ResultsBoth field and model experiences improved learning about estuaries, with no significant difference between them when comparing raw scores.

Students with “high water activity” demographics scored higher than students with “low water activity” (p < 0.01).

Field experience improves responses to field related questions for “low water activity” students (p <0.05).

Data collected by students in the field

VIRTUAL VS. REAL: HOW DO STUDENTS BEST LEARN ABOUT ESTUARINE CIRCULATION?Christian P. Sarason1, Frederick R. (Fritz) Stahr1, William Winn2, Ruth Fruland2, and Peter Oppenheimer3

1Ocean Inquiry Project, P.O. Box 23189, Seattle, WA 98102; 2College of Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195; 3Human Interface Technology Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 email: info@oceaninquiry.org

Introduction

Ocean Inquiry Project Concept

Learning throughInquiry

Field Experiences

Stimulating Science Experiences

Positive Science Experiences

Interaction with

Scientists

Hands-on Learning

Multi-disciplinary Learning Experiences

RESEARCH COMMUNITY NEEDS

Outreach and Public Education

Increased sampling resolution in time and space

Validation of Models Water QualityMonitoring

Teaching Opportunities for

Graduate Students

Watch for

Invasive Species

Secchi Depth Measurements

EDUCATION COMMUNITY NEEDS

Stir Well

EVERYBODY WINS!!

Public Interest in Research

Fun &

excitement about

Scientific

Discoveries

Effective Observations

Sense of Ownership of Puget Sound

Increases Likelihood of Good Stewardship

Knowledge of Scientific Process

Connections between

Students and ResearchersIncreased Sampling Rates

Students taking a close-up look at the CTD before deployment.

Ocean Inquiry Project is an independent 501(c)(3) organization and all donations are tax deductible. For more information about our programs please see our web site at: http://www.oceaninquiry.org/

This work is supported by NOPP grant number N00014-02-1-0502. Many thanks to our volunteer field instructors, the University of Washington, and Seattle Central CC for providing the opportunity for this study.

Future Directions

Model and Data integration through

Environmental Informatics Datastream

a.k.a. “BloodStream”

XML tagged environmental data

OIP students collect data in the field; send to bloodstream PSMEM models assimilate data

into next model run

PSMEM models send model output to bloodstream

OIP students view latest model results;

adjust sampling plans for the future accordingly

source

source

sink

sink

sink

CTD cast

CTD cast

Model

run

Mod

el

run

Historical

data

Hist

oric

alda

ta

Comparing Learning Between a Modeling Exercise and Field Work on Puget Sound

Teachers can viewlatest model runs

in class before getting into the field.

Puget Sound is a complicated estuary and an excellent place to learn oceanography. In a partnership program with educational researchers at the University of Washington, Ocean Inquiry Project (OIP) is using a virtual learning environment based on a numerical-model of Puget Sound in introductory college level classes. OIP also provides students field-based research experiences on Puget Sound, sampling the Sound at a number of monitoring stations during day-long field trips. The learning goals for either technique are the same: understanding and appreciation of tidally driven currents and stratification in the Sound. However, the data (and tools for accessing and rendering them) are quite different between the two techniques, one being generated by computer and the other measured by the students themselves.

We are evaluating classes using each technique exclusively, as well as in combination, to understand which technique is most useful to understanding these concepts. The content of both classes is essentially the same, but students in one class learn the material by interacting with a computer model, and students in another class learn by interacting with instruments. The evaluation of each class is done identically with tests and concept maps and the design of this study allows us to elucidate the differences between learning via computerized curriculum and learning in the field.

Catalyst:OIP

Using Data to Teach Earth Processes: 46-5

Students interpret circulation using Virtual Puget Sound (VPS). Figure 1: The rated true/false quiz that we used for

evaluation is shown above. Questions were apportioned into “field”, “model” and “classroom” groups for comparison (classroom questions are those not specific to either field or model experiences). Students rated each statement 5 (true) to 1 (false); 0 was used for “Don’t know”, a response seen mostly on pre-tests.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%pre 46.85 39.30 63.40 44.60

%post 84.48 84.60 88.80 80.28

Overall Model Field Class

p < 0.001 p < 0.001 p < 0.01 p < 0.001

Figure 2: a) Statistically significant differences were found for pre-test versus post-test scores for all students. However, no differences were found between the model and field groups. The most significant gains were made in model specific questions. (a p-value of less than 0.05 is statistically significant) b) A comparison of scores to demographic data shows that students in the model group who had little experience with water activities scored significantly worse on field specific questions than the field group.

a)

p < 0.05 for difference between model and field groups for “low water activity”

Water activities: swimming, power boating, sailing, fishing, surfing, diving, riding ferries, and other. Low = 1 activity, Medium = 3-4 activities, High = 5+

b)

MethodsCreated a 3-day curriculum for teaching general estuarine circulation consisting of an introductory class, a day in the field or working with a model, and a wrap-up class.

Used the curriculum with two separate classes: one used a model visualization, Virtual Puget Sound (VPS), and one went into the field for direct observation. The introductory and wrap-up material was identical for both classes.

Evaluated all students with pre- and post-tests (true/false); collected specific demographic data also.

Evaluated students using concept maps.

Compared results in three different categories: model, field, and classroom associated questions.

Data collected by students in VPSOne student’s conceptual change

Model Group Field Grouplow water activity 6.00 8.57

medium water activity 8.67 10.00

high water activity 9.64 9.00

field

The following are statements about Puget Sound. Please rate each by circling a number on the scale beside it. Circle 5 if you are certain the statement is true. Circle 1 if you are certain the statement is false. Circle 3 if you believe the statement may sometimes be true, sometimes be false, or if you believe the statement is neither true nor false. Circle 0 if you do not know anything about the statement. True False Don’t know

30. This cross-sectional sketch shows a part of Puget Sound from its entrance near Admiralty Inlet in the northwest, through the Main Basin, to Seattle and the Duwamish River in the southeast. On the sketch, please draw arrows showing how you think water moves in, out and around Puget Sound.

1. Rivers increase the salinity of the water in Puget Sound. 5 4 3 2 1 0

2. Phytoplankton are not sensitive to nutrients. 5 4 3 2 1 0

3. Air temperature does not influence surface water temperature. 5 4 3 2 1 0

4. Bathymetry varies with location. 5 4 3 2 1 0

5. Phytoplankton needs sunlight and nutrients. 5 4 3 2 1 0

6. River and ocean effects are not related to location. 5 4 3 2 1 0

7. Ocean water brings nutrients and oxygen into Puget Sound. 5 4 3 2 1 0

8. Tidal range is related to location. 5 4 3 2 1 0

9. Mixing does not change salinity and temperature. 5 4 3 2 1 0

10. Phytoplankton are sensitive to water temperature. 5 4 3 2 1 0

11. Rivers flow into Puget Sound at the surface. 5 4 3 2 1 0

12. Water velocity in Puget Sound is related to ocean tides. 5 4 3 2 1 0

13. Phytoplankton are not sensitive to salinity. 5 4 3 2 1 0

14. Mixing does not move plankton up and down in the water column. 5 4 3 2 1 0

15. Sunlight decreases with depth. 5 4 3 2 1 0

16. Mixing carries some nutrients to the surface water layers. 5 4 3 2 1 0

17. The microbial loop does not require detritus. 5 4 3 2 1 0

18. Saltwater comes into Puget Sound from the ocean. 5 4 3 2 1 0

19. Ocean water flows in at the surface of Puget Sound on average. 5 4 3 2 1 0

20. Zooplankton do not need phytoplankton and oxygen. 5 4 3 2 1 0

21. The microbial loop makes nutrients from detritus. 5 4 3 2 1 0

22. Zooplankton are not sensitive to salinity. 5 4 3 2 1 0

23. Water velocity affects mixing. 5 4 3 2 1 0

24. The microbial loop requires oxygen. 5 4 3 2 1 0

25. Tides come from the ocean. 5 4 3 2 1 0

26. Water velocity does not vary with location and bathymetry. 5 4 3 2 1 0

27. Plankton do not move with moving water. 5 4 3 2 1 0

28. Tides are related to date and time. 5 4 3 2 1 0

29. Wind decreases mixing in the surface layer. 5 4 3 2 1 0

field

model

field

field

field

model

model

model

model