Visuospatial Ability & Geologic Mapping: Experts and Novices in the Field

This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants No. DRL-0815764 (PI Petcovic) and DRL-0815930 (PI Libarkin). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Heather Petcovic Kathleen Baker Caitlin Callahan

Thank You: Participants, WMU-MSU Research Team, and Indiana University Geologic Field Station

Joe Elkins

Zach Hambrick

Julie Libarkin

Tara Rench

Nicole LaDue

Sheldon Turner

WHAT DO YOU SEE?

WHY STUDY EXPERT AND NOVICE GEOSCIENTISTS?

www.cookiemadness .netwww.dinojim.com/structures.htm

WHY STUDY MAPPING?Geologic mapping is a complex and cognitively demanding task. What is the role of visuospatial ability?

THE RESEARCH STUDYFive-year project in which N=67 novice (undergraduate) through expert (professional) geologists completed a suite of lab and field tasks in summer 2009 and 2010.

Construct Task or Measure

Expertise Domain Experience Questionnaire (General and Mapping)

Domain Content Knowledge

Geoscience Concept Inventory (GCI+)(Libarkin & Anderson, 2005)

Visuospatial Ability

VSR - Paper Folding, Form Board, Space Relations (Ekstrom et al., 1976; Bennett et al., 1972)

WMC - Matrix Span, Arrow Span (Hambrick & Oswald, 2005)

PS - Pattern Comparison (Salthouse & Babcock, 1991)

Field Problem-Solving Geologic Mapping Task

Bedrock geologic map (scanned and digitized)

GPS track during mapping (ArcGIS)

Post-mapping Interview

Five-year project in which N=67 novice (undergraduate) through expert (professional) geologists completed a suite of lab and field tasks in summer 2009 and 2010.

THE RESEARCH STUDY

Construct Task or Measure

Expertise Domain Experience Questionnaire (General and Mapping)

Domain Content Knowledge

Geoscience Concept Inventory (GCI+)(Libarkin & Anderson, 2005)

Visuospatial Ability

VSR - Paper Folding, Form Board, Space Relations (Ekstrom et al., 1976; Bennett et al., 1972)

WMC - Matrix Span, Arrow Span (Hambrick & Oswald, 2005)

PS - Pattern Comparison (Salthouse & Babcock, 1991)

Field Problem-Solving Geologic Mapping Task

Bedrock geologic map (scanned and digitized)

GPS track during mapping (ArcGIS)

Post-mapping Interview

Five-year project in which N=67 novice (undergraduate) through expert (professional) geologists completed a suite of lab and field tasks in summer 2009 and 2010.

THE RESEARCH STUDY

Construct Task or Measure

Expertise Domain Experience Questionnaire (General and Mapping)

Domain Content Knowledge

Geoscience Concept Inventory (GCI+)(Libarkin & Anderson, 2005)

Visuospatial Ability

VSR - Paper Folding, Form Board, Space Relations (Ekstrom et al., 1976; Bennett et al., 1972)

WMC - Matrix Span, Arrow Span (Hambrick & Oswald, 2005)

PS - Pattern Comparison (Salthouse & Babcock, 1991)

Field Problem-Solving Geologic Mapping Task

Bedrock geologic map (scanned and digitized)

GPS track during mapping (ArcGIS)

Post-mapping Interview

THE BEDROCK MAPPING TASKMETHODS• Cohorts of 9-10 participants (2009=29; 2010=38)

• 54% male, mean 36.5 yrs, 55% professional experience• Group guided introduction to rock types (4 major types)• Individual mapping• Unlimited time (5-7 hrs)• Air photo and topo map• Rocky Mountains (MT)

“SUCCESS” = MAP SCORE

Participant map Digitized map “Answer key”

PARTICIPANT MAP ANALYSIS – TWO SCORES• SURFACE ROCK DISTRIBUTION = ArcGIS accuracy of %

of 1 m digitized participant pixels matching “key”• GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE = presence and accuracy of major

fold and fault in map area (rubric)

COGNITIVE DATA ANALYSIS• Accuracy of rock distribution correlates positively with

expertise, geologic knowledge, and visuospatial ability• Hierarchical regression analysis to test for interaction

STUDY 1: KEY FINDINGS

FINDINGS• At low knowledge (novice)

visuospatial ability has a positive effect on accuracy of rock distribution

• At high knowledge (expert) visuospatial ability has little effect

Do experts “see” the geology?Hambrick et al., 2012

Ro

ck D

istr

ibu

tio

n (

%)

GPS TRACK ANALYSIS• Principle Component Analysis• Statistical correlation

(Spearman’s & Pearson’s)*p<.05; **p<.01

STUDY 2: KEY FINDINGS

Rock distribution

Geologic structure

Thorough-ness

Geologic structure

.55**

Thorough-ness

.46** .27*

Speed NC .36* -.53**

-.35 Do experts “see” the geology?

Baker et al., 2012

FINDINGS• Visiting more of

the field area produced a more accurate map

• Fast novices are less thorough and have poorer interpretations

• Fast experts had higher quality interpretations

STUDY 3: KEY FINDINGSMAP VS. MENTAL MODELS• Most participants could

articulate a better understanding of the geology than shown on their paper maps

INTERVIEWER: Can you just give me a general overview of the map itself? … what did you draw?

VACHOT: Okay, I mapped out according to the three rock unit types that … were identified for us in the walk-through.

INTERVIEWER: If someone asked you what was going on in the subsurface, what could you say?

VACHOT: … I’m trying to make sense three dimensionally, you know, … like a cross section. ... And I would have thought that maybe there was some kind of a syncline going like this [gestures with hands striking parallel and dipping toward the center of the map area]. … But then underneath that a fault in uplift and the gneiss or the basement cutting through that. And so the rest of this syncline … would have been elevated and eroded away [uses hands to demonstrate a thrust/reverse fault uplifting the Precambrian]. And that’s kind of what I suspect may be the case here.VACHOT (NOVICE)

Hand-drawn map

STUDY 3: KEY FINDINGSGEOLOGIC MENTAL MODEL• Compile model from all data sources (final paper map, draft

map, sketches, field notebook, interview)• Re-score the geologic structural interpretation (same rubric)

How does this relate to visuospatial ability?

FINDINGS• Experts report

forming a model immediately to early in the task

• Novices form models during the task

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.000.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20Map vs Model Geologic Structure

Experienced mappers

Novice mappers

Map Score

Mo

de

l Sc

ore

Geologic Structure Score

MODELS & VISUOSPATIAL ABILITY

NEW ANALYSIS• Statistical correlation

(Spearman’s)*p<.05; **p<.01

• Higher quality model correlates with:• Understanding of rock

distribution• Understanding of

geologic structure• Geologic knowledge

Novices (N=37)

Experienced (N=30)

Rock distribution

0.66** 0.59**

Geologic structure

0.75** 0.82**

Mapping expertise

0.23 0.39*

Geologic knowledge

0.39* 0.52*

Spatial ability1

0.38* -0.13

Distance covered

0.14 0.35*

Distance in 1st hour

0.07 0.51**1Correlation was only found with form board. No correlation with visuospatial composite (r=0.19)

MODELS & VISUOSPATIAL ABILITYNEW ANALYSIS: Path Model• Two factors: geoscience experience & spatial ability

FINDINGS• Both influence

knowledge• Experience and

knowledge predicts mental model

• Spatial ability does not predict mental model

• Mental model predicts rock distribution

Rock Dist

WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?Summary:• Visuospatial ability is important, BUT

appears more important for novices• Novices (lower geologic knowledge)

rely on visuospatial ability to construct their understanding of rock distribution and structures in the field, during the task

• Experts (higher knowledge) generate immediate mental models and test hypotheses

EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS:• Spatial ability may be important for geology students• Train students to use multiple working hypotheses technique