1. Undergraduate Students’ Understanding about Volcanoes: Results from the InVEST Volcanic Concept Survey Dominike Merle-Johnson Lloyd Barrow Alan Whittington University of Missouri, Columbia

2. InVEST-Volcano Concept Survey (Parham, et al., 2010)  “Concept-intensive instrument design to explore baseline levels of undergraduate students understanding about volcanoes without the aid of support materials (textbooks, etc) at introductory geoscience courses” p-177-178.  Survey components  Demographic questions  Beliefs about science  Students’ preferences in technology  Learning styles  10 open-ended volcano questions

3. Research Questions  Using the InVEST Volcanic Concept Survey (Parham et al., 2010) compare two courses to determine: Is there a correlation between scores and level confidence for each of the volcano questions? Are there any significant differences between the students’ scores for both courses?  How do our results compare with the ones reported by Parham et al., (2010)?  What alternative conceptions students still have before being formally taught about volcanoes?

4. The Courses  Course A Introductory For majors and non-majors Includes a laboratory component  Course B Introductory For non-majors Does not have a laboratory component

5. Methodology  Administer a modified InVEST Volcano Concept Survey (Parham et al., 2010) After instruction on plate tectonics, but before volcanoes. Via Blackboard  One question was modified from “draw” to “describe” Voluntary Add self-reported confidence levels for each question  4=very confident; 3=rather confident; 2= not very confident; 1=Just a guess Did not asked computer-preference questions  Validate scoring survey  Conduct statistical analyses to answer research questions.  Analyzed students’ responses for misconceptions

6. Scoring  Initially scored by first author (10% scored by two other experts for reliability) Score reliability  Expert 1: Cronbach’s alpha= 0.95  Expert 2: Cronbach’s alpha =0.85 “Examples of idealized student’s responses” reported by Parham et al., (2010) (tables 1 & 2), and content expertise.  Scale: 0=no response or “don’t know”; 1=weak response; 2= moderate response; 3=strong/ideal response

7. Results: Responses to survey- Demographics CharacteristicCourse A (n=99)Course B (n=85) STEM---Non- STEM 34%---65%59%---41% Science Interest 45% Mode: Somewhat (scale 4/5) 52% Mode: somewhat Earth Science Interest 43% Mode: somewhat 59% Mode: somewhat Learned about volcanoes from 32% classroom activities---29% documentary films 49% classroom activities

8. Results: Comparison between courses  Confidence levels Many rated “just a guess” to why does a volcano erupt and the role of water in volcanic eruptions. ItemCourse ACourse B Question with highest mean score Difference magma and lava Question with lowest mean score Controls explosivity volcanoes Hazards of eruptive material and environment Total Mean and SD 14.94 5.84 18.69 5.28

9. Results: Comparison between courses

10. Results: Correlation between scores and confidence level per question ItemCourse ACourse B 1) Volcanoes similarly shaped?0.59**0.45** 2) Difference between magma & lava0.42**0.35** 3) Volcano cut inside, what do you see inside? 0.510.44** 4) Volcano pattern around the world0.47**0.52** 5) Why volcano erupts?0.4**0.41** 6) Controls explosivity volcano0.48**0.58** 7) How water affects explosivity?0.48**0.46** 8) Describe erupting volcano & features0.61**0.62** 9) Hazard materials & interaction with environment 0.62**0.71** 10) Volcano affecting 4 different scenarios 0.51**0.57** **p<0.01

11. Results: Comparison between Courses  A one-way ANOVA was used to test differences between the overall scores of both courses. Scores for both courses differed significantly for both courses, F (1, 182)=20.33, p=0.000.

12. Results, cont: Overall correlations  Pearson correlations shows significant correlations between total scores and: the courses (class), total confidence, and interest in how the Earth works.

13. Results, cont.: Regression Models  Regression analysis suggested that there is a significant correlation between overall scores and overall confidence

14. Comparison with Parham et al., (2010) results CharacteristicParham et al., (2010)Our study: n672184 Avg. Total Score 64%58% High scoresKnowledge- difference magma and lava Low scores (Bloom’s Taxonomy) Application and analysisComprehension No approximation of ideal response Hazards, Affect groups of people None

15. Results: Distribution scored responses

16. Comparison with Parham et al., (2010) results, cont.  “Student understanding of volcanic processes was rather limited” (p. 181).  Difference between magma and lava question had the greatest proportion of high scores.  Misconceptions Connect volcanoes with water and islands Hot or tropical climates Volcanoes form due to rocky or mountainous terrain Random pattern

17. Misconceptions  Reported by others* Magma comes from the core All volcanoes have mountain shape  “New” “Magma is rocks being melted. Lava are rocks in liquid form.” Cutting a volcano in half you see the core. Volcanoes are close to giant masses of water. Volcanoes occur also at continental-continental plate boundaries. Volcanoes erupt due to pressure from core. The size of the tunnel to the mantle determines explosivity. Magnitude earthquake *http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/intro/misconception_list.html

18. Other interesting findings  “Is there water in volcanoes?”  Water can make magma more runny  Water makes volcanoes less volatile  More water, more wet and it wont erupt  Magma is thicker and flows slower than lava.  Water cools magma and will make it less explosive.

19. Conclusions:  Based on our results, students’ self-rated confidence levels is a predictor of their knowledge on that concept.  The study found significant differences in scores between the courses assessed. Testing of variables did not show reasons for these differences. Further data/information is needed to answer this question.

20. Conclusions, cont. Compared with Parham et al (2010) results, our results suggest student’s acquire or improve their knowledge about volcanic hazards and location of volcanoes, while making sense of/learning about plate tectonics. However, the role of water in magma, the structure of a volcano, and why a volcano erupts are still topics they don’t understand well prior to learning about volcanoes.  Student struggle with comprehension questions.

21. Implications  Connections of other geologic topics (plate tectonics) can help students knowledge of volcanism before the formal lesson begins.  How students process what learned inside and outside classroom can have effects on how they make sense of what learned.  More emphasis/explicit explanations in classroom on why volcanoes erupt, the structure of volcanoes, and the role of water in volcanic eruptions.

22. Limitations  This research used only one survey collected once and at one institution.  Data obtained did not reveal why there were significant differences in both courses: Other data needs to be done.