My AGU 2013 Fall meeting poster


My AGU 2013 Fall meeting poster

This week was a bit of a crazy one at AGU. One of my best conference weeks ever. Met many new people, caught up with old colleagues and friends, and presented some important work for understanding the oil sands hydrosystem. Thanks San Francisco, and the AGU organizing team: I’ll be back soon!


Summer’s almost over and so is my research.

A second guest-post from my undergraduate summer student Alison Banwell this month. Alison has wrapped up a good chunk of research from the summer and will continue taking courses through the fall and winter semesters. 

Because of this summer I can now follow, and maybe sometimes take part in, conversations on isotopes, oil sands, shale gas, and know how to make a poster to present research. The poster knowledge will definitely come in handy, since I’m planning on presenting a poster of my own at the undergraduate research symposium. I’m actually pretty excited since what I found turned out to be pretty interesting.

This summer I was measuring the isotope geochemistry of an oil sands core.   In my core there were organics, calcites, and pyrite. The isotope values of these compounds indicated microbial biodegradation. This is thought to be the dominant process that breaks down oil in the oil sands, but the important part is looking at where the biodegradation occurs when compared to the oil-water contact. The ground water and the oil don’t like to mix, so there’s a transition zone between the two, but the water is necessary to the microbes that break down the oil, and so biodegradation is different throughout the core depending on where it is compared to that contact.

Another exciting thing is that while I was searching for pyrite in my samples, I found coal. The bitumen and the coal do not have identical histories, since the coal was formed where we found it and the oil migrated from somewhere else closer to the Rocky mountains over a long period of time. This gives us a unique chance to look at how biodegraded the coal is to see if it matches up with where the oil is biodegraded. The measurements on the coal aren’t quite finished yet, so I might get to continue on in September for a little while, but for now I get a bit of vacation time.

Maybe I’m just nerdy, but I like to think about how at the beginning of the summer, I had no knowledge of any of this, and now I can look at petroleum systems  and understand what is happening. The other great thing about this summer was that I took my second geology course ever, from Ben again. Geology 203 was great for me, since as I was learning things in class I could see their real world applications and how they fit into the research I was doing. This was extremely helpful.

It was awesome to get the chance to learn so much and get an idea what it means to actually do research. I think I can compare it to what it would be like to be a grad student, except without any of the stress since my degree doesn’t hinge on whether I actually found anything or not, and everyone is willing to help and explain things. This summer has made me realize that being a grad student is definitely something to look forward to, and to keep on looking for opportunities like this one. If an undergrad student can handle something like this, more students should get a taste of research early in their academic journey, since it gives you a great perspective on learning that you just wouldn’t have without it. I know it changed my view of how I see university, and I think it was totally worth it just for that.


Part 3: Can undergraduate students read primary scientific research articles?

This is Part 3 of a three part series on introducing first-year geoscience students to the primary scientific literature in a large classroom setting. Part 1 described the motivation and desire to initiate this program, and Part 2 described the implementation of the work.  These events occurred in the GLGY 201 class at the University of Calgary during the Fall  2011 semester (Instructors: Leslie Reid, Ben Cowie).

So we’ve reached the end. Students have completed the reading, done the activities, now it’s time to digest what we’ve learned from this activity. Going forward from a pilot project, it’s important to ensure lessons learned are incorporated into the new activity, so always want to ensure that you’ve learned something. I gave a talk presenting some of this work in our department at U of C last week, and got some very positive feedback about the idea of primary literature incorporation, and generally the feeling was the most instructors were interested in bringing literature into their classes, they just didn’t know how it might be accomplished. There was a bit of other discussion about whether dropping ‘content’ for skills was an appropriate use of time, and generally at U of C most classes are overwhelmed with “content” at the expense of students not retaining anything meaningful from most courses (asked a few undergrads for this idea)

The student responses to questions were generally good, here’s an example answer to “What was the purpose of this research” from the first paper we looked at (Resing et al., Nat Geosci. 2011; students’ answers presented in this blog are derived from students who signed releases for their anonymous course data and course work to be used).

  • Gain greater understanding of deep-water submarine volcanism, specifically recent subduction zone generated boninite magma, there has been no direct observation of a volcano at this depth.
  • Boninites are hard to find on earth, only generated in the initial stages of subduction volcanism and this research was conducted to confirm the chemical and gaseous composition and behaviour of boninite.
  • Analyzing the chemosynthetic life, its abundance and behaviour, as well as the pH and chemical composition’s effect on it.

After reading lots of answers like this, it was relatively clear that students have the capability at a very early stage to retrieve information from papers on their own. They might not yet have the capacity to propose an alternative hypothesis, or critique the methods that were used, because these things come with much experience. What our first year students showed they can do is navigate a research paper, retrieve pertinent information to what they’re interested in learning, and re-organize this information based on four major parts of the paper: research question, methods, data and interpretation. This is a big first step for students – cutting through jargon, to learn a little bit about what was researched, and retrieving important information. Going back to our learning objectives, this is pretty good – students can read the paper with some competency, they know what information is contained within different sections of a scientific research article, and they can differentiate between data and interpretation of the data. Not bad for a bunch of first-year university students.

After implementing this, there were certainly many recommendations from the instructor (me) and from the TA’s who provided support in the classroom. I’ve highlighted these below for anyone thinking about implementing these types of activities in their own lower level university course, or upper-level high school course.

  1. students need scaffolding – providing a podcast guiding student reading was a great way to get around the challenge of teaching a large class.
  2. in-class support during these activities is necessary, but not quite to the degree we initially thought. Three teaching staff (instructor + 2 x TA’s) per 200 students / 70 groups would be all I’d use next time.
  3. Having the authors of the paper come to class was a really unique experience. When you hang out in a university department with people who write research papers all the time, this doesn’t seem special anymore. For the students this was an added bonus and gave a different perspective on research.
  4. Have a detailed rubric and give it to the students before they start any assignment.
  5. Students will complete pre-assigned reading (if only the night before… Blackboard gives instructors this information) and in-class activities if the right classroom attitude of collaboration and active learning is built from day 1.
  6. Students’ knowledge of scientific literature types (scholarly, popular, review) grew substantially between the first literature class where 50% of students did not bring scientific article to class when asked (Scientific American etc. ) to final exam when almost 100% of the students could identify key differences between scholarly and popular science articles. Big win.
  7. Students need more consistent regular feedback. These assignments were graded “traditionally” with a mark out of 12 (on a rubric) and a written comment or two. Having time to reflect on what they learned in their small groups is important. I’m not sure what these follow-up activities might look like, maybe an individual written assignment, or group-style discussion. Need some suggestions for ideas on this part.
TA Feedback
  1. Should have started this earlier in the semester, crammed at the end of term. (Agree!)
  2. Start with a paper on surface processes since students can easily visualize a river, hard to visualize a magma chamber (agree, but our course didn’t cover surface processes as a big idea).
  3. (From TA’s who took undergrad at U of C) Students need this kind of exposure earlier. The first time I read papers was in a 4th year class. (This is a big point, and hopefully more faculty take this to heart).
  4. Assignments could be made more challenging! (If you told me this at the beginning of the semester, I’d be really was surprised by this. Then again, the students did very well when presented with the challenge, so post-activity I’m not so surprised).
  5. Including researchers in the classroom activity was really great. (echoing my sentiment above).
I hope to do a focus group with the students to find out what could be improved about the research assignments, as there were very little feedback about them on my teaching evaluations. I’m hoping we can make it more clear as we move forward.
If this activity was to be completed again, there would be some additions to the pre-post testing that’s already done for the course. This might be similar to the work done by Coil et al. ( who did a good job of pre-post testing students for the skills they developed in class. We would need to address knowledge of scientific literature as the primary focus of these pre-post tests, as these assignments are primarily built to develop literacy, rather than specific scientific skills.
Overall I think it will take some time to determine how successful these activities are. It will be interesting to see in a couple years if the students who had these types of activities in first year classes will benefit in upper year classes where they’re required to synthesize research to write papers, or understand advanced concepts. I’m hoping this head start we’ve provided for the students will get them to be better learners, more capable of using the resources available to them at U of C within our libraries, and increasingly online in open-source format.
A final note about our course – I think this type of activity is especially valid in a first-year course, where the majority of students are non-majors. Reading scientific papers is a skill that needs to be developed in all disciplines, and by doing these activities in first year, we’re supporting the learning of all our students in the class I’m assigned to teach, instead of the 1/3 that end up with a Geology degree at the end of 4 (… or 5. or 6… ) years.