Investigating undergraduate problem-solving decisions through a natural hazards assessment

Undergraduate geoscience education should teach not only conceptual information but also problem-solving skills. This study used a natural hazards assessment to compare the problem-solving decisions of 134 undergraduate students from three different universities to a benchmark of 14 geoscience professionals, identifying the types of decisions in which students most and least aligned with expert thinking. The assessment, which asked participants to help the city of Seattle, WA select a road section to prioritize for structural reinforcement, measured four types of decisions: framing the presented problem, planning the process for solving the problem, interpreting data to choose and justify a solution, and reflecting on the solution and solving process. When framing the problem, students were less likely than experts to consider relevant features or connect those features to societal impacts. When making planning decisions, students requested similar amounts of data to experts, but were less likely to decide they needed relevant data instead of irrelevant. Students also differed from experts in their decisions about data interpretation and solution choice: they were more likely to agree with a flawed sample solution and frequently made mistakes such as not considering enough data, misinterpreting data, relying on irrelevant information, or justifying decisions without considering natural hazards. These findings highlight the need for instructors to prioritize developing problem-solving decision skills in students; instructors can help by providing multiple opportunities and real-world scenarios in which students can practice making such decisions while applying relevant geoscience knowledge.