Undergraduate Research Mentoring in Geochemistry: One-on-One versus Group-Based Approaches

Jeff Ryan (faculty; JR) , Judy Harden (student, REU participant, etc.; JH)Department of Geology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL

At USF, undergraduate mentoring in geochemical research has thus far taken two different tracks: 1) individual direction of students in focused investigations, either in Summer or during the academic year;2) collaborative group-based work in the Summer as part of our REU Site research program with WCU.

In the Beginning:

Individual Mentoring

JR:

While starting out as an Assistant Professor at USF, I engaged undergraduates in research out of necessity - I needed the help in the lab!

The field experiences I incorporated into the undergraduate courses I taught, along with a new field course, GLY 4780: Field Studies - Blue Ridge Mountains, which I developed, created sufficient interest among our students that 3-5 each year sought me out to participate in my labs. Initially these students worked mostly on Appalachian geology topics, which resulted in my scrambling to obtain the (admittedly) modest monies necessary to support their efforts. Eventually I was able to interest students in my funded research endeavors, such that at present all students working with me individually on projects receive at least research support, if not stipend support, from my active NSF grants or NSF-REU Supplement award funds I have received.

REU Supplement Awards:

Several different undergraduate projects were directly supported using REU Supplement Award funds for the grant: "Chemical Recycling in Subduction Zones: Implications from B-Be-Li and Be Isotope Studies of Forearc Rocks" (1992 -1995). Two of these projects resulted in posters presented by undergraduates at the 1994 and 1995 AGU Spring Meeting, and two others were partially completed via undergraduate student efforts. One of my REU participants in this grant eventually completed an unrelated project on environmental contamination of a Spanish Estuary, which she presented at the 1995 GSA Annual Meeting. This award also aided in supporting of a visiting graduate student, L. Benton, from the University of Tulsa, who worked with one of my undergraduate researchers in measuring the B and Li abundances of serpentinite muds from the Mariana forearc.

Subsequent REU Supplement support I received for grants to study the Mariana Forearc and intraplate volcanic rocks in Antarctica supported three students, all of whom presented their work at the AGU Spring Meeting.

REU Supplement-supported Presentations (Students in Bold):

Mattie P.D. and J. G. Ryan (1994) Boron and alkaline element systematics in serpentinites from Holes 779A, 780C, and 784A, ODP Leg 125: describing fluid-mediated slab additions. EOS Supplement 75, 352.Norrell, S., J.G. Ryan, and M.J. Defant (1995) On the origins of Adakites: evidence from B-Be-Li systematics in young lavas from Panama. EOS Supplement 76, S289.Ryan, J.G., E. Tenthorey, A. Welty, M.R. Perfit, and C.H. Langmuir (1995) Light element variations in lavas from the Woodlark Basin, Solomon Sea: the geochemical ramifications of ridge subduction. EOS Supplement 76, S288.Welty, A.T., R.A. Davis, and J.G. Ryan (1995) 5000 years of pollution in the Rio Tinto Estuary, southwestern Spain. 1995 GSA Annual Meeting Abstracts with Programs, A-86.Ryan, J.G., Norrell, S., Kepezhinskas, P. and Defant, M.J. (1995) Across-Arc Geochemical Variations in the Kuriles and Kamchatka: Slab-Dominated vs. Crust-Influenced Geochemical Signatures. EOS Supplement 76, F536.Benton, L., Haggerty, J., and J.G. Ryan (1995) Boron and lithium geochemistry of unconsolidated serpentines from the Mariana and Izu-Bonin forearcs: implications for the origin and evolution of serpentine forearc fluids. EOS Supplement 76, F702.Foster, G., J.G. Ryan, and P.R. Kyle (2001) Fluid-mobile elements as tracers in intraplate volcanic Environments: Mt. Erebus, Ross Island, Antarctica. Presented at the 2001 AGU Spring Meeting, Boston, MAGuggino, S., Savov IP, and Ryan, JG (2002) Light element systematics of metamorphic clasts from ODP Legs 125 and 195, South Chamorro and Conical Seamounts, Mariana forearc. Presented at the 2002 AGU Spring Meeting, Washington, DCHarden, J.A., Ryan, J.G. and Savov, IP (2002) Goechemistry and light element systematics of Moorea, Society Islands. Presented at the 2002 AGU Spring Meeting, Washington, DC.

Figures 7 & 8. B/Be vs Be and B/K2O vs K2O show ratios are similar to other Society Islands and lower for other “hotspots”. This is consistent with a mantle source that includes boron-poor subducted materials.

B/K2O vs K2O

0.1

1

10

100

0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00

K2O (wt %)

B/K

2O

Moorea

Societies

St. Helena

Hawaii

Famous

Juan de Fuca

East Pacific Rise

Tamayo

Samoa

Gough

Pribilof

Azores

Ascension

Reunion

N. Iturup

S. Iturup

Chirpoy

Chirinkotan

Onekotan

B/Be vs Be

0.1

1

10

0.1 1 10 100

Be (ppm)

B/Be

Moorea

Societies

St. Helena

Hawaii

Samoa

Gough

Pribilof

Azores

Ascension

Reunion

Individual USF students have completed projects on a range of topics: petrology of metavolcanic and intrusive rocks of the Appalachians; Li-Be-B studies of arc, forearc, and intraplate igneous and metamorphic rocks; and contaminant studies of sediments and rock in fluvial and subsurface hydrologic systems. Students participate to a limited degree in defining the overall research problem, but are afforded independence in refining research foci, and pursuing answers using available analytical resources. Of 10 individually mentored students, all have presented their results at either regional or national meetings (GSA, AGU) six have pursued or are pursuing graduate degrees in Geology, one completed a law degree, and two others work as geoscience professionals.

JH:

When it was time for me to think about my Senior thesis, I decided that I wanted to work with Dr. Ryan and learn more about geochemistry. I was very interested in volcanism, especially of hot spots, and was planning a trip to the island of Moorea in the Society Islands.

Dr. Ryan instructed me on what to look for in sample collecting, and I brought back plenty of rocks to work with. My knowledge of powdering samples, cutting billets for thin sections and petrography increased immensely as I had over 30 samples to prepare and study. Although I had worked in labs prior to this experience, my confidence level working with acids, muffle furnaces, and the DC plasma spectrometer increased tremendously. With daily guidance from the professor, I started to really understand the reasons for looking for certain elements in the samples and what processes to use. Rather than doing experiments with the confidence level of a beginning geology student, I felt that I was doing science as a real geologist.

Harden and Ryan, 2002

Blue Ridge REU Site Program: Collaborative Group Research

In our REU Site program, participants conduct 3-4 weeks of fieldwork in the Blue Ridge, followed by 3-4 weeks of geochemical and petrologic work at USF. The overall research target is defined, but teams of participants work with faculty to define and pursue specific research questions. Group posters on each Summer’s work are presented at regional GSA meetings. ~20% of the participants pursue offshoot projects with on-campus research mentors ± REU faculty during the following academic year. One of these projects (Soraruf, Ryan, et al) was presented in the SGE poster session at this meeting.

0.1

1

10

100 PG13A

SM1DTS-04CG96-6JP10CSZ8TS-12TS-06TS-08TS-10

La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy TmErHo Yb Lu

Regional Map of Mafic-Ultramafic rocks in the “Cullowhee Terrane”, NC

Geologic Maps of the 2001 REU field areas around the Webster-Addie ultramafic body.

JR:

As part of the REU program, students participate in all aspects of the research exercise: collection of field data, field sampling, thin section petrography; crushing, powdering and digestion of rock samples for solution analysis; protocols for major and trace elemental analysis via DC Plasma Emission Spectrometry, and geochemical data reduction and interpretation. In 2001 students also had the opportunity to conduct mineral compositional studies via electron microprobe, using the FCAEM JEOL Superprobe facility at FIU in Miami - a remotely operated instrument which we use from USF in Tampa. One student conducted post-summer research using the FCAEM probe, and another obtained access to the microprobe facility at the University of Georgia to complete his post-summer research.

The upside for the student to the REU approach is that they get the opportunity to use a variety of state-of-the-art instrumentation, and to help carry a relatively sophisticated research effort from initiation to completion.

The downside to the REU experience in terms of student training in geochemistry is time: even with five weeks in the summer devoted to hands-on geochemical efforts, the degree of mastery of these skills is limited.

JH:

The REU that I participated in was a wonderful learning experience. Students had a daily work experience with at least one professor per every three students. The knowledge gained working in the field under these conditions is immeasurable.

I spent four weeks mapping, sampling, and collecting data in a quarry. Students also spent some time learning different geophysical techniques (GPR, magnetometer, seismics, resistivity). Another three weeks was spent processing samples and interpreting data and learning how to use a microprobe and DCP-AES.

Much confidence was gained using scientific techniques and instruments, however, I felt quite like a “Jack of all trades, master of none” when the experience was over.

The most important outcome of the experience was that I realized more than ever that I wanted to be a teacher that could encourage others to enjoy this science as much as I do.

JR:

Individual mentoring involves a greater time commitment, and generates smaller datasets, so the research benefits are limited. However, the approach does allow students to master technical skillsand concepts, and it does let them pursue analytically challenging problems.

The REU group approach gets students up to speed quickly in the research process, and it can generate a very large body of publishable data, so the research payoff can be significant, provided the enterprise is managed appropriately. However, the degree to which the students master technical skills is lower, and the necessarily fast pace of an intensive summer program can leave even able students behind intellectually. The post-summer synthesis experiences we included, in particular preparing and presenting group posters, seemed to be essential to student learning, both in absolute terms, and in terms of their own perceptions - so this kind of “capstone” to the experience seems necessary. A post-Summer offshoot research project, which a small, but significant percentage of our students pursued, may also serve as this sort of “capstone,” and have been key to some of discoveries that our research program has made.

With my own professional advancement at USF, and the increased service/administrative/governance commitments that come with it, it has become progressively more difficult to invest sufficient time in longer-term, less structured individual student research projects, both from an absolute time commitment standpoint, and from the perspective of research “payoff.” Those students who have conducted successful individual research projects with me recently have either had an REU experience, and were thus “up to speed”, or had the benefit of secondary mentors (such as my graduate students). To continue be effective in undergraduate research training in the future, my sense is that I will need to move toward more structured, group-based research efforts.

Outcomes:Individual Mentoring REU Group Research

Scientific:18 presentations at national/regional meetings1 paper published, 4 papers submitted/in preparation

Professional:

Of the 48 REU participants who have completed the program, 36 have pursued/are pursuing graduate degrees 4 are currently Ph.D. candidates 8 are working as geoscience professionals.4 are unaccounted for (except for one touring the Amazon, but I don’t know how to classify that!)

JH:

The REU experience made me feel more like a scientist than a student. Although I had to absorb a great deal of information, I felt as though I was doing research that would ultimately be worthwhile. Because of the amount of information and the limited time to process it, I came out of the experience feeling as though I learned a lot but hadn’t mastered anything well enough to continue the work on my own or to start a project without the constant input of an instructor.

The one-on-one mentoring experience for my senior thesis was quite a different story. During this project, I did as much of the work as I could on my own after receiving brief instruction from the professor. Knowing that I could ask questions of him or his grad students at any time helped me to be more confident about the work I was doing, and doing the work everyday for months at a time helped me to master the techniques I needed to use.

Together, these two experiences changed my mode of thinking from that of a student to that of a geologist carrying out research.

I think the ultimate experience would be to work on a daily basis, side-by-side with faculty in a lab for at least one, if not two, full semesters. I understand that financially that would be impossible for any professor. Perhaps an alternative would be to have a semester-long program were select students would work with a professor mastering research skills. Each of the students (10-12) could work on a different project but employ the same methods and techniques, thus relying on each other as well as the professor for guidance. The professor would not teach any courses during that semester and would instead spend the entire time mentoring the 10-12 students.

A New Model?The role of the Slab and the

Mantle in Volcanic Arc Petrogenesis: A B-Be-Li and Li Isotope Study of Off-Axis Arc Centers in Mexico and

Central America

This project, only recently been approved for funding by the National Science Foundation, will involve two participatory research experiences:1) a 6-8 week summer program for a smaller number (4) of undergraduates, focusing on the mineralogical and chemical characterization, and B-Be-Li systematics, of lavas from small, off-axis volcanic centers in Mexico and Guatemala; 2) research projects for Ph.D./M.S. students examining the Li isotope systematics of subsets of the Mexico and Guatemala lavas measured by the undergraduates, as well as on similar lavas from intraplate volcanic sites around the world.

This approach should provide more opportunities for the kind of personal mentoring that the undergraduates working with me had originally, while at the same time providing more structure, a tighter schedule for accomplishments, and access to graduate students as secondary mentors. As the graduate student and undergraduate student projects are distinct, but related, the two populations of students should work cooperatively, as collaborators, to the mutual educational benefits of each.

Scientific

10 Presentations at national/regional meetings,1 Published Paper

Professional

Chad Gunter (B.S. 1994): President, Advanced Environmental Technologies, Inc.David Hernandez (B.S. 1994): Graduated Univ. Houston Law school; practicing lawyerPatrick Mattie (B.S. 1994) M.S. Geology, New Mexico Tech; Regional Manager, AET, IncSuzanne Norrell (B.S. 1994) M.S. Geology, USF; Consulting geologistAmy Welty (B.S. 1995) M.S. Geology, Northern Arizona Univ.Keith Willse (B.S. 1996) M.S. Geology, Univ. Nevada/Las Vegas. Consulting GeologistRon Bek (B.S. 1998) Consulting Geologist, Bellingham, WASteve Guggino (B.S. 2001) pursuing MS degree, USFJudy Harden (B.S. 2002); pursuing M.S degree, USF