Using Field-Camp Experiences to Develop a Multidisciplinary Foundation for Petroleum Engineering Students

Abstract

A petroleum-engineering geology field camp in existence for over 50 years has evolved to reflect the goal of developing a multidisciplinary foundation, or shared cognitive interface, with other geoscience disciplines. Five learning objectives form a framework for a series of progressively complex exercises. Students make geologic field maps, measure sections, record notes, create field sketches, and link outcrop to the subsurface through a series of complementary daily field activities. Field experiences create tangible links and mental images for comprehending the subsurface.Orienting the field activities toward the ultimate goal of developing a shared cognitive interface helps us overcome challenges that include dislike of geology and inexperience with the outdoors, teaching iterative and relational thought processes, and creating linkages to promote retention of material. Varying the physical and content pace of the course helps keep the non-geology audience engaged. Sequential field activities use technology to iteratively analyze the same problem. Daily journals supplemented by activity reports and exams promote assessment of content and teaching effectiveness. Asking open-ended questions in activity reports is most effective for assessing relational thinking. In the long-term, effective assessment comes from observations in a succeeding multidisciplinary design course.

Are we there yet? Sense of place and the student experience on roadside and situated geology field trips

“…Field work is often used to market particular courses or programs of study (Fuller, 2012). Previous research in field education is vast, covering topics such as technology in the field (e.g., De Paor and Feig, 2010), expert-like mapping traits (e.g., Petcovic et al, 2009;Riggs et al, 2009;Dohaney et al, 2015), building multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary connections (e.g., Barrett et al, 2004;Anderson and Miskimins, 2006), and access and inclusion (e.g., Atchison and Feig, 2011;Gilley et al, 2015). Much like the vast pool of research on field education, pedagogical approaches to field trips vary widely.…”

The evaluation of field course experiences: A framework for development, improvement, and reporting

“…The available literature on student assessment in fi eld course experiences is focused to a large extent on the cognitive outcomes, identifying the content of what should be learned in fi eld course experiences by different audiences (Anderson and Miskimins, 2006) or comparing fi eld and laboratory components of a student's program experience (Noll, 2003). Measures of student learning are largely quantitative but limited to objective test or pre-to postexperience comparisons.…”

A comparative study between outcomes of an in‐person versus online introductory field course

“…In their traditional in‐person formats, field courses are an important tool for retention, success, and equity in science majors, especially for underrepresented minorities (URM) (Beltran et al., 2020). These benefits emerge from the many positive factors impacted by field courses including self‐efficacy (Beltran et al., 2020; Dillon, 2013; Kortz et al., 2020), science and peer community (Epstein et al., 2015; Anderson and Miskimins, 2006; Haywood et al., 2016; Madden et al., 2012), and comfort in the outdoors (Carlone et al., 2016; van der Hoeven Kraft et al., 2011; Jolley et al., 2018). Despite these benefits, university support for field courses is diminishing, highlighting the importance of research that explores barriers, outcomes, and impacts of field courses (Cotton & Cotton, 2009; Moore, 2001; Smith, 2004).…”