Student field experiences: designing for different instructors and variable weather
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the field experience and development of sense of place (in this case, human attributed meanings and attachments to the field area) in geoscience students on three separate course sections of a six-day introductory geological mapping field trip. Students stayed in a small farm station within their 4 km2 field area, worked in groups of three or four, and produced an individual final assessment. Findings from student interviews and pre-post surveys indicated that there were no significant differences in perceptions of the field trip purpose or sense of place between field trip sections, despite differences in instructor pedagogy and sense of place, as well as varied weather conditions. There were significant increases in student sense of place on all field trips, in contrast with previous work on a “roadside” (regional, multi-site) field trip where no significant change in sense of place occurred. In-field observations and instructor interviews identified key characteristics that supported similar sense of place and experiences on all trips: (1) consistent intended learning outcomes, (2) a carefully selected and immersive field area valued by instructors, and (3) an assessment connected to the landscape/field area with flexibility in its implementation, especially when faced with adverse weather conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".