Uniform organization across each method

[lheagy]

For each method:

• intro: why? (hooks, why is this interesting, thematic case history)
• physical properties (where can this be diagnostic)
• Basic principles (demonstrate what is happening… how: physics)
• Survey (field acquisition: sources, receivers)
• Data
• Processing
• interpretation
• examples
• (advanced)

[fhmjones]

That is a logical sequence from an expert's point of view, so it could be used. From a beginners point of view, the sequence needs explicit hooks that will support understanding and remembering. In particular, "physical properties", physics, "data", "models" and "interpretation" can all be rather abstract without a persistent context to which these new and "strange" ideas can be keyed.

1. intro: why? Identify one key example, with "the problem" presented from the end-user's point of view.
2. physical properties directly related to the given "problem".
   • Emphasize contrasts between "target" and "host".
   • Generalize beyond the given problem but be explicit when diverging from the context.
3. physical principles
   • what is "done" (conceptually) to detect a contrast between target and host for the given problem (in terms of energy source, propagation, detection)?
   • translate concept into physics (some of this might be "advanced". How much does the target audience really NEED to know in order to make well informed decisions?)
4. Field acquisition: sources, receivers and geometry used by the given problem.
   • variations for other situations,
5. interpretation / data, closely tied to the given "problem" first.
   • Focus on the challenging distinctions between the information desired, "models" and "data". Experts are notoriously casual about how these terms are used and beginners are often confused.
   • "Limitations", and the distinction between "the answer" (rarely possible) and benefits of "more information".
6. other example(s), preferably a different domain from the first problem (eg. geotechnical versus geologic)
7. (advanced) ?

We obviously want to avoid re-writing as much as possible, but starting with a key case history will "contextualize" the difficult, abstract stuff. This is known to be an important contributor to reliable learning. One potential trick to avoid more writing could be to introduce key "questions" at each step. Each would essentially ask the student to articulate the relationships between explanatory text and the key problem. Pose the question at the start of the section (just one or two sentences), pose it again (maybe with slightly different wording) at the end of the section, and do NOT provide the answer.

For example, at step 2: "Given we want depth to bedrock, will overburden be more or less (dense, conductive, etc), than the underlying bedrock? On what basis do you make this decision?" Posing questions like this could become routine, and hence (hopefully) not onerous while re-configuring the GPG.

Hopefully this is helpful ...

[fhmjones]

One last point - another benefit of a key problem (context) for each module is that questions throughout the section (tests, assignments, labs or just rhetorical) can be much clearer when posed as "comparison" to the key problem. For example: "How would the geometry of the survey change if you find yourself in situation where depth to bedrock is expected to be roughly twice as deep as the first scenario? First, answer qualitatively using words like more, less, wider, longer, shorter etc ..., then indicate how you would determine numbers for the change in geometry."