Students will acquire a comprehensive knowledge of the discipline that encompasses both theoretical and field-based practical skills.

All SHSU Geology majors must attend a six credit, externally evaluated capstone Field Camp as a required component of their degree program. Such field camps are typically open to suitably qualified upper level students from geology programs situated anywhere in the country. They are conventionally evaluated using a letter grade system which the Department of Geography and Geology converted to a ranking system.

 
SHSU Geology students must be nationally competitive at this capstone task as indicated by at least 60% of our participants achieving at least a Limited Mastery ranking.

All students must attend a six credit hour Field Camp that is externally evaluated on the following basis: Mastery, Limited Master, Adequate Comprehension, Limited Comprehension, and Very Low Comprehension. Students are free to choose from a very wide range of applicable courses, each of which offers slightly different emphases in terms of geographical location and course structure. ALL courses offer a capstone-like review with Mastery reflecting mastery of taught and examined modules as well as high levels of precision in final field review stand-alone projects. A ranking of Limited Mastery reflects mastery of one or more modules but with some imprecision; a ranking of Adequate Comprehension reflects broad comprehension but demonstrates a lack of sophistication in the use of basic course material; rankings of Low Comprehension and Very Low Comprehension reflect low levels of understanding and effort and indicate inappropriate general preparation prior to field camp participation.

60% of students will achieve at least a limited mastery ranking or better by the external evaluator of the Field Camp.

We requested the University of Missouri Field Camp Director to provide feedback concerning strengths and weaknesses of our students because ten of our students attended that camp.  Most summers we only have two or three students attend each camp, so it is not much of a population to work with.  90% of the students achieved limited mastery. 

This is Dr. Miriam Barquero-Molina's response:

Hello Brian,

 

Some time ago you requested a statement about the strengths and weaknesses of SHSU students when evaluating their performance in our field course. Well, here it is!

 

First of all, let me start by saying that the SHSU contingent this year was a great, great group of students as a whole. They were a pleasure to be around. Their academic performance and overall willingness to work graded from really strong to, well, not so much (with most of them being in the strong to really strong area), but that is the normal spread one gets in any class, in any institution, and it mirrored the spread of students’ performance in this year’s camp, so that was not a worry. They were really pleasant bunch, and I would have them all back, any day, in a heartbeat.

 

What follows is what transpired from their performance in all projects throughout camp. I must point out that all of our camp projects, which count for 50% of the total points possible in the class, are done in groups of three students, so the grades for projects are most likely a contribution by all the group members. Groups are randomly assigned. I should also mention that the remaining 50% of the points possible in this class come from individual performance in individual exams: a field mapping exam, a regional geology exam, and a final field exam that follows our advanced projects week, where students choose a project to work on, which could be geophysics, hydrogeology or advanced structural mapping.

 

-          It seems that SHSU students performed slightly below average on our pace and compass exercise, the first project we run in camp. Granted, this project was run the second day of camp, after most of these students drove for two days straight, and this year it was also done with 2 feet of snow on the ground. So my suspicion is that the SHSU were essentially tired from the drive, and freaked by the snow storm.

 

-          About half of SHSU performed from slightly below average to really below average in the individual field mapping exam. About 3 of them performed right around average, and two of them did really well on this exam. This reflects individual student’s weaknesses rather than weaknesses of the group as a whole, but I figured I would mention it anyway.

 

-          All but two of SHSU students performed below average in the regional geology exam. This exam is a comprehensive written exam where we ask them questions about all the regional geology information we give them in camp. Students receive a lot of lectures in camp, lectures that are intended to homogenize the field in terms of preparation for field projects, and lectures that give them information about the regional geology of the Rocky Mountains and Wyoming. So, although we require Historical Geology as a pre-req for this class, the material we cover in those lectures in camp is the material they are responsible for in terms of the regional geology exam. So I cannot quite explain why the SHSU student seemed to do a little worse on this exam.

 

-          SHSU students performed above average in our sed projects, including sed structures description, measuring strat section and facies analysis.

 

-          SHSU students performed above average in our structural mapping project, where students measure structural data on folds and boudins on Archean rocks.

 

-          SHSU were essentially on par with their peers on all the other projects in camp

 

In terms of their overall final grade for the class, all but one of the SHSU students are in the B+/B/B- range, with one student receiving a C+. They were a solid bunch.

 

Hope this is what you were looking for. If you need a cleaner version of this on department letterhead or anything of that sort let me know and I will oblige.

 

All the best,

 

Miriam

 

___________________________

 

Miriam Barquero-Molina

Assistant Teaching Professor

Director of Undergraduate Studies

Director, Branson Field Lab

 

Department of Geological Sciences

101 Geological Sciences Building

University of Missouri-Columbia

Columbia, MO 65211

 

phone: 573-882-9557

barqueromolinam@missouri.edu

 

Dr. Joseph Hill will work to improve student abilities in two of the three areas mentioned by our external evaluator.

We were mystified by our students' performance on the pace and compass exercise.  Dr. Hill does cover that technique with a campus exercise in his structural geology course.  His exercise does not include snow (see evaluator's comments).  Dr. Hill will have the students do an additional pace and compass exercise in the field so that it is a more rugged and less familiar setting than the campus.

We are also looking at possible locations to take the students and have them perform a field mapping exercise.  We do not have a location nearby.  The one field mapping exercise that the students currently do in structural geology covers a very small area.  They need to map an area that cannot be entirely viewed from one point.  We are considering areas in central Texas and the Arbuckle Mountains in Oklahoma.

We are not sure how to respond to the third area of weakness.  This is the student's performance on a regional geology exam.  The only thing we can do is take those students who will be attending this same field camp next year and give them a preview lecture of the regional geology and assign some reading on the regional geology of the area where they will be mapping.

The Department of Geography and Geology provides discipline-specific offerings to the Core Curriculum.

Students completing the core curriculum courses will demonstrate an understanding of the basic components of a geological perspective and will recognize geological themes.

All students enrolled in core curriculum geology classes complete a final comprehensive exam related to the foundations of geology.

The average score of core curriculum geology students will be at least 75% on the final comprehensive exam.

The average score was approximately 58%, with a range from 45% to 68% from section to section.  Only 55% of students answered the factual knowledge questions correctly, 56% answered the tentative nature of science questions correctly, and 55% appear to understand that nature is governed by physical laws.  73% answered the logical constructs based on factual knowledge questions correctly compared to 46% last year.  Only 53% showed an understanding of the logic of science.  Only 37% answered the graph interpretation and inference/reasoning questions correctly.  So, once again, students are still having difficulty with graph interpretation and obtaining information from the graph via inference and/or reasoning.

Two areas showed improvement.  Understanding that nature is governed by physical laws went from 38% to 55%.  The ability to form logical constructs based on factual knowledge went from 46% to 73%.  Students are still having issues with interpreting and obtaining information from graphs.  Next year we will focus on improving student understanding of graphs.  To achieve this we will increase the amount of graph interpretation performed in the laboratory sections associated the core curriculum lectures.

Each student is required to have developed a level of knowledge in various areas of geology prior to attending the capstone geology field course.

After completing Geology 344, students will be able to recognize minerals.

Every geology student must take Geology 344, Mineralogy.  One of the objectives of this course is to be able to recognize minerals, which is a skill that will be needed when they take the capstone geology field course.

Students completing Geology 344, Mineralogy, must take a final practical exam that requires the recognition of minerals.

60 percent of the students will be able to recognize 15 or more of the 30 minerals presented to them on the final mineral practical.

Only 13% of the students were able to recognize 15 or more of the 30 minerals presented to them on the final mineral practical.  This is the worst performance on this exam for a number of years.  For example, 63% in 2007 and 65% in 2009.  It was assumed that 60% would be a reasonable jumping off point for improvement.

The instructor must spend more time working with students on the fundamentals of mineral recognition.  This year's result may be due, in part, to the instructor having spent less time in the lab with the students because of the instructor's new responsibilities as chair.  The instructor recognizes the problem and will work to remedy the time gap.  The other part is the student's lack of preparation coming into this course.  We will add a Friday afternoon help session for the Physical Geology lab (GEOL 1103) to improve student's ability to recognize minerals at the freshman level.