Practicing Physical Geography: An Actor-Network View of Physical Geography Exemplified by the Rock Art Stability Index

Abstract

This paper explores the use of a new pedagogy, the rock art stability index (RASI), to engender deeper understanding of weathering science concepts by students. Owing to its dynamic nature, RASI represents a quintessential actor network for weathering science, because it links task in the landscape with an active material practice and an alternative materialistic world-view recently called for in positivistic science, to cre-ate place. Using concept maps as an assessment tool, 571 college undergraduate students and 13 junior high school integrated science students (ages 12–13) were evaluated for increased learning potential between pre-and post-field experiences. Further, this article demonstrates that when students use RASI to learn the fundamental complex science of weathering they make in-depth connections between weathering form and process not achieved through traditional, positivistic weathering pedagogy. We argue that RASI draws upon inherent actor networks which allow students to link weathering form and process to an animate concep-tualization of landscape. Conceptualizing landscape as sentient actor networks removes weathering science disciplinary connections and their inherent pedagogic practices. Our focus in this paper is not to challenge weathering ontology and epistemology, but rather to argue that there is a need for a pedagogical paradigm shift in weathering science.

Full text

Article
Practicing physical geography:
An actor-network view of
physical geography exemplified
by the rock art stability index
Casey D. Allen
University of Colorado Denver, USA
Chris Lukinbeal
Arizona State University, USA
Abstract
This paper explores the use of a new pedagogy, the rock art stability index (RASI), to engender deeper
understanding of weathering science concepts by students. Owing to its dynamic nature, RASI represents
a quintessential actor network for weathering science, because it links task in the landscape with an active
material practice and an alternative materialistic world-view recently called for in positivistic science, to cre-
ate place. Using concept maps as an assessment tool, 571 college undergraduate students and 13 junior high
school integrated science students (ages 12–13) were evaluated for increased learning potential between
pre- and post-field experiences. Further, this article demonstrates that when students use RASI to learn the
fundamental complex science of weathering they make in-depth connections between weathering form and
process not achieved through traditional, positivistic weathering pedagogy. We argue that RASI draws upon
inherent actor networks which allow students to link weathering form and process to an animate concep-
tualization of landscape. Conceptualizing landscape as sentient actor networks removes weathering science
disciplinary connections and their inherent pedagogic practices. Our focus in this paper is not to challenge
weathering ontology and epistemology, but rather to argue that there is a need for a pedagogical paradigm
shift in weathering science.
Keywords
actor-network theory, fieldwork, philosophy of science, RASI, rock art stability index, weathering pedagogy
I Introduction
Mellado et al. (2006: 421) identify a key interna-
tional issue in science education: that, although
not always representing the best pedagogical
strategy, different conceptual frameworks in the
philosophy of science, such as positivism, Pop-
per’s principle of falsifiability, and Kuhn’s rela-
tivism, remain central in general science
education. Further, it is increasingly recognized
that, in order to aid in students’ deeper
understanding about complex, yet fundamental,
concepts in science (and physical geography),
the focus of instruction should be active and
learner-centered (Lizzio and Wilson, 2004;
Corresponding author:
Casey D. Allen, Department of Geography and
Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Denver,
PO Box 173364, CB 172, Denver, CO 80217-3364, USA
Email: casey.allen@ucdenver.edu
Progress in Physical Geography
1–22
ªThe Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0309133310364929
ppg.sagepub.com
Progress in Physical Geography OnlineFirst, published on April 26, 2010 as doi:10.1177/0309133310364929

Davidowitz et al., 2005; Lesh, 2006). Yet, when
it comes to many basic and foundational con-
cepts such as weathering, students tend to regard
it – and instructors tend to teach it – as positivis-
tic and Popperian science, concentrating on the
need for classification and measurement (Dove,
1997; Fuller, 2000; Inkpen, 2005). While this
paper does not contest the positivistic nature
inherent in conventional research into weather-
ing science, it does, however, challenge tradi-
tional pedagogical methodology of in-class
lectures and positivistic laboratory exercises
used to ‘teach’ weathering. Traditional tech-
niques seek to address the dialectic between
weathering form and process and how weather-
ing is related to erosion. However, the methodol-
ogy often gets lost in translation because the
concepts of form and process are easily confused
by students and overlooked by instructors
(Dove, 1997). We argue instead for a form of
active field-based learning, which relies on actor
networks (see Thrift, 2000) that expose alterna-
tive materialistic world-views and concomi-
tantly forces students and instructors to
interrogate the philosophy of science as they put
science education into practice. For the purpose
of this paper, actors represent ‘activists’ and net-
works represent the human-environment inter-
actions occurring when actors are not passively
learning the interconnections of physical or
human processes, but rather engaging in the pro-
cess as activists (cf. Bruun and Langlais, 2003).
Lacey (2009: 858) argues that because sci-
ence mirrors the value structure of the scientist
– which leads to a strong connection between
scientific trends and materialistic world-views
– ‘science can benefit from cultivating a healthy
pluralism (both of worldviews and value out-
looks) among the practitioners of science’. Con-
cluding the argument, Lacey suggests that
science pedagogy should broaden its focus to
include ‘grappling with competing worldviews
and value outlooks’. One thread of this paper
demonstrates that it is possible to carry out this
goal while also teaching such core learning
objectives in basic Earth science instruction as
weathering (rock decay). The second thread of
this paper illustrates the power of a completely
different conceptual framework in a student’s
understanding of basic Earth science education
– exemplified in the context of rock weathering.
An argument is made here that actor-network
theory, while often thought of as a humanistic
endeavor, has considerable power to promote
student understanding of a fundamental Earth
science concept and the philosophy of science
(cf. Campbell, 2005; Marshall et al., 2006;
Opdam et al., 2006). Actor-network theory also
remains underutilized in physical geography
practice, yet represents a very rich area of
research (Inkpen, 2005).
Fieldwork represents a common way to do
physical geography. Indeed, active learning in
the field links alternative materialistic world-
views (cf. Mellado et al., 2006) and the philoso-
phy of science to help invigorate it by putting it
into practice. Yet measuring learning through
fieldwork remains difficult. To this end, concept
maps (see Novak and Gowin, 1984; Novak,
1985) were completed by 584 total students in
pre- and post-lectures and field sessions (571
college level and 13 junior high school level).
Using results from concept maps (cf. Novak and
Gowin, 1984; Novak, 1985), this paper explores
one way to bring active, learner-centered educa-
tion (LCE) to the forefront of science pedagogy,
through students engaging as actor networks in
an animate landscape. Utilizing the rock art sta-
bility index (RASI; see Cerveny, 2005; Dorn
et al., 2008) and its specific focus on connecting
weathering form to weathering process, students
are better equipped to explore the weathering
form and process dialectic in depth, than from
traditional, positivistic science pedagogical
techniques.
Weathering pedagogy normally gets treated
as a recitation of physical weathering processes
(eg, frost shattering, chemical weathering pro-
cesses, dissolution of limestone) with occasional
basic illustrations of accompanying weathering
2Progress in Physical Geography

forms. In this paper, the focus turns to a critical
thinking task (cf. Bailin, 2002), asking students
to evaluate the geologic stability of priceless
heritage resources embodied in rock art. We
argue that to challenge students through field
research (physical, cultural, or otherwise)
requires engaging students as active participants
in a culturally meaningful project – in this case,
through identifying rock art panels in danger of
being lost through natural and anthropogenic
weathering (Figure 1). Although the general sci-
ence education topic at hand rests in Earth sci-
ence education, the broader framework of
managing rock art, in general, intersects several
other academic arenas (Pope et al., 2002). Thus,
the findings reported here have implications for
science pedagogy beyond the Earth science
fields of physical geography, physical geology,
and geomorphology where weathering is usually
taught, and crosses into aspects of archeology,
physics, engineering, chemistry, hydrology, and
soils, in addition to aesthetics, art conservation,
and cultural heritage resource management.
This paper begins with a brief overview of
weathering science followed by a shortintroduc-
tion to the rock art stability index (RASI) and an
in-depth explanation of its method for advancing
weathering pedagogy through LCE strategies
that interlink students as actor networks. Meth-
ods used to gather data are then outlined, fol-
lowed by specifics of LCE as our pedagogic
strategy, concept mapping as an assessment tool,
and an introduction to the student populations
used in our case study. After reviewing these
fundamental components, results are then pre-
sented, including basic statistical analyses.
Before concluding, a broader discussion of tradi-
tional science pedagogy is offered, addressing
the paradigmatic shift that must occur in weath-
ering science pedagogy (ie, seeing landscape as
process) to deepen student connections between
weathering form and weathering process – an
essential physical geography concept. The over-
arching goal of this paper rests in how RASI, as a
pedagogy, helps overcome differences and dis-
connections in weathering science. By focusing
Figure 1. University-level students performing RASI at local petroglyph site, Tempe, Arizona, USA
Source: Photo by Casey D. Allen
Allen and Lukinbeal 3

on actor networks, students become activists:
working with RASI challenges them both to
engage in cultural heritage management and to
begin querying the underlying tenets of science
pedagogy. Through these means, weathering
form and process animates the landscape, for,
as Rose (2002: 462–63) explains, ‘the only thing
that landscape is is the practice that makes it
relevant’.
II Weathering science
Many academic disciplines engage in the study
of weathering, although each rarely cites
literature from cognate fields even though this
may play a central part in those fields of study,
especially when the subject is deep weathering
(Ollier et al., 2007). Soil scientists study
rock weathering from the perspective of
soil-forming processes (Nahon, 1991; Ugolini
et al., 1996; Frazier and Graham, 2000), whereas
geochemists focus on laboratory measurements
that maintain a minimal reliance on fieldwork
(Brantley and Chen, 1995; Suarez and Wood,
1996; Bullen et al., 1997; Schroeder et al.,
2001). Engineers, including engineering geolo-
gists, focus on the durability or stability of rock
and weathered materials (cf. Dearman et al.,
1978; Hodder, 1984; Topal, 2002) and often
have trouble distinguishing weathering between
themselves (cf. Dearman et al., 1989; Rahn,
1986). Furthermore, while those geologists con-
cerned with Quaternary landforms may use
weathering as a tool, the vast majority of them
ignore weathered rocks because the mineralogy
has been altered and therefore weathered rocks
are not considered bedrock (ie, deep weathering
not dealt with equally; cf. Birkeland, 1974;
Colman, 1981; Dennen and Moore, 1986;
Fookes et al., 1971), although there are excep-
tions in a few geomorphic circles (Ollier,
1974; 1981; 1992). Even biogeomorphology and
climatic geomorphology tend to treat weathering
as a process specifically focused on ‘biological
contributions’ to both chemical and physical
processes (ie, biogeomorphology; Naylor et al.,
2002: 3) and salt weathering and dissolution in
deserts that mainly results in tafoni (ie, climatic
geomorphology; Gutierrez, 2005). Making spe-
cific connections between weathering form and
weathering process is usually left to physical
geographers (Ollier, 1974; 1975; Mottershead
and Pye, 1994; Viles, 1995; Turkington and
Smith, 2000; Paradise, 2002; Pope et al., 2002).
Weathering science as applied to stone cul-
tural resources sustainability interfaces with soil
science, engineering, low-temperature geo-
chemistry, physical geography, geology, and a
myriad of other disciplines (Pope et al., 2002).
Each of these disciplines takes different
approaches to the connection between weather-
ing form and process in this setting. Although
geological engineers generally tend not to con-
nect processes of chemical weathering with
forms seen in the field (Duzgoren-Aydin et al.,
2002; Topal, 2002; Ramamurthy, 2004), there
are exceptions (Palicki, 1997; Ehlen, 2002),
although those who do concern themselves with
stone weathering usually focus on minute con-
nections of processes to forms (Fitzner, 2002).
Stone conservators and archaeologists may link
weathering process to form, but tend to greatly
generalize these connections (Fredell, 2000;
Bergqvist, 2001; Simpson et al., 2004; Barnett
et al., 2005). Physical geographers, on the other
hand, make the clearest connection between
weathering form and process because they
emphasize associations between nomothetic
principles and idiographic in situ circumstances
(cf. Ollier, 1974; 1975; 1981; 1992; Ollier and
Pain, 1996; Viles et al., 1997; Antill and Viles,
1998; Inkpen et al., 2001; Mottershead et al.,
2003; Warke et al., 2003; Turkington and Para-
dise, 2005; McKinley et al., 2006).
As concepts in an introductory physical geo-
graphy course, weathering and erosion are usu-
ally taught in tandem, with transport being the
separating factor (Dove, 1997). Disciplinary
fracturing furthers differential learning out-
comes because definitions of weathering form
4Progress in Physical Geography

and process run the gamut from novice to expert
among instructors (Dove, 1997). Further, separ-
ating weathering concepts in a classroom or
laboratory setting creates a problem because of
the interdependent processes that, eventually
over time, denude the landscape yet produce dis-
tinct, recognizable forms. Rather than reifying a
pedagogic delineation of independent categories
(form or process), LCE practices enforce the
interdependency of weathering form and pro-
cess. However, changing normative pedagogic
practices that reify such distinction requires new
approaches to weathering science, research, and
pedagogy.
III Background: The rock art
stability index (RASI)
While some agree rock art should only be pre-
served, others note that it is fine if left to nature,
as perhaps the indigenous creators intended
(Whitley, 2005). Both perspectives agree that
some form of rock art management is necessary.
The RASI is a rock art management method that
transcends traditional world-views of preserving
priceless heritage resources by offering an alter-
native management practice of understanding
rock stability where the art is located (cf. Lacey,
2009). Globally speaking, rock art sites are in
constant peril, whether from anthropogenic or
natural causes. Researchers categorize rock art
into four main types: petroglyphs, or images
pecked or carved into rock; pictographs, or
images painted on rocks; geoglyphs, rocks put
into some form of alignment or pattern; and inta-
glios, desert varnish/pavement scraped aside to
reveal lighter-colored soil (Whitley, 2005). Con-
sequently, the many researchers (cf. Clottes,
1997; Lewis-Williams, 2001; 2006; Whitley,
2001; Whitley and Keyser, 2003; Hays-Gilpin,
2004; Whitley, 2005; Whitley et al., 2006;
Novell, 2006; Boivin et al., 2007; Vandenabeele
et al., 2007) who assess hazards with respect to
rock art focus on two questions: identification
of endangered rock art and identification of rock
art sites that may need management. Most
integrative approaches, such as Fitzner’s
(2002) and those discussed by Viles et al.
(1997), require far more expertise and funds than
available to most land managers. It should also
be noted that while the focus of this study rests
specifically on petroglyphs, RASI can be easily
adapted to other stone creations such as historic
buildings, bridges, and tombstones.
The RASI includes components traditionally
used in stability indices and focuses specifically
on form and process connections (Table 1). It
remains accessible to non-specialists with mini-
mal training, yet it is rigorous enough for use by
rock weathering specialists (Dorn et al., 2008).
RASI represents a replicable, cost-effective and
time-effective tool that allows for the categori-
zation, mapping and assessment of rock weath-
ering phenomena associated with priceless,
endangered cultural resources (Cerveny, 2005;
Cerveny et al., 2006). Even though rock art rep-
resents a material cultural practice (cf. Massey,
2005), using RASI as a method to study weath-
ering allows the researcher to embrace Lacey’s
(2009) alternative materialistic stance – that
rock art is a priceless heritage resource – while
retaining Mellado et al.’s (2006) alternative
positivistic focus – that RASI quantifies a price-
less heritage resource. Through its focus on
interdisciplinarity, RASI transcends the disci-
plinary fracturing prevalent in weathering sci-
ence research and pedagogy by emphasizing
inherent and animate actor networks that exist
in the landscape. Landscape is a work in prog-
ress, a taskscape where the:
body and landscape are complementary terms: each
implies the other, alternately as figure and ground.
The forms of the landscape are not, however, pre-
pared in advance for creatures to occupy, nor are the
bodily forms of those creatures independently spec-
ified in their genetic makeup. Both sets of forms are
generated and sustained in and through the proces-
sual unfolding of a total field of relations that cut
across the emergent interface between organism and
environment. (Ingold, 1993: 156)
Allen and Lukinbeal 5

Table 1. Students learned the different types of weathering forms used in RASI (left column) and then
connected those terms to weathering processes in concept maps (right column)
Form Process
Site setting (geologic factors)
Fissures dependent/independent of stone
lithification
Fissures, pressure, cracks, breaks, lithification
Changes in textural anomalies Differential weathering, differential erosion
Rock weakness Moh’s test, mafic, felsic, type of rock
Weaknesses of the rock art panel
Fissuresol Fissuresol, chemical weathering, calcrete
Roots Break rock, mechanical weathering, causing detachment, roots
cause fractures
Plant growth near or on panel Scraping, scratching panel, vegetation surrounding rock
Scaling and flaking Scaling, flaking, foliation
Splintering Splintering
Undercutting Undercutting, fluvial, mass wasting, detachment
Weathering-rind development Development of weathering rind, preparing for detachment
Other concerns Location, people
Evidence of large erosion events on and below the panel
Anthropogenic activities Chiseling
Fissuresol/calcrete wedging Fissuresol, calcrete, weathering occurs at fissuresol
Fire Anthropogenic
Undercutting Undercutting, fluvial, detach parts
Other natural causes of break-off Backwearing, freeze-thaw, heavy water flow, pressure-release
Evidence on small erosion events on the panel
Abrasion Abrasion, scraping of plants, sediment transport, scraping
Anthropogenic cutting Chiseling, bullet marks
Aveolization Honeycomb
Crumbly disintegration Wind smoothes rocks
Flaking Flaking is a kind of weathering
Flaking of the weathering rind Weathering can occur through weathering rind
Granular disintegration Salt deposition
Lithobiont pitting Chemical weathering, roots, mechanical weathering
Lithobiont release Flaking
Loss parallel to stone structure Pressure-release, flaking
Rock coating detachment Cracking, flaking
Rounding of petroglyph edges Blurred edges
Scaling Breaking-off of parts, scaling is a type of weathering
Textural anomaly features erode
differentially
Differential erosion
Splintering Mechanical weathering, lithification, splintering is a type of
weathering
Other forms of incremental erosion Pressure-release
Rock coatings on the panel
Anthropogenic Anthropogenic, graffiti, chalking
Rock coating present Lithobionts, iron film, lichens, mosses, algae
Case hardening Weathering rind
Salt efflorescence or subflorescence Efflorescence, subflorescence, salt deposition
6Progress in Physical Geography

IV RASI as an actor network
Physical geographers are caricatured as having only
one philosophy: the scientific approach. Many
physical geographers have preferred to retreat into
their subject matter, dealing with the detail of their
dating methods or the representations of their sam-
pling methods, leaving the philosophizing to those
who do nothing practical. (Inkpen, 2005: 2)
Some suggest that physical geographers need to
move beyond the misconception that what they
practice is only the search for objective truth
(Demeritt, 1996; 1998; Richards et al., 1997;
Massey, 1999a; 1999b; Inkpen, 2005). One way
to move beyond this misconception rests in
embracing new conceptualizations of place and
landscape. ‘Place’ for physical geographers is
often conflated with ‘the field’ – a social con-
struction within which specific tasks are per-
formed, regardless of the objective parameters
used to determine the location of ‘the field’. In
short, place and location are not synonymous
and, as Robertson and Richards (2003: 7) state,
‘landscape has been too often taken as a given
rather than seen as a problematic’ (emphasis
added). Further, as Cresswell (2004: 11) notes,
‘[P]lace is ... a way of ... knowing and under-
standing the world ... worlds of meaning and
experience ... a rich and complicated interplay
of people and the environment’ that frees ‘us
from thinking of it as facts and figures’. By
focusing on place, a scientist practices within
an alternative world-view (Lacey, 2009) and
an alternative science philosophy (Mellado
et al., 2006) that leads to necessary paradigmatic
shift. But how can place take precedence over
methods and models that remain reliant on ‘the
field’, typically determined by a Cartesian
understanding of location?
One way to bring place to the forefront of
physical geography lies in deploying active,
learner-centered practices that rely on place-
based connections and human-environment
networks. The RASI suggests that doing
place-based problem-solving activities enhances
physical geography pedagogy, because deep
learning requires actors to engage in human-
environment networks. It is through these prac-
tices that landscape is made existent. Figure 2
Figure 2. How RASI’s actor-network influences research themes, hypotheses, concepts, and theories
Source: Modified from Inkpen (2005: 9)
Allen and Lukinbeal 7

exemplifies how RASI, as an actor-network
practice, can influence central themes, theories,
and concepts across and through research
programs (ie, modes of thought). The central
themes (T-I and T-II) are enclosed by supple-
mentary hypotheses (SH-I and SH-II). In this
light, RASI enhances connections with and
between hypotheses, concepts, and theories
(Figure 2, lines), whether the program functions
in a positive or a negative heuristic manner. Net-
works – hypotheses, concepts, theories, and
themes (and their creators, contributors, and
users) – can also be formed outside research
programs because, according to actor-network
theory, each central theme may be heteroge-
neous in place, but everything is connected
homogeneously in space (cf. Latour, 1993;
2004; Murdoch, 1997; Massey, 1999b; 2005;
Thrift, 2000). In physical geography, difficulty
arises when agreed procedures are relegated to
inherent, personalized practices with no clear,
remembered past. Indeed, doing physical
geography, is ‘often so entrenched within the
traditional practices of [a] subject that they pass
without comment or are relegated to methodolo-
gical footnotes or dismissed as irrelevant metho-
dological niceties’ (Inkpen, 2005: 58). This is
certainly the case with student ideas of weathering
brought about by traditional, positivistic direct-
teaching methods (compare pre- and post-RASI
experience concept maps, Figures 3–6).
Not all physical geographers practice equally
in the landscape. Indeed, putting physical geo-
graphy into practice requires ‘construction ...
of a location ... prepared in some way’ and rep-
resentative of some constructed reality capable
of identifying and classifying phenomena
(Inkpen, 2005: 92) – something not all physical
geographers or scientists may have or want, but
an important subjective point in an otherwise
Figure 3. (A) Representative pre-RASI training concept map completed by university student LS. While a
seemingly impressive concept map, when scrutinized for specific weathering form and process connections,
it reveals very little form-to-process connection. Redrawn by author (Allen) for clarity.
(B) Representative post-RASI training concept map completed by university student LS. Note specific
weathering form and process connections, such as ‘plants’, ‘scratching panel’, and ‘cracking rock’ which is
‘causing detachment’ as noted by the hierarchical structure (bottom right-hand corner). Redrawn by author
(Allen) for clarity.
8Progress in Physical Geography

Figure 4. (A) Representative pre-RASI training concept map completed by university student CA. Note
the very minimal (and common misconception) of weathering processes with no accompanying form. (B)
Representative post-RASI training concept map completed by university student CA. Note connections
now made between more specific weathering forms and processes.
Allen and Lukinbeal 9

seemingly objective discipline. Yet landscapes
are not necessarily founded on identification and
classification of phenomena, but rather are con-
stituted through practice (Rose, 2002). Tradi-
tionally, physical geographers argue that their
domain rests in viewing landscape as a physical
system, and the outcome of physical processes.
But, by merely classifying physical processes,
they create a cultural construct – a schematic for
classification. Because physical geography is
practiced in the landscape, it follows that there
is no natural landscape in science (Livingstone,
1995). Indeed, it is this very point that reflects
Lacey’s (2009) call for alternative world-views
and Mellado et al.’s (2006) plea for an alterna-
tive science philosophy. Further, rock art man-
agement and RASI themselves occur through
practices in the landscape.
Processes, according to actor-network theory,
can occur on different levels, both conscious and
unconscious (Bruun and Langlais, 2003; Kirsch
and Mitchell, 2004). As a result, even though
rock art has a dynamic structure and function
that is constantly going through life-cycle
Figure 5. (A) Representative pre-RASI training concept map completed by seventh-grade student JS. While
able to dissect the specific meaning from the larger general statement, weathering process remains very
simplistic with no connection to weathering form, attributing ‘chemical’ weathering to ‘man-made’ causes and
‘natural’ weathering to ‘wind’ (compare with JS’s post-RASI training concept map, Figure 6A). (B)
Representative pre-RASI training concept map completed by seventh-grade student RA who notes
‘weathering of stone’ is ‘caused from ... igneous rocks’ which, following the hierarchical connection, connect
with ‘metamorphic rocks’ (right-hand side) (compare with RA’s post-RASI training concept map, Figure 6B).
10 Progress in Physical Geography

changes, it matters not if rock art is initially
viewed as passive, non-changing, or inanimate
(Schaafsma, 1986). From a ‘scientific’ view-
point, new rock art can appear or be erased as
other human or physical actors interact with it,
as in the case of weathering processes. Conver-
sely, because science and writing (presumably
of any kind of writing, even petroglyphs) are
Figure 6. (A) Representative post-RASI training concept map completed by seventh-grade student JS. This
concept map displays a very clear understanding of weathering form and process connections. For example,
on the left-hand side, JS notes that, ‘dust gets in fissures ... causes fissuresols’ and that results in ‘pretty
colors’. But JS also notes that ‘dust causes fissuresols’ (bottom left-hand side) (compare with JS’s pre-RASI
training concept map, Figure 5A). (B) Representative post-RASI training concept map completed by
seventh-grade student RA. While few cross-links are made, RA has some strong connections between
weathering form and process, identifying fissures as precursors to joints (noted in the hierarchical structure
on the bottom left-hand side), for example, and showing that scaling leads to undercutting (cross-link on
bottom right-hand side) (compare with RA’s pre-RASI training concept map, Figure 5B).
Allen and Lukinbeal 11

intimately intertwined in the landscape, as
Lechte (1995) and some Native American per-
spectives suggests (Whitley, 2005), rock art is
an ever-changing animate landscape. Indeed, it
is not the features that make the landscape, but
rather how tasks are practiced (Rose, 2002).
Active material tasks in the landscape, such as
chiseling through rock varnish to record some
event (ie, rock art), create place in the landscape
through practice (cf. Ingold, 1993). According to
Massey (2005: 130, original emphasis), ‘places
are collections of stories ... not ... points or
areas on maps, but ... integrations of space and
time ... spatio-temporal events’. Thus, even
simple, everyday landscape tasks such as writing
on rock creates place (cf. Pred, 1984; Ingold,
1993; Massey, 1997; Cresswell, 2004). People,
of course, represent integral aspects of the land-
scape, and particularly so when it comes to rock
art. People were the ‘writers’ of ancient rock art
still surviving today. People nowadays also
admire, study, and, sadly, destroy rock art. Even
when a person so much as looks at a panel of
rock art, they have stepped into a ‘realm of his-
tory-in-place’ (Cresswell, 2004: 86). When this
happens, they become place-based actors in the
ongoing creation of a landscape. In this sense,
rock art actively constructs places and land-
scapes as many stories, tasks, and practices from
the past, present, and future continue to make
place and landscape meaningful.
Based on place-memory, stories are a power-
ful conduit for ‘intrinsic memorability’ (Casey,
1987: 186–87). Place-memory is also one of the
perceived reasons behind rock art creation
(Whitley, 2005). Expanding this thought, Casey
recounts that ‘[a]n alert and alive memory con-
nects spontaneously with place, finding in it fea-
tures that favor and parallel in its own activities’.
Thus, because of people’s actions in the land-
scape, rock art becomes intertwined with their
own tasks, networked through the construction
of place-memory making, as Cresswell (2004:
87) states, ‘the past come to life in the present’.
Whether they are aware of it or not, people
continually act in the landscape, making ‘it
relevant for their own lives, strategies and proj-
ects’, constantly forming networks between
objects, both animate and inanimate (Rose,
2002: 457; Kirsch and Mitchell, 2004). Thus,
practices in place – such as RASI – and those
that perform them become an actor network in
the landscape. In this sense, landscape represents
a network of consciousness exhibiting connec-
tions in space-place – a throwntogetherness of
human and environmental factors acting (cf.
Massey, 2005), where ‘phenomena are both real
and social at the same time’ (Inkpen, 2005: 140)
– ‘real’ in the sense that they are objective things
in the land, and ‘social’ because they occur and
are practiced in the landscape (Rose, 2002).
Practices, both the social construct of classifica-
tion that changes with each passing paradigm
and the process of (social or physical) epistemo-
logical construction, are rendered objective via
the process of science’s goal of objectivism
which also creates the landscape (Rose, 2002).
As an epistemology task, ‘doing’ RASI allows
people to understand how actor networks are
intimate and animate interactions with, and in,
place.
V Methods and techniques
Linking field research in rock art management to
teaching introductory weathering science
requires a method that can be used within just
a few training sessions. The RASI represents
such a method, and uses different identified fac-
tors known to influence the stability of rock art
panels from prior literature (Dorn and Cerveny,
2005; Whitley, 2006; Dorn et al., 2008). RASI
asks the field researcher to index approximately
three dozen weathering forms that result from a
mixture of abiotic and biophysical processes.
Results from prior research (Cerveny, 2005;
Allen, 2008; Dorn et al., 2008) indicates that
RASI is replicable by novice users with no prior
weathering or field experience, where the degree
of replication depends on the nature and the
12 Progress in Physical Geography

method of student training. RASI also raises the
student to the level of field researcher, giving
them a type of ownership over the process of sci-
entific inquiry – a key principle of learner-
centered education (cf. Lukinbeal et al., 2007).
The purpose of RASI rests in offering land and
public works managers a relatively rapid strat-
egy to identify which rocks are in danger of
becoming unstable the quickest. Students carry-
ing out RASI, then, are charged with the respon-
sibility (a major tenet of LCE) of being first
responders, like a medical triage process identi-
fies those participants in the most severe danger.
Yet, understanding how this processes occurs
requires familiarity with LCE’s concepts and
pedagogy – both actual teaching techniques and
assessment options.
1 Learner-centered education (LCE)
LCE rests on five pillars: outdoor activities;
practical applications; dialogue among partici-
pants; teamwork; and opportunities to experi-
ment (Walczyk et al., 2007). These pillars lead
to deep learning in students (cf. Lesh, 2006).
In the realm of higher education, LCE focuses
on students taking responsibility and ownership
for their own learning (McCombs and Pierce,
1999; McCombs, 2002; Pierce and Kalkman,
2003; Lukinbeal et al., 2007). The RASI con-
tains all the essential LCE elements: (1) training
occurs indoors initially, but practical application
and experience is gained outside, in the field; (2)
RASI focuses on managing priceless cultural
heritage resources; (3) debriefing of experience
occurs in groups; (4) training occurs in a team/
collaborative environment; (5) RASI includes
‘user discretion’, is dynamic, evolves with
increased use, and can be adapted for general
stone decay applications.
When it comes to assessment of LCE, contin-
ual formative techniques can uncover student
misconceptions through a variety of reliable
means while still allowing for solid summative
assessments (Walczyk et al., 2007). For this
project, concept maps were chosen as the
assessment technique because of their ability to
quickly promote higher-order thinking skills,
examine student progress on deep cognitive lev-
els, and organize large concepts into manageable
systems (Lawless et al., 1998; Schunk, 2000; All
et al., 2003; Hsu and Hsieh, 2005). Beginning in
the 1960s, system analysis has been a consistent
method in physical geography (Inkpen, 2005).
Even though it offers a general scaffold to ana-
lyze an entire physical environment, in the realm
of physical geography, systems – like classifica-
tion schemes – are abstract constructs that
presuppose a reality removed from the observer
– ‘a simplification of reality, not reality as it
really is’ (Inkpen, 2005: 115). Because of their
focus on systematization, however, concept
maps can be used to assess how students connect
abstract concepts (ie, weathering forms) to
removed realities (ie, weathering processes). By
bringing the landscape into practice through the
actor networks inherent in RASI, students poten-
tially learn weathering science better (as measured
by concept map scores) than through traditional,
positivistic lab and lecture pedagogy, because
they gain a deeper understanding of the connec-
tions between weathering form and process.
2 Concept maps
Concept maps were used as the assessment
method for this study because they represent a
legitimate tool useful for LCE assessment as well
as a valid way to assess student learning in both
the classroom and field experiences (Lawless
et al., 1998). Used for years in biomedical fields
to help students understand complex ideas, con-
cept maps basically represent a hierarchical sys-
tem that promotes higher-order thinking skills
(Hsu and Hsieh, 2005), and help students trans-
form seemingly overwhelming concepts into a
controllable, focused product they can visualize
(All et al., 2003). Concept maps are valuable
assessment tools capable of probing student-
made connections so misconceptions are easily
Allen and Lukinbeal 13

identifiable and correctable. They are also
designed to be created quickly, not unlike a
fast-paced brainstorming session (Ruiz-Primo
and Shavelson, 1996; Kinchin et al., 2000; Hoff-
man et al., 2002). Followingthis method, univer-
sity students were allotted three minutes to
complete their concept map while seventh-
grade students were allowed five minutes (owing
to their less developed higher-order thinking and
writing skills). When creating a concept map,
especially in the sciences, students use right-
brain functions often neglected when dealing
with intense and complex subjects, and this leads
to enhanced critical thinking skills, while allow-
ing the student visually to see the connections
between concepts (Schunk, 2000; Hsu and
Hsieh, 2005). While serving as visual representa-
tions of complex thought patterns, concept maps
can also be quantified. This process allots a spe-
cific ‘weight’ to those items deemed most impor-
tant for the assessor. These could include
identification of a specific concept from a larger
statement, specific examples related to concepts,
cross-links, and number of hierarchical struc-
tures (Novak and Gowin, 1984). For this study,
to remove scorer bias, an objective scoring rubric
was created (30 points possible) following para-
meters established by Stoddart et al. (2000), as
well as identifying students by a unique, track-
able identifier (first and last initials).
3 Study population
The specific population used for this study
involves 13 junior high school integrated science
students (ages 12–13) and 571 college students
taking their basic science requirement through
an ‘Introduction to physical geography’ class.
All college students completed concept maps
(Novak and Gowin, 1984; Novak, 1985; Stod-
dart et al., 2000) after being taught weathering
via direct-teaching methods (ie, in class lecture).
From the total n, 322 students were randomly
selected to carry out field research on rock art
panel stability. In addition to direct-teaching
methods, the 322 students experienced weather-
ing instruction via RASI, and completed concept
maps after their field experience of rock weath-
ering; likewise with the junior high school stu-
dents. Because the introductory physical
geography class had several large sections with
numerous instructors (some who covered weath-
ering in detail, some who gave a simple two-
sentence definition, as observed by the authors),
the remaining 249 students completed concept
maps only after learning weathering via direct-
teaching methods and did not take part in the
field-based training or RASI experience. This
was done to account for possible content misre-
presentation between sections and instructors
(ie, not all field study participants came from the
instructors who covered weathering in more
detail). In all cases, students were identified with
a semi-anonymous delineation using a first-and-
last-initial schema, for example, ‘JS’ represent-
ing ‘John Smith’. Where more than one person
in a given laboratory had the same initials,
matching of pre- and post-RASI training assess-
ments was done via basic handwriting analysis.
Additionally, as part of a three-day after-school
field trip, a small group (n¼13) of seventh-grade
(12- to 13-year-olds) students also participated in
the study. Students were randomly selected based
on their completion of the class’s required Earth
science unit. As with the university-level intro-
ductory physical geography students, the
seventh-graders first completed a concept map
based on the same broad weathering-related state-
ment given to university students; then, using the
same method as with the university students, they
were trained on how to use RASI. The following
afternoon, the junior high students conducted a
RASI assessment at a petroglyph site near
their school. Then, the day after, these students
completed another concept map on weathering.
VI Data and results
After students received in-class lectures on
weathering, their ‘customary’ weathering
14 Progress in Physical Geography

laboratory exercises were exchanged for a three-
part field-based laboratory experience utilizing
RASI. The first weathering lab session focused
on ‘training’ the students in the use of RASI.
Before the actual training occurred, each student
completed a concept map of weathering based
on the broad, weathering-related statement:
‘How various natural environmental pressures
affect the weathering of stone’. The subsequent
lab session occurred at a local, nearby petro-
glyph site, where students put their weathering
knowledge into practice through using RASI.
A short lab session after the field-based experi-
ence was held to gather post-RASI training data
via concept mapping of the same topic.
Data obtained from student concept maps
demonstrate that RASI helps them understand
the networks between weathering form and pro-
cess better than direct-teaching weathering ped-
agogic methods. When viewed through the lens
of actor networks, RASI becomes a powerful
tool that puts physical geography into practice
by repositioning landscape as a process of actor
networks. Students were empowered by their
ability – generated by RASI’s actor network –
to break down disciplinary boundaries and focus
on the distinctive multidisciplinary field of
weathering science. Indeed, while both non-
field and field participants’ pre-RASI training
experience concept map scores were nearly the
same (17 versus 17.2, respectively; p<0.01),
concept map scores improved significantly for
the RASI participants, from 17.2 to 21.3 (out
of a possible 30; p<0.001).
Representative concept maps of pre- and
post-RASI training for university students are
shown in Figures 3 and 4. Student LS’s pre-
RASI training concept map correctly notes the
general concept (‘stone weathering’) and dis-
plays many concepts – but the concepts are
broad generalizations of weathering with no
clear sense of connection between weathering
form and processes (Figure 3A). Student LS’s
post-RASI training concept map, however, dis-
plays not only an understanding of the general
statement, but also a clear connection between
weathering forms and processes (Figure 3B).
Similarly, Figure 4A reveals student CA’s pre-
RASI training weathering knowledge to be
extremely simple, with the concept map display-
ing neither a clear understanding of the general
statement nor any sense of connection between
weathering form and processes. Student CA’s
post-RASI training concept map, however, dis-
plays both an understanding of the general state-
ment and a clear connection between weathering
form and processes (Figure 4B).
Representative of seventh-grade participants,
the pre-RASI training concept maps by students
JS and RA (Figure 5) display a clear understand-
ing of the general statement, but contain no sense
of connection between weathering formand pro-
cesses, yet their post-RASI training concept
maps (Figure 6) display a clear understanding
of the general statement and a very clear connec-
tion between weathering form and processes –
demonstrated particularly well by the cross-
links that connect different weathering forms
to specific weathering processes. It should be
remembered that before learning RASI, the
seventh-grade students had no formal training
in weathering science other than a regular,
seventh-grade unit on Earth science while the
university students had only learned weathering
through direct-teach methods.
This deep learning increase can be attributed
to three main factors. First, unlike conventional
learning of weathering science, students ignore
disciplinary fracturing when they use RASI to
understand weathering processes as pertaining
to specific forms in the landscape. They use
components from biology, chemistry, geology,
and archeology – as well as physical geography
– and interface them with a cultural heritage
resource (rock art), thus finding something they
may not recognize as a weathering-related inter-
est. Second, through using RASI, students are
transformed into actor networks that allow them
not only to understand the form and process they
are a part of, but also to participate in a cultural
Allen and Lukinbeal 15

material practice they actively compose in the
landscape (see also Pred, 1984; Cresswell,
2004; Massey, 2005; Lacey, 2009). Third, stu-
dents learn that weathering form and process
together constitute inseparable networks pre-
existing but ever-changing in the landscape, and
that they (the students) remain attached to the
landscape via networks they created during the
practice.
VII Discussion
In general, traditional positivist science obtains
data, forms opinions of those data, tests hypoth-
eses, and then refines the data to fit some model,
practice, or process: it merely follows its
method, the scientific method. When it comes
to the science of weathering, current epistemol-
ogy creates potential turmoil among disciplines
by often separating form and process. In the real
world, weathering occurs as a process in the
landscape expressed by different forms, those
weathering forms providing clues as to the pro-
cesses involved in their creation. Thus, better
understanding the connections between the two
(weathering form and process) enhances envi-
ronmental awareness while also breaking down
the barriers of traditional scientific disciplinary
fracturing.
Unfortunately, traditional pedagogy in intro-
ductory science disciplines where weathering
is taught (eg, civil engineering, introductory
geology, introductory archaeology, introductory
physical geography) usually relegates weather-
ing form and process to simple descriptions
rather than to exploring and explaining connec-
tions. Rather than analyze the epistemology of
every field that teaches weathering, our analysis
focuses on physical geography, because it repre-
sents where the largest number of students learn
about weathering and explore alternative philo-
sophies of science (Demeritt, 1996; 1998;
Richards et al., 1997; Inkpen, 2005). Arguably,
most physical geography occurs in the field and,
as such, it is not so much that place itself is
missing when it comes to understanding
landforms, but perhaps the connectedness (cf.
Massey, 1999a; 2005) between weathering form
and process in place. Furthermore, when place is
mutually inclusive with absolute location, or
landscape conflated with a bounded portion of
the land, alternative scientific philosophies are
restricted to preconceptions. According to
Inkpen (2005), the traditional scientific
approach in physical geography relies on a
Kuhnian model, searching for truth in an objec-
tive manner (Kuhn, 1962). In the real world,
however, things are not always so cooperative.
In the quantum world, things do not obey even
the simplest scientific laws (cf. Kaku, 1995). Yet
even as science strives to complete its main pur-
pose – classifying, which hopefully leads to an
objective understanding – changes occur, calling
for a rewrite of ideas, theories, and ‘laws’. When
these modifications occur, ‘progressive change’
also occurs in physical geography (Inkpen,
2005: 6): idea builds upon idea, established fact
upon established fact, and current knowledge
becomes augmented and expanded en route to
absolute truth. Thus, as time and truth both
increase, change increases linearly (see Inkpen,
2005: 6). This progressive change is reminiscent
of what Fuller (2000) says is normal science:
scientists working within their frame of reference,
dutifully testing and retesting through experi-
ments to come to conclusions (hypotheses).
Today, physical geography is usually prac-
ticed in a similar manner: measuring phenom-
ena, observing, remeasuring, and coming to a
conclusion. While it may be practiced in this
manner, however, it is not how the majority of
introductory physical geography courses are
taught. As demonstrated by this paper, in both
a university and K-12 educational setting, com-
paring pre- and post-assessment concept maps
revealed that students not only gained a superior
understanding of weathering processes via the
forms they observed, but also linked those
processes with rock art management concepts.
These representative concept map examples
16 Progress in Physical Geography

(Figures 3–6) demonstrate the power of RASI
as an interface that forces students to become
actor networks who must put physical geo-
graphy into practice through engaging in
problem-solving activities that reinforce active
learning and contribute to the ongoing formation
of the landscape itself. Additionally, RASI does
not dismiss traditional ‘structured’ scientific peda-
gogic methods, but rather seeks to give new life to
it through the processes inherent within actor
networks.
VIII Conclusion
This paper questions how conventional (Earth)
science epistemology and educational practice
leads to particular pedagogic approaches that
could be improved. Too often, science is taught
through routinized practices such as direct-
teaching methods and laboratory ‘experiments’.
If this pedagogic pattern continues, student
understanding of science will persistently be
relegated only to science’s need for classifica-
tion and measurement of phenomena (Fuller,
2000; Inkpen, 2005). On the other hand, if stu-
dents experience science through learner-
centered education pedagogies such as RASI,
which encompasses a variety of disciplines and
centers on the power of actor networks, they not
only increase their deep learning but also expand
their world-view through the alternative philoso-
phies that empower them to challenge normative
practices, methods, and theories and become
life-long learners and independent thinkers.
Using RASI as an interface for learning
weathering, students connected weathering form
to process better than through direct-teaching
methods. Data from concept map analyses show
that connecting weathering form to process
broadens world-views (cf. Lacey, 2009) by
focusing on a priceless heritage resource (ie,
rock art). Further, if the pedagogical goal rests
in increasing student learning of weathering as
well as promoting critical thinking skills that
allow students to be exposed to alternative
philosophies of science (Mellado et al., 2006),
RASI should be at the forefront of this paradigm
shift because it connects human and physical
spheres of inquiry through actor networks. As
a learner-centered education strategy, RASI also
generates ownership: as students become active
participants, they are empowered both to be
creative and to draw upon their unique perspec-
tives to solve problems.
As with traditional positivistic science,
weathering is usually taught through in-class
lectures that focus on weathering form, and
laboratory demonstrations such as chemical and
physical weathering processes. However,
depending on the discipline in which weathering
is taught, the focus may be on very different ele-
ments. For example, a soil science class might
teach weathering only in terms of pedogenesis
while a geochemist may focus more on the
laboratory technique for analyzing specific
weathered minerals. While each technique may
hold disciplinary validity, weathering form and
process remains generally disconnected. To
combat the traditional science pedagogy of
weathering and its inherent disciplinary fractur-
ing, the active material task embodied by rock
art – a task that creates place (cf. Massey,
1997; Pred, 1984; Cresswell, 2004) – and using
RASI to assess it, puts physical geography into
practice. At the very least, this paper illustrates
that an alternative epistemology can be inte-
grated successfully into weathering pedagogy,
regardless of geography’s too-often cited disci-
plinary boundaries. Yet this paper also repre-
sents implications for all disciplines engaged in
the pedagogy of weathering science. Specifi-
cally, concept maps from pre- and post-RASI
training experiences reveal that students’ deep
cognitive learning (ie, connecting weathering
form and process) increases via this pedagogic
approach, because of shifting the ontological
world-view from landscape as a positivistic
‘given’ to landscape as practice. This new criti-
cal pedagogy in physical geography echoes
Massey’s suggestion that:
Allen and Lukinbeal 17

The whole business of the relationship between nat-
ural and human sciences must be understood ...
not as a one-way flow of true science to lesser prac-
tices of knowledge production, but as an exchange,
a complicated, difficult, but definitely multi-
directional relationship. (Massey, 2005: 35)
In relation to RASI, critical theorists of physical
geography, science, and human geography have
long noted the fact that the human or physical
often gets tossed by the wayside, even though
the two remain intricately entwined in the land-
scape – where things take place (Rhoads and
Thorn, 1996; Massey, 1999b; 2005; Inkpen,
2005). As a method for assessing landscape,
RASI allows physical geography to be viewed
through a humanistic lens. This, in turn, points
to a reorganization of physical geography’s epis-
temology and ontology. Yet, using RASI as a
method – a technique based on physical geogra-
phy parameters but applied to inherently anthro-
pogenic phenomena – physical geography’s
potential foundational reorganization becomes
easier to accomplish (although this revelation
may remain difficult for many traditional physi-
cal geographers to actually grasp, with their soil
augers in hand, perhaps) and, dare we mention it,
put into practice.
Yet when landscape is practiced, science
becomes a ‘product of intertwining trajectories
with great historical and geographical reach’
(Massey, 2005: 178 and Figure 1). While, as
Inkpen (2005: 145) notes, the spheres of phys-
ical and human geography seemingly do not
mix, they are still intricately linked and in real-
ity overlap substantially – though such overlaps
are, again, usually tossed by the wayside.
Networks are inherent in the practice of land-
scape and revealed through practicing RASI.
As such, RASI works as a pedagogic practice
to deepen student learning by moving away
from traditional epistemologies of positivistic
physical geography science and into human
geography understanding of landscape, though
it still retains – indeed, must retain – elements
of both.
In physical geography as a discipline and
science in general then, a re-envisioning of
pedagogical practice is necessary: we need an
infusion of social theory into our scientific,
positivistic epistemology and subsequent
accompanying pedagogy. The RASI offers one
such vehicle: it transforms an often dry, scien-
tific laboratory experience into exciting encoun-
ters with a priceless cultural heritage resource,
while also helping students develop connections
between weathering forms and processes other-
wise missed during in-class lecture and indoor
laboratory experiences. In so doing, science
epistemology better connects with deeper modes
of learning. It is, after all, precisely the subjec-
tive nature of landscape as practice – via actor
networks of forms and processes – that yields a
better understanding of science.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the instructors and
teaching assistants who allowed their students to take
part in this research, as well as the anonymous editor
and reviewers who provided valuable feedback and
suggestions. Parts of this research were informed
by a National Science Foundation grant, award no.
0837051.
References
All, A.C., Huycke, L.I. and Fisher, M.J. 2003: Instructional
tools for nursing education: concept maps. Nursing
Education Perspective 24, 311–17.
Allen, C.D. 2008: Using rock art as an alternative science
pedagogy. PhD thesis, School of Geographical
Sciences, Arizona State University.
Antill, S.J. and Viles, H.A. 1998: Deciphering the impacts
of traffic on stone decay in Oxford: some preliminary
observations from old limestone walls. In Jones, M.S.
and Wakefield, W.D., editors, Aspects of stone weath-
ering, decay and conservation, London: Imperial Col-
lege Press, 28–42.
Bailin, S. 2002: Critical thinking and science education.
Science and Education 11, 361–75.
Barnett, T., Chalmers, A., Dı´az-Andreu, M., Longhurst, P.,
Ellis, G., Sharpe, K. and Trinks, I. 2005: 3D laser scan-
ning for recording and monitoring rock art erosion.
INORA 41, 25–29.
18 Progress in Physical Geography

Bergqvist, J. 2001: Report from the RockCare field
seminar in Foz Coˆa, Portugal, 9–14 September.
Retrieved 10 March 2010 from http://www.w-heritage.
org/RockCareweb/html/portugal2.pdf
Birkeland, P.W. 1974: Pedology, weathering, and geomor-
phological research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Boivin, N., Brumm, A., Lewis, H., Robinson, D.A. and
Korisettar, R. 2007: Sensual, material, and technologi-
cal understanding: exploring prehistoric soundscapes
in south India. Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute 13, 267–94.
Brantley, S.L. and Chen, Y. 1995: Chemical weathering
rates of pyroxenes and amphiboles. Reviews in Miner-
alogy 31, 119–72.
Bruun, H. and Langlais, R. 2003: On the embodied nature
of action. Acta Sociologica 46, 31–49.
Bullen, T., White, A., Blum, A., Harden, J. and Schulz,
M.S. 1997: Chemical weathering of a soil chronose-
quence on granitoid alluvium. 2. Mineralogic and isoto-
pic constraints on the behavior of strontium.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 61, 291–306.
Campbell, M.O. 2005: Actor networking, technological
planning and conceptions of space: the dynamics of
irrigation farming in the coastal savanna of Ghana.
Applied Geography 25, 367–81.
Casey, E. 1987: Remembering: a phenomenological study.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Cerveny, N. 2005: A weathering-based perspective on rock
art conservation. PhD thesis, Arizona State University.
Cerveny, N.V., Dorn, R.I., Gordon, S.J. and Whitley, D.S.
2006: Welcome to RASI – Rock Art Stability Index.
Retrieved 10 March 2010 from http://alliance.la.
asu.edu/rockart/stabilityindex/RASI_Overview.html
Clottes, J. 1997: L’art rupestre –rock art. A universal cul-
tural message. Paris: UNESCO.
Colman, S.M. 1981: Rock weathering rates as function of
time. Quaternary Research 15, 250–64.
Cresswell, T. 2004: Place: a short introduction. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Davidowitz, B., Rollnick, M. and Fakudze, C. 2005:
Development and application of a rubric for analysis
of novice students’ laboratory flow diagrams. Interna-
tional Journal of Science Education 27, 43–59.
Dearman, W.R., Baynes, F.J. and Irfan, T.Y. 1978: Engi-
neering grading of weathered granite. Engineering
Geology 12, 345–74.
Dearman, W.R., Sergeev, E.M. and Shibakova, V.S. 1989:
Engineering geology of the Earth. Moscow: Nauka.
Demeritt, D. 1996: Social theory and the reconstruction of
science and geography. Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers NS 21, 484–503.
Demeritt, D. 1998: Science, social constructivism and
nature. In Braun, B. and Castree, N., editors, Remaking
reality: nature at the millennium, New York: Routle-
dge, 172–92.
Dennen, W.H. and Moore, B.R. 1986: Geology and engi-
neering. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Dorn, R.I. and Cerveny, N.V. 2005: Atlas of petroglyph
weathering forms used in the rock art stability index
(RASI). Retrieved 10 March 2010 from http://alliance.
la.asu.edu/rockart/stabilityindex/RASIAtlas.html
Dorn, R.I., Whitley, D.S., Cerveny, N.V., Gordon, S.J.,
Allen, C.D. and Gutbrod, E. 2008: The rock art stability
index: a new strategy for maximizing the sustainability
of rock art as a heritage resource. Heritage Manage-
ment 1, 37–70.
Dove, J. 1997: Student ideas about weathering and
erosion. International Journal of Science Education
19, 971–80.
Duzgoren-Aydin, N.S., Aydin, A. and Malpas, J. 2002: Re-
assessment of chemical weathering indices: case study
on pyroclastic rocks of Hong Kong. Engineering Geol-
ogy 63, 99–119.
Ehlen, J. 2002: Some effects of weathering on joints in
granitic rocks. Catena 49, 91–109.
Fitzner, B. 2002: Damage diagnosis on stone monuments –
in situ investigations and laboratory studies. In
Proceedings of the International Symposium of the
Conservation of the Bangudae Petroglyph, 7 May,
Ulsan City, Korea, Seoul: Stone Conservation
Laboratory, Seoul National University, 29–71.
Fookes, P.G., Dearman, W.R. and Franklin, J.A. 1971:
Some engineering aspects of rock weathering. Journal
of Engineering Geology 4, 139–85.
Frazier,C.S. and Graham, R.C. 2000:Pedogenic transforma-
tion of fractured granitic bedrock, southern California.
Soil Science Society of America Journal 64, 2057–69.
Fredell, A. 2000: Report from the documentation seminars
in Tanum 8–21 July and Valcamonica 29 July –14
August. Retrieved 10 March 2010 from http://
www.w-heritage.org/RockCareweb/html/
valcamonicSum.pdf
Fuller, S. 2000: Thomas Kuhn: a philosophical history for
our times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gutierrez, M. 2005: Climatic geomorphology.Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Allen and Lukinbeal 19

Hays-Gilpin, K.A. 2004: Ambiguous images: gender and
rock art. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Hodder, A.P.W. 1984: Thermodynamic interpretation of
weathering indices and its application to engineering
properties of rocks. Engineering Geology 20, 241–51.
Hoffman, E., Trott, J. and Neely, K.P. 2002: Concept map-
ping: a tool to bridge the disciplinary divide. American
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 187, S41–43.
Hsu, L.L. and Hsieh, S.I. 2005: Concept maps as an assess-
ment tool in a nursing course. Journal of Professional
Nursing 21, 141–49.
Ingold, T. 1993: The temporality of landscape. World
Archeology 25, 152–74.
Inkpen, R. 2005: Science, philosophy and physical geogra-
phy. New York: Routledge.
Inkpen, R.J., Fontana, D. and Collier, P. 2001: Mapping
decay: integrating scales of weathering within a GIS.
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26, 885–900.
Kaku, M. 1995: Hyperspace: a scientific odyssey through
parallel univesies, time warps, and the 10th dimension.
New York: Doubleday.
Kinchin, I.M., Hay, D.B. and Adams, A. 2000: How a qua-
litative approach to concept map analysis can be used to
aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual
development. Educational Research 42, 43–57.
Kirsch, S. and Mitchell, D. 2004: The nature of things:
dead labor, nonhuman actors, and the persistence of
marxism. Antipode 36, 687–705.
Kuhn, T.S. 1962: The structure of scientific revolutions.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lacey, H. 2009: The interplay of scientific activity, world-
views and value outlooks. Science and Education 18,
839–60.
Latour, B. 1993: We have never been modern. Boston,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. 2004: Why has critique run out of steam? From
matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry
30, 225–48.
Lawless, C., Smee, P. and O’Shea, T. 1998: Using concept
sorting and concept mapping in business and public
administration, and in education: an overview. Educa-
tional Research 40, 219–35.
Lechte, J. 1995: (Not) belonging in postmodern space. In
Watson, S. and Gibson, K., editors, Postmodern cities
and spaces, Oxford: Blackwell, 99–111.
Lesh, R. 2006: Modeling students modeling abilities: the
teaching and learning of complex systems in education.
Journal of the Learning Sciences 15, 45–52.
Lewis-Williams, J.D. 2001: Brainstorming images:
neuropsychology and rock art research. In Whitley,
D.S., editor, Handbook of rock art research, Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 332–57.
Lewis-Williams, J.D. 2006: The evolution of theory,
method and technique in southern African rock art
research. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 13, 343–77.
Livingstone, D.N. 1995: The spaces of knowledge –5 con-
tributions towards a historical geography. Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space 13, 5–34.
Lizzio, A. and Wilson, K. 2004: Action learning in higher
education: an investigation of its potential to develop
professional capability. Studies in Higher Education
29, 469–88.
Lukinbeal, C., Kennedy, C.B., Jones, J.P., Finn, J., Wood-
ward, K.A., Nelson, D., Grant, Z.A., Antonopolis, N.,
Palos, A. and Atkinson-Palombo, C. 2007: Mediated
geographies: critical pedagogy and geographic educa-
tion. Association of the Pacific Coast Geographers
Yearbook 69, 31–544.
Marshall, B., Chen, H.C. and Madhusudan, T. 2006:
Matching knowledge elements in concept maps using
a similarity flooding algorithm. Decision Support Sys-
tems 42, 1290–306.
Massey, D. 1997: A global sense of place. In Barnes, T.
and Gregory, D., editors, Reading human geography,
London: Arnold, 315–23.
Massey, D. 1999a: Negotiating disciplinary boundaries.
Current Sociology 47, 5–12.
Massey, D. 1999b: Space-time, ‘science’ and the relation-
ship between physical geography and human geogra-
phy. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers NS 24, 261–76.
Massey, D. 2005: For space. London: Sage.
McCombs, B.L. 2002: Assessment of learner-centered
practices (ALCP) college survey validation
results. Denver, CO: University of Denver Research
Institute.
McCombs, B.L. and Pierce, J.W. 1999: College level
assessment of learner-centered practices (ALCP) stu-
dent and teacher surveys. Denver, CO: University of
Denver Research Institute.
McKinley, J.M., Warke, P.A., Lloyd, C.D., Ruffell, A.H.
and Smith, B.J. 2006: Geostatistical analysis in weath-
ering studies: case study for Stanton Moor building
sandstone. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
31, 950–69.
20 Progress in Physical Geography

Mellado, V., Ruiz, C., Bermejo, M. and Jime´nez, R. 2006:
Contributions from the philosophy of science to the
education of science teachers. Science and Education
15, 419–45.
Mottershead, D.N. and Pye, K. 1994: Tafoni on coastal
slopes, South Devon, U.K. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 19, 543–63.
Mottershead, D.N., Bailey, B., Collier, P. and Inkpen, R.J.
2003: Identification and quantification of weathering
by plant roots. Building and Environment 38, 1235–41.
Murdoch, J. 1997: Towards a geography of heterogeneous
associations. Progress in Human Geography 21, 321–37.
Nahon, D. 1991: Introduction to the petrology of soils and
chemical weathering. New York: Wiley.
Naylor, L.A., Viles, H.A. and Carter, N.E.A. 2002: Bio-
geomorphology revisited: looking towards the future.
Geomorphology 47, 3–14.
Novak, J.D. 1985: Concept mapping and vee diagramming
as tools to improve instruction and to help students learn
how to learn. American Journal of Botany 72, 978–79.
Novak, J.D. and Gowin, D.B. 1984: Learning how to learn.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Novell, A. 2006: From a paleolithic art to Pleistocene
visual cultures (Introduction to two special issues on
‘Advances in the study of pleistocene imagery and
symbol use’). Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 13, 239–49.
Ollier, C. 1974: Weathering and landforms. Cheltenham:
Nelson Thornes.
Ollier, C. 1975: Weathering. London: Longman.
Ollier, C. 1981: Tectonics and landforms. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ollier, C. 1992: Ancient landforms. London: Belhaven.
Ollier, C. and Pain, C. 1996: Regolith, soils and landforms.
Chichester: Wiley.
Ollier, C., Calcaterra, D. and Parise, M. 2007: Studies in
weathering and slope movements – an introduction.
Geomorphology 87, 101–103.
Opdam, P., Steingrover, E. and van Rooij, S. 2006: Ecolo-
gical networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor plan-
ning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape and Urban
Planning 75, 322–32.
Palicki, K. 1997: A graphical method for the classification of
rock and weak rock masses based on field observations.
Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 3, 7–12.
Paradise, T.R. 2002: Sandstone weathering and aspect in
Petra, Jordan. Zeitschrift fu
¨r Geomorphologie NF 46,
1–17.
Pierce, J.W. and Kalkman, D.L. 2003: Applying
learner-centered principles in teacher education.
Theory Into Practice 42, 127–32.
Pope, G.A., Meierding, T.C. and Paradise, T.R. 2002:
Geomorphology’s role in the study of weathering of
cultural stone. Geomorphology 47, 211–25.
Pred, A.R. 1984: Place as historically contingent process:
structuration and the time-geography of becoming
places. Annals of the Association of American Geogra-
phers 74, 279–97.
Rahn, P.H. 1986: Engineering geology. New York:
Elsevier.
Ramamurthy, T. 2004: A geo-engineering classification
for rocks and rock masses. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 41, 89–101.
Rhoads, B.L. and Thorn, C.E. 1996: The scientific nature
of geomorphology. Chichester: Wiley.
Richards, K.S., Brooks, S.M., Clifford, M.J., Harris, T. and
Lane, S. 1997: Theory, measurement and testing in
‘real’ geomorphology and physical geography. In Stod-
dart, D.R., editor, Process and form in geomorphology,
London: Routledge, 256–92.
Robertson, I. and Richards, P. 2003: Studying cultural
landscapes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rose, M. 2002: Landscape and labyrinths. Geoforum 33,
455–67.
Ruiz-Primo, M.A. and Shavelson, R.J. 1996: Problems
and issues in the use of concept maps in science assess-
ment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33,
569–600.
Schaafsma, P. 1986: Indian rock art of the southwest.
Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Schroeder, P.A., Melear, N.D., Bierman, P., Kashgarian,
M. and Caffee, M.W. 2001: Apparent gibbsite growth
ages for regolith in the Georgia Piedmont. Geochimica
et Cosmochimica Acta 65, 381–86.
Schunk, D.H. 2000: Learning theories: an educational
perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Simpson, A., Clogg, P., Diaz-Andreu, M. and Larkman, B.
2004: Towards three-dimensional non-invasive record-
ing of incised rock art. Antiquity 78, 692–98.
Stoddart, T., Abrams, R., Gasper, E. and Canaday, D.
2000: Concept maps as assessment in science inquiry
learning - a report of methodology. International Jour-
nal of Science Education 22, 1221–46.
Suarez, D.L. and Wood, J.D. 1996: Short- and long-term
weathering rates of a feldspar fraction isolated from
an arid zone soil. Chemical Geology 132, 143–50.
Allen and Lukinbeal 21

Thrift, N. 2000: Actor-network theory. In Johnston, R.J.,
Gregory, D., Pratt, G. and Watts, M., editors, The dic-
tionary of human geography, Oxford: Blackwell, 4–6.
Topal, T. 2002: Quantification of weathering depths in
slightly weathered tuffs. Engineering Geology 42,
632–41.
Turkington, A.V. and Paradise, T.R. 2005: Sandstone
weathering: a century of research and innovation. Geo-
morphology 67, 229–53.
Turkington, A.V. and Smith, B.J. 2000: Observations of
three-dimensional salt distribution in building sand-
stone. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 25,
1317–32.
Ugolini, F.C., Corti, G., Agnelli, A. and Piccardi, F. 1996:
Mineralogical, physical, and chemical properties of
rock fragments in soil. Soil Science 161, 521–42.
Vandenabeele, P., Edwards, H.G.M. and Moens, L. 2007:
A decade of Raman spectroscopy in art and archaeol-
ogy. Chemical Reviews 107, 675–86.
Viles, H.A. 1995: Ecological perspectives on rock surface
weathering: towards a conceptual model. Geomorphol-
ogy 13, 21–35.
Viles, H.A., Camuffo, D., Fitz, S., Fitzner, B., Lindqvist,
O., Livingston, R.A., Maravellaki, P.V., Sabbioni, C.
and Warscheid, T. 1997: Group report: what is the state
of our knowledge of the mechanisms of deterioration
and how good are our estimations of rates of deteriora-
tion? In Snethlage, R., editor, Report of the Dahlem
Workshop on ‘Saving our architectural heritage: the
conservation of historic stone structures’, Berlin, 3–8
March 1996, Chichester: Wiley, 95–112.
Walczyk, J.J., Ramsey, L.L. and Zha, P. 2007: Obstacles to
instructional innovation according to college science
and mathematics faculty. Journal of Research in Sci-
ence Teaching 44, 85–106.
Warke, P.A., Curran, J.M., Turkington, A.V. and Smith,
B.J. 2003: Condition assessment for building stone
conservation: a staging system approach. Building and
Environment 38, 1113–23.
Whitley, D.S. 2001: Handbook of rock art research.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Whitley, D.S. 2005: Introduction to rock art research.
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Whitley, D.S. 2006: U.S. rock art in the twenty-first cen-
tury: problems and prospects. Getty Conservation
Newsletter 21. Retrieved 10 March 2010 from http://
www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/newsletters/
21_3/news_in_cons1.html
Whitley, D.S. and Keyser, J.D. 2003: Faith in the past:
debating an archaeology of religion. Antiquity 77,
385–93.
Whitley, D.S., Simon, J. and Loubser, J. 2006: The Carrizo
collapse: art and politics in the past. In Kaldenberg,
R.L., editor, A festschrift honoring the contributions
of California archaeologist Jay von Werlhof, Publica-
tion 20, Ridgecrest, CA: Maturango Museum, 99–208.
22 Progress in Physical Geography