of the geology, ecologyand cultural history of the Tucson area before taking the course. Accordingly, the studentswho took SOP were not especially predisposed to higher awareness of SOP curricula thanthe general population of students.



0

6

12Ecology (p = .385)

0

6

12Wild Fire (p = .765)

0

6

12Am. Southwest (p = .650)

0

6

12Desert (p = .501)

0

6

12Arizona (p = .567)

0

6

12Hohokam (p = .820)

0

6

12Geology (p = .226)

0

6

12Sonoran Desert (p = .367)

0

6

12Tucson (p = .867)

0

6

12

Pre Control

Flooding (p = .569)

0

6

12

Pre Control

O'odham (p = .854)

0

6

12

Pre Control

Archaeology (p = .580)

Sum

of s

tude

nt r

espo

nses

Figure 1. Comparisons of pre-course and control-group survey sums of student responses for eachstimulus term. “Pre” indicates SOP survey results before taking SOP. “Control” indicates surveyresults of students who have not taken SOP. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals. P values are thelevel of significance of difference between the pre-course and control-group surveys.

Pre- and post-course comparison

For all stimulus terms, the difference in sums before versus after taking SOP was positive,i.e. mean sums of associations to the stimulus terms increased in the post-course surveyover the pre-course survey (Figure 2). Significant differences between pre- and post-coursesurveys were found with all but one stimulus term. The stimulus term “Arizona” wasthe lone exception, though even its p-value of .065 approaches significance. In general,upon taking and completing SOP, students responded to the stimulus terms with words andphrases that conveyed more knowledge of the geology, ecology and cultural history of theTucson area than was evident before taking the course.



0

6

12Ecology (p = .008)

0

6

12Geology (p = .020)

0

6

12Sonoran Desert (p < .001)

0

6

12Tucson (p = .002)

0

6

12Wild Fire (p = .006)

0

6

12Am. Southwest (p = .002)

0

6

12

Pre Post

Flooding (p = .001)

0

6

12

Pre Post

O'odham (p = .003)

0

6

12Arizona (p = .065)

0

6

12Desert (p = .001)

0

6

12Hohokam (p < .001)

0

6

12

Pre Post


Sum

of s

tude

nt r

espo

nses

Figure 2. Comparisons of pre- and post-course survey sums of student responses for each stimulusterm. “Pre” indicates survey results before taking SOP. “Post” indicates survey results after completingthe course. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals. P values are the level of significance of differencebetween the pre- and post-course surveys.

Additionally, student responses varied less in the post-course survey than in the pre-course survey (Figure 2). Confidence intervals narrowed for every stimulus term in thepost-course survey relative to the respective terms of the pre-survey.

Long-term retention

Sample sizes for the alumni SOP classes of 2005–2007 were small, reflecting difficulty intracking down and getting alumni of the course to come and take the survey. Nonetheless,responses to most of the stimulus terms showed no significant difference across studentswho took SOP in 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008 (Figure 3). Only three stimulus terms – desert



0

6

12

2004 2006 2008

Desert (p = .034)

n = 5 2 3 160

6

12

2004 2006 2008

Arizona (p = .960)

0

6

12

2004 2006 2008

Hohokam (p = .049)

0

6

12

2004 2006 2008

Geology (p = .158)

0

6

12

2004 2006 2008

Sonoran Desert (p = .707)

0

6

12

2004 2006 2008

Tucson (p = .036)

0

6

12

2004 2006 2008

Ecology (p = .226)

0

6

12

2004 2006 2008

Wild Fire (p = .941)

0

6

12

2004 2006 2008

Am. Southwest (p = .307)

0

6

12

2004 2006 2008

Flooding (p = .159)

0

6

12

2004 2006 2008

O'odham (p = .992)

0

6

12

2004 2006 2008


Sum

of s

tude

nt r

espo

nses

Year SOP taken

Figure 3. Comparisons of survey sums of student responses by year of completion of SOP for eachstimulus term. In 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, n = 5, 2, 3 and 16 students, respectively. Error bars are95% confidence intervals. The confidence intervals for 2006 and 2007 were large, extending off thegraphs, due to small sample sizes and, therefore, were deleted. P values are the level of significanceof difference by the year of completion of SOP.

(p = .034), Hohokam (p = .049) and Tucson (p = 0.036) – revealed significant differencesin responses. Responses to the other 10 stimulus terms showed no significant differencesacross the four years. At a minimum, for SOP students of the last four years, there has beenlittle to no loss of awareness of the geology, ecology and cultural history of the Tucson area.



Demographic variables

Of the students who completed pre- and post-course surveys, the following demographiceffects were found:

� The year of a student had no significant effect on pre- and post-course surveys.� Majoring in science versus non-science had no significant effect on the pre- and post-

course surveys.� Gender did not account for variance in responses for any stimulus terms except for

“archaeology”, for which females scored higher in both the pre- and post-course surveys(p = .048).

� Location of hometown had no significant effect on the pre- and post-course surveys.� Race did not account for variance in responses for any stimulus terms except for the

term “archaeology”, for which Hispanics scored higher than whites and Asians (p =.011).

Discussion

This quantitative assessment of SOP confirms other quantitative analysis of field-basedinstruction. Field-based instruction significantly improves awareness and integrated com-prehension of geographical/environmental content (Orion & Hofstein, 1994), and long-termretention of this content is good (Mackenzie & White, 1982). These effects cut across de-mographic characteristics of age, gender, major, race and personal background (Lisowski &Disinger, 1991), and they can be realized even with short, local field trips (Wheeler, 1985)in addition to epically long trips (e.g. GeoJourney, Elkins, Elkins, & Hemmings, 2008).

Theoretical advantages of word association as an assessment technique were realizedin this research. Our survey was easy to administer and easy for participants to take. Par-ticipants were not biased by statements posed in either negative or positive tones, nor werethey restricted by finite lists of multiple choices. Qualitative responses to stimulus termswere convertible to quantitative scores, thereby allowing statistical analysis. Consistentresults were seen across multiple stimulus terms, not just for one or a few terms, makingfor confident interpretation of results (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).

The next step in this research would be to assess a course that is similar to SOP interms of content and instructors but differs in being principally classroom- and/or lecture-based (Kern & Carpenter, 1986; Lisowski & Disinger, 1991). This opportunity exists atthe University of Arizona, where a course entitled Environmental History of the Southwest(EHSW) also covers geology, ecology and cultural history, though, of the entire AmericanSouthwest as opposed to just the Tucson area (Sheppard, Hallman, & Towner, 2008). EHSWis currently being assessed for pedagogical effectiveness, again with the word associationtechnique, for the purpose of comparing it with SOP. This comparison will speak to thenotion that field-based pedagogy leads to better comprehension of course content thantraditional classroom teaching (Elkins et al., 2008; Kern & Carpenter, 1984).

Conclusions

Field-based education might be inefficient in terms of logistical expense and low student–instructor ratio (Salter, 2001), but field trips are worthwhile because of effecting integratedcomprehension of challenging curriculum. As but one example of the field-based instruc-tion, SOP is hereby shown to improve awareness and comprehension of the geology, ecology



and cultural history of the Tucson area. Given the increasingly complex environmental is-sues of today, field-based courses linking environmental studies with geography are evermore essential for training people to tackle difficult environmental challenges. Addition-ally, in this quantitative assessment, word association proved to be easy to administer andeffective.

Acknowledgements

We thank the students who completed this word association survey. Drs Melanie Culver,Mark Borgstrom and Jeff Dean assisted in this project. This research was funded in part bythe University of Arizona Foundation.

ReferencesAikenhead, G.S., Fleming, R.W., & Ryan, A.G. (1987). High-school graduates’ beliefs about science–

technology–society: I. Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science Education, 71,145–161.

Bahar, M., Johnstone, A.H., & Sutcliffe, R.G. (1999). Investigation of students’ cognitive structurein elementary genetics through word association tests. Journal of Biological Education, 33,134–141.

Barnes, H.H. (1967). Roughness characteristics of natural channels. Water-Supply Paper 1849,Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey.

Barnes, M.E. (2005). Forged by fire: the devastation and renewal of a mountain community. Tucson,AZ: Vireo House.

Berliner, D., & Pinero, U.C. (1985). The field trip: Frill or essential? Instructor, 94(9), 14–15.Bezy, J.V. (2004). A guide to the geology of Sabino Canyon and the Catalina Highway. Arizona

Geological Survey Down-to-Earth Series 17. Tucson, AZ: Arizona Geological Survey.Bezy, J.V. (2005). A guide to the geology of Saguaro National Park. Arizona Geological Survey

Down-to-Earth Series 18. Tucson, AZ: Arizona Geological Survey.Bowers, J.E. (1988). A sense of place: The life and work of Forrest Shreve. Tucson, AZ: University of

Arizona Press.Bowers, J.E. (1990). A debt to the future: Scientific achievements of the Desert Laboratory, Tumamoc

Hill, Tucson, Arizona. Desert Plants, 10, 9–47.Brandenburg, A.M., & Carroll, M.S. (1995). Your place or mine? The effect of place creation on

environmental values and landscape meanings. Society and Natural Resources, 8, 381–398.Brown, F., & de Lacerda, L.D. (1986). A field course teaching research concepts in environmental

geochemistry. Journal of Environmental Education, 17, 27–33.Butler, R.F., Hall-Wallace, M., & Burgess, T. (2000). A sense of place: At home with local natural

history. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30, 252–255.Burquez-Montijo, A., Miller, M.E., & Martınez-Yrızar, A. (2002). Mexican grasslands, thornscrub,

and the transformation of the Sonoran Desert by invasive exotic buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare).In B. Tellman (Ed.), Invasive exotic species in the Sonoran region (pp. 126−146). Tucson, AZ:University of Arizona Press.

Carter, J.L. (1993). A national priority: Providing quality field experiences for all students. AmericanBiology Teacher, 55, 140–143.

Castetter, E.F., & Bell, W.H. (1942). Pima and Papago Indian agriculture. Inter-Americana Studies1. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Chi, M.T.H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analysis of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of theLearning Sciences, 6, 271–315.

Chow, V.T. (1959). Open channel hydraulics. New York: McGraw Hill.Crittenden, M.D. Jr., Coney, P.J., & Davis G.H. (Eds.). (1980). Cordilleran metamorphic core com-

plexes. Memoir 153. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America.Crosswhite, F.S. (1980). The annual Saguaro harvest and crop cycle of the Papago, with reference to

ecology and symbolism. Desert Plants, 2(1), 3−61.Crowley, K., & Link, M. (1989). The sky islands of southeast Arizona. Stillwater, MN: Voyageur

Press.



Daniels, J., & Meixner, M. (1999). Six trees of the Sonoran Desert. Tucson, AZ: Cragin Elementary.Davis, G.H., & Coney, P.J. (1979). Geologic development of the Cordilleran metamorphic core

complexes. Geology, 7, 120−124.Dawson, J.A., & Caulley, D.N. (1981). The group interview as an evaluation technique in higher

education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 3(4), 61–66.Doolittle, W.E. (2000). Cultivated landscapes of native North America. New York: Oxford University

Press.Elkins, J., Elkins, N.M.L., & Hemmings, S.N.J. (2008). GeoJourney: A field-based, interdisciplinary

approach to teaching geology, Native American cultures, and environmental studies. Journal ofCollege Science Teaching, 37(3), 18–28.

Falk, J.H., Martin, W.W., & Balling, J.D. (1978). The novel field-trip phenomena: Adjustment tonovel settings interferes with task learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 127–134.

Fish, S.K., Fish, P.R., & Christopherson, G. (2007). Early occupations on Tumamoc Hill. ArchaeologySouthwest, 21(3), 4−5.

Fontana, B.L. (1994). Entrada: The legacy of Spain and Mexico in the United States. Tucson, AZ:Southwest Parks and Monuments Association.

Fritts, H.C. (1976). Tree rings and climate. New York: Academic Press.Frontain, D. (1968). San Xavier del Bac: A living mission. Tucson, AZ: Los Amigos.Gaddis, S.E. (1998). How to design online surveys. Training and Development, 52(6), 67–71.Geikie, A. (1962). The founders of geology. New York: Dover.Giardino, J.R., & Fish, E.B. (1986). The use of field trips in air-photo interpretation and remote-sensing

classes. Journal of Geological Education, 34, 339–343.Gregonis, L., & Reinhard, K. (1979). The Hohokam Indians of the Tucson Basin. Tucson, AZ: Arizona

State Museum.Grissino-Mayer, H.D. (2003). A manual and tutorial for the proper use of an increment borer. Tree-

Ring Research, 59(2), 63–79.Gruenewald, D.A. (2003). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious

education. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 619–654.Hoepfl, M.C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers.

Journal of Technology Education, 9, 47–63.Holloway, L., & Hubbard, P. (2001). People and place: The extraordinary geographies of everyday

life. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall.Holloway, S.L., Rice, S.P., & Valentine, G. (2003). Key concepts in geography. London: Sage.Hovardas, T., & Korfiatis, K.J. (2006). Word associations as a tool for assessing conceptual change

in science education. Learning and Instruction, 16, 416–432.Jenkins, A. (1994). Thirteen ways of doing fieldwork with large classes/more students. Journal of

Geography in Higher Education, 18, 143–154.Johnston, R.J., Gregory, D., & Smith, D.M. (Eds.) (1994). The dictionary of human geography (3rd

ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Kaltenborn, B.P. (1998). Effects of sense of place on responses to environmental impacts: A study

among residents in Svalbard in the Norwegian high Arctic. Applied Geography, 18, 169–189.

Kastens, K.A., Manduca, C.A., Cervato, C., Frodeman, R., Goodwin, C., Liben, L.S., . . . Titus, S.(2009). How geoscientists think and learn. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union,90, 265–266.

Keown, D. (1984). Let’s justify the field trip. American Biology Teacher, 46(1), 43–48.Kern, E.L., & Carpenter, J.R. (1984). Enhancement of student values, interests and attitudes in earth

science through a field-oriented approach. Journal of Geological Education, 32, 299–305.Kern, E.L., & Carpenter, J.R. (1986). Effect of field activities on student learning. Journal of Geo-

logical Education, 34, 180–183.Kjeldal, S. (2003). Self-monitoring and consumer behavior. The Qualitative Report, 8, 353–376.Kring, D.A. (2002). Desert heat, volcanic fire: The geologic history of the Tucson Mountains and

southern Arizona. Tucson, AZ: Arizona Geological Society.Libarkin, J.C., & Kurdziel, J.P. (2002). Research methodologies in science education: Qualitative

data. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50, 195–200.Lisowski, M., & Disinger, J.F. (1991). The effect of field-based instruction on student understandings

of ecological concepts. Journal of Environmental Education, 23(1), 19–23.



Lowe, C.H. (1967). The Santa Catalina Mountains ecology field trip: Desert to Mt. Lemmon fir forest(9150 ft.). Technical Reports on the Environmental Biology of Arid Regions No. 1. Tucson, AZ:Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arizona.

Mackenzie, A.A., & White, R.T. (1982). Fieldwork in geography and long-term memory structures.American Educational Research Journal, 19, 623–632.

Manduca, C.A., Baer, E., Hancock, G., MacDonald, R.H., Patterson, S., Savina, M., & Wenner, J.(2008). Making undergraduate geoscience quantitative. EOS, Transactions, American Geophys-ical Union, 89(16), 149−151.

McConnell, R.J. (1979). The geography teacher and outdoor education. New Zealand Journal ofGeography, 66, 9–12.

McCord, V.A.S. (1996). Fluvial process dendrogeomorphology: Reconstruction of flood events fromthe Southwestern United States using flood-scarred trees. In J.S. Dean, D.M. Meko, & T.W.Swetnam (Eds.), Tree rings, environment, and humanity (pp. 689−699). Tucson, AZ: Radiocar-bon.

McGarvin, T.G. (2001). Field guide to “A” Mountain and description of surrounding region, PimaCounty, Arizona (Open-File Report 01-07). Tucson, AZ: Arizona Geological Survey.

McGinnies, W.G., Goldman, B.J., & Paylore P. (Eds.). (1968). Deserts of the world: An appraisalof research into their physical and biological environments. Tucson, AZ: University of ArizonaPress.

McKeachie, W.J. (1978). Teaching tips: A guidebook for the beginning college teacher (7th ed.).Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

McKenzie, G.D., Utgard, R.O., & Lisowski, M. (1986). The importance of field trips: A geologicalexample. Journal of College Science Teaching, 16(1), 17–20.

McNamara, E.S., & Fowler, H.S. (1975). Out-of-doors earth science: One reason why. School Scienceand Mathematics, 75, 413–418.

McPhee, J.A. (1981). Basin and range. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Orion, N. (1989). Development of a high-school geology course based on field trips. Journal of

Geological Education, 37, 13–17.Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1991). The measurement of students’ attitudes towards scientific field

trips. Science Education, 75, 513–523.Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a

natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1097–1119.Paradis, T.W., & Dexter, L.R. (2007). Learner-centered teaching and assessment in an undergraduate

field analysis course. Journal of Geography, 106, 171–180.Phillips, S.J., & Comus, P.W. (2000). A natural history of the Sonoran Desert. Tucson, AZ: Arizona-

Sonora Desert Museum Press.Pierson, E.A., & Turner, R.M. (1998). An 85-year study of Saguaro (Carnegiea gigantea) demography.

Ecology, 79, 2676−2693.Rogers, K.E. (2000). The magnificent mesquite. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Rubba, P.A., Bradford, C.S., & Harkness, W.J. (1996). A new scoring procedure for the views on

science–technology–society instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 387–400.

Salter, C.L. (2001). No bad landscape. The Geographical Review, 91, 105–112.Schmitt, N. (1998). Quantifying word association responses: What is native-like? System, 26, 389–

401.Semken, S. (2005). Sense of place and place-based introductory geoscience teaching for American

Indian and Alaska native undergraduates. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 149–157.Semken, S., & Freeman, C.B. (2008). Sense of place in the practice and assessment of place-based

science teaching. Science Education, 92, 1042–1057.Shamai, S. (1991). Sense of place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum, 22, 347–358.Sheppard, P.R., Hallman, C.L., & Towner, R.H. (2008). Environmental history of the Southwest as

general science education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 55, 212–219.Shreve, F. (1936). The plant life of the Sonoran Desert. Supplementary Publication No. 22. Washing-

ton, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.Smith, G.A. (2002). Place-based education: Learning to be where we are. Phi Delta Kappan, 83,

584–594.Sokal, R.R., & Rohlf, F.J. (1981). Biometry. San Francisco, CA: WH Freeman.



Stanesco, J.D. (1991). The personal journal as a learning and evaluation tool in geology field-tripcourses. Journal of Geological Education, 39, 204–205.

Stedman, R.C. (2003a). Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physicalenvironment to sense of place. Society & Natural Resources, 16, 671–685.

Stedman, R.C. (2003b). Sense of place and forest science: Toward a program of quantitative research.Forest Science, 49, 822–829.

Stedman, R.C., Beckley, T., Wallace, S., & Ambard, M. (2004). A picture and 1000 words: Usingresident-employed photography to understand attachment to high amenity places. Journal ofLeisure Research, 36, 580–606.

Stokowski, P.A. (2002). Languages of place and discourses of power: Constructing new senses ofplace. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 368–382.

Suskie, L.A. (1996). Questionnaire survey research: What works (2nd ed.). Tallahassee, FL: FloridaState University Association for Institutional Research.

Swartz, D.L., & Doelle, W.H. (1996). Archaeology in the mountain shadows: Exploring the RomeroRuin. Tucson: Center for Desert Archaeology.

Swetnam, T.W., & Baisan, C.H. (1996). Fire histories of Montane forests in the Madrean Borderlands.In P.F. Ffolliott (Tech. Coord.), Effects of fire on Madrean Province ecosystems: A symposiumproceedings (pp. 15−36). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-GTR-289.

Szalay, L.B., Windle, C., & Lynse, D.A. (1970). Attitude measurement by free verbal associations.Journal of Social Psychology, 82, 43–55.

Tueth, M.W., & Wikle, T.A. (2000). The utility and organization of a college field course: Examiningnational park management. Journal of Geography, 99, 57–66.

Vazquez-Alonso, A., Manassero-Mas, M.A., & Acevedo-Dıaz, J.A. (2006). An analysis of complexmultiple-choice science–technology–society items: Methodological development and prelimi-nary results. Science Education, 90, 681–706.

Wagner, W., Valencia, J., & Elejabarrieta, F. (1996). Relevance, discourse and the “hot” stable coreof social representations: A structural analysis of word associations. British Journal of SocialPsychology, 35, 331–351.

Wheeler, J.O. (1985). Creating local field trips: Seeing geographical principles through empiricaleyes. Journal of Geography, 84, 217–219.

Whitmeyer, S.J., & Mogk, D.W. (2009). Geoscience field education: A recent resurgence. EOS,Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 90, 385–387.

Williams, D.R., & Stewart, S.I. (1998). Sense of place: An elusive concept that is finding a home inecosystem management. Journal of Forestry, 96(5), 18–23.

Yetman, D., & Burquez, A. (1994). Buffelgrass–Sonoran Desert nightmare. Arizona Riparian CouncilNewsletter, 7(1), 8−10.

Yung, L., Freimund, W.A., &. Belsky, J.M. (2003). The politics of place: Understanding meaning,common ground, and political difference on the Rocky Mountain Front. Forest Science, 49,855–866.

Appendix: Assessment of a field-based course on integrative geology, ecology andcultural history

A1. UA Sense of Place Trip 1: Santa Cruz River Basin (Figure A1.1)Trip 1 traverses the Santa Cruz River Basin near Tucson. Geology starts on “A” Mountain, a suiteof volcanic and sedimentary rocks that formed during explosive volcanism 20–25 million yearsago (McGarvin, 2001). Physical properties of rocks and how they illuminate mountain formationare emphasized. Adjacent to “A” Mountain is Tumamoc Hill, where unobstructed views promotediscussion of Basin and Range concepts (McPhee, 1981). South of Tucson, an entrenched tributaryof the Santa Cruz River called Brickyard Arroyo shows Holocene wetlands (buried organic soils) andagricultural settlements (prehistoric artifacts).

Ecology starts with buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) growing on rocky slopes of “A” Mountain.Buffelgrass is native to Africa, but it was introduced into the Southwest in the 1940s and hassince expanded throughout the Sonoran Desert (Burquez-Montijo, Miller, & Martınez-Yrızar, 2002).Buffelgrass “invasion” of the Sonoran Desert is a serious ecological concern (Yetman & Burquez,1994). Additionally, Tumamoc Hill is home to the Desert Laboratory, a premier center of desertecology and paleoenvironmental science for more than 100 years (Bowers, 1990). Principal features



Figure A1.1. Map of SOP Trip 1.

of the laboratory are its enclosed area of pristine desert and the permanent recording of saguaro cactiin 1908 in order to observe them throughout many decades (Pierson & Turner, 1998).

Cultural history starts on the summit of Tumamoc Hill, where bedrock mortars, rock art and rockroomblocks speak of people who lived there from AD 500 to AD 700 (Fish, Fish, & Christopherson,2007). Why would people live on a hilltop, far removed from water and agricultural fields of the SantaCruz River floodplain? Later on this trip, Mission San Xavier del Bac is a modern, active churchas well as a glimpse of the Spanish and Mexican periods of the American Southwest. The buildingis a blend of Spanish, Mexican and Native American architecture and design (Frontain, 1968). Thearrival of Padre Francisco Eusebio Kino in 1687 started a grand change of cultures and environmentsof the southern Arizona (Fontana, 1994).

A2. UA Sense of Place Trip 2: Tucson Mountains (Figure A2.1)Trip 2 circumnavigates the Tucson Mountains, which were formed by explosive, caldera-style vol-canism 70 million years ago, when Arizona was located on the western edge of the continent and




colliding with subducting oceanic crust (Bezy, 2005; Kring, 2002). Geology emphasizes describingrocks and deciphering what they tell about landscape history, all for the purpose of visualizing platetectonics and geologic time.

At each stop of Trip 2, iconic plants of the Sonoran Desert are featured. In particular, ProspectWash allows easy entry into a lush, diverse tract of the Sonoran Desert, where multiple leguminoustree species as well as many cactus species are common (Phillips & Comus, 2000). Shreve’s (1936)concepts of multiple layers and varied life forms in the Sonoran Desert become obvious, as does thefact that the Sonoran is a highly productive desert (McGinnies, Goldman, & Paylore, 1968). Variousfood and drink items derived from desert plants are sampled on this trip, including prickly pear padsand saguaro lemonade, thereby challenging conventional opinion that deserts are desolate places withlimited food resources.

A rock art site known as Signal Hill emphatically connects geology and ecology with culturalhistory. At Signal Hill, prehistoric Hohokam and historic O’Odham left marks on basaltic rocksoverlooking the desert. Both groups integrated floodwater farming with foraging as part of an annualcycle to adapt to desert areas far removed from perennial streamflow (Castetter & Bell, 1942;Crosswhite, 1980; Doolittle, 2000, pp. 309–346).

A3. UA Sense of Place Trip 3: Desert washes and urban flooding (Figure A3.1)Trip 3 explores desert washes and how humans live next to them. Hydrological measurements aremade along the Rillito Creek, a major tributary to the Santa Cruz River. The amount of water that theRillito can carry, i.e. maximum instantaneous discharge, is calculated from channel gradient, flowwidth and depth, and hydraulic roughness using a simple open-channel hydraulic equation such as theManning formula (Barnes, 1967; Chow, 1959). In addition to improving quantitative skills, “back-of-the-envelope” calculations reveal patterns and interactions between elements of the landscape(Manduca et al., 2008). Ultimately, flooding is viewed as neither bad nor good, but rather as a naturalprocess that does the job of moving water and sediment.

The Rillito also offers a chance to practice dendrochronology, the study of tree rings (Fritts, 1976).Cottonwood (Populus sp.) grows in the dry wash bed itself, but only at the mercy of flooding. Anincrement borer is brought along for students to try nondestructive sampling (Grissino-Mayer, 2003).Ring growth of trees growing in washes can indicate past flooding, thereby establishing frequencyand discharge values (McCord, 1996). Realizing how easy it can be to collect data in the field isempowering.

Prehistoric farming is addressed. Fort Lowell Park is the site of a Hohokam community locatedalong the edge of the Rillito and its tributaries (Gregonis & Reinhard, 1979). The importance offlooding and deposition of nutrient-rich silt for sustainable agriculture is evident. This theme isrepeated at Catalina State Park, where another Hohokam village was located near seasonally flooding




watercourses (Swartz & Doelle, 1996). These Hohokam sites were located above floodplains, soflooding was restricted to agricultural fields and away from residences, showing how flood hazard isinfluenced by where people place themselves on the landscape.

Fort Lowell Park also has a grove of pecan trees. Southern Arizona is home to large tracts ofpecans, making the region important for pecan production. However, growing pecans in the desertposes a dilemma: How to reconcile water use of thirsty, broadleaf trees in this arid eco-region?Catalina State Park also has trees, native mesquite (Prosopis sp.) in this case. Mesquite is one ofmany legume species of the Sonoran Desert (Daniels & Meixner, 1999) and is truly a magnificentspecies (Rogers, 2000).

A4. UA Sense of Place Trip 4: Santa Catalina Mountains (Figure A4.1)Trip 4 treks up the Santa Catalina Mountains, all the way to the top of Mt. Lemmon. Geologically, theCatalinas are a mountain range quite unlike others visited during previous field trips. Metamorphiccore complexes are formed by regional crustal extension, thermal intrusion and uplift, all resultingin mountain ranges with granite cores surrounded by deformed and metamorphosed igneous andsedimentary rocks (Crittenden, Coney, & Davis, 1980; Davis & Coney, 1979). These rocks were oncedeep within the crust and consequently pulled and stretched under conditions of high temperature andpressure, but horizontal movement along low-angle detachment faulting brought these deep rocks tothe surface, where they are now visible at road cuts along the lower part of the Catalina Highway(Bezy, 2004).

Ecologically, southern Arizona is internationally known for its sky islands, i.e. high mountains(the “islands”) sticking up from low deserts (the “ocean”) (Crowley & Link, 1989). Floral and faunalinfluences from the Sierra Madre to the south and the Rocky Mountains to the north as well as fromthe Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts combine to make southern Arizona sky islands highly diverse.The Catalinas peak out almost 2000 m (6500 ft) higher than Tucson, and the Catalina Highwaymakes for easy passage across this large elevational gradient. Along the way, multiple ecosystems aretraversed (Lowe, 1967).

The Catalina Mountains are also a textbook of wild land fire. Most of the mountain burnedrecently in two large fires, much to the grief of Tucson (Barnes, 2005). Fire used to burn on theCatalinas frequently but with low intensity such that mature trees typically were not killed (Swetnam& Baisan, 1996). The question for Tucson, as well as for similar settings worldwide, is how tomanage forests to accommodate the inevitability of fire without suffering devastating, big, intensewildfires.




Driving the Catalina Highway is not just educational. It is an honor to experience so convenientlysuch diversity and richness in geology, ecology and cultural history.

A5. Word Association Survey for Geos. 195D, Sense of PlaceThis word association survey is part of the research evaluating general knowledge of the surroundingTucson area and the interactions between the environment and society. If you agree to participate youwill be asked to complete a survey now and one at the end of the semester. This survey is anonymous.Individual answers will be kept confidential. You were selected because you are 18 years of age orolder. Completing this survey implies consent to participate in this research. However, this surveyis voluntary. You may choose to stop participating at any time. There is no risk and no benefit toyour participation. The survey will have no impact on grades and has no relation to your work inthe classroom. This survey should take no more than 10–15 minutes. There is no compensation forparticipating in this survey.

Please write up to four words or phrases that come to mind in relation to the following words. Ifyou have no word associations with a particular word, please write “NONE” in its box.

desert1.2.3.4.

Arizona1.2.3.4.

Hohokam1.2.3.4.

geology1.2.3.4.

Sonoran Desert1.2.3.4.

Tucson1.2.3.4.

ecology1.2.3.4.



wild fire1.2.3.4.

American Southwest1.2.3.4.

flooding1.2.3.4.

O’odham1.2.3.4.

archeology1.2.3.4.

Sense of Place1.2.3.4.

This section will help describe demographics of the survey group.

1. Circle your year in college.a. Freshmanb. Sophomorec. Juniord. Seniore. Post-graduate

2. Would you describe your major as science or non-science?a. scienceb. non-science

3. Circle your gender.a. maleb. female

4. Circle the most specific location indicating where you’re from.a. Tucsonb. Arizonac. New Mexicod. USAe. International



5. Circle your race.a. Hispanicb. Whitec. Native Americand. Blacke. Asian

6. Have you completed Geos. 195D?No Yes If yes, in what year?


quantitative assessment of a ﬁeld-based course on ...sheppard/patrickmary/09geos195dsop.pdf ·...

Documents