This class provided marine science students hands-on experience in all aspects of scientific research from proposal writing to data collection and analysis. Students worked in groups to write proposals focusing on water quality, saltwater intrusion, or sediment transport in a tidal strait in Louisiana. They conducted two field surveys collecting samples and instrument data. Most time was spent organizing the diverse data in MATLAB and writing final reports, with limited time for deeper analysis. Lessons learned included setting clearer schedules, requirements, and providing early MATLAB training connected to course topics to better prepare students.

1. From Proposal Writing to Data Collection to Presentation:
Physical Oceanography Laboratory Class Students Explore the Fundamentals of Science
Abstract
To better prepare seven first-year Marine Science MSc students of the
University of Southern Mississippi for their science careers, we executed a
semester-long Physical Oceanography laboratory class MAR561L (August
19, 2015-December 11, 2015; three hours) that exposed the students to
all aspects of interdisciplinary research: writing a proposal and planning a
cruise (Stage I), collecting data (Stage II), and analyzing data and
presenting their results (Stage III). The incorporation of all these aspects
makes this class unique.
The fieldwork was conducted by boat in the Rigolets in Louisiana, a 13-km
long tidal strait up to 1 km wide connecting the Mississippi Sound with
Lake Pontchartrain. The students collected Acoustic Doppler Current
Profiler (ADCP), Conductivity-Temperature-Depth (CTD), multibeam sonar,
sediment, and water samples.
A second novel characteristic of this class is that the instructor partnered
with the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, a nonprofit environmental
advocacy group. The foundation gave an hour-long seminar on the natural
history of the study area and its environmental problems. This information
provided context for the students’ research proposals and allowed them
to formulate research questions and hypotheses that connect their
research objectives to societally relevant issues, such as coastal erosion,
salt water intrusion, and water quality.
The proposal writing and cruise planning was done in the first month of
the 3.5-month long semester. In the second month two surveys were
conducted. The remainder of the semester was spent on analysis and
reporting. Whenever possible we taught MATLAB to the students to use in
their data analysis. We report here on the successes and
difficulties associated with teaching such a multi-faceted class.
Stage I: Proposal Writing
and Cruise Planning
• The aim of the proposal was to determine societally relevant research
questions and a sampling program.
• Students attended a seminar by Joann Haydel of the Lake Pontchartrain
Basin Foundation to learn about water quality and coastal erosion
problems in the Lake Ponchartrain area.
• The Lake is threatened by saltwater intrusion, agricultural runoff,
sewage leakage, and relative sea level rise and associated coastal
erosion.
• The students formed three groups, each addressing a separate
research question and focusing on one data collection technique:
A. Sample group? What is the water quality?
B. CTD group: What is the extend of the salt wedge intrusion?
C. ADCP group: What is the sediment transport in the Rigolets?
• The students proposed station locations for two 4-hour surveys during
ebb and/or flood.
• Challenge: although the students had general knowledge about the
aforementioned societal problems, at the beginning of the class they
did not have the tools to study these questions.
• An example of a proposal is included below this poster.
Stage III: Analyzing Data and Reporting
• MATLAB was instructed for 1-2 hours every week to provide the students with tools
to visualize and analyze the data.
• The Sample group spent most of their time in the laboratory analyzing the oxygen,
phosphate, and sediment samples (box A).
• The CTD group used MATLAB to organize the CTD data collected over two cruises,
four laps per cruise, and four CTD casts per lap (box B).
• The students and instructor spent much effort organizing and filtering the ADCP
data (box C).
• The second cruise yielded good ADCP data, but only at the CTD stations, when the
ship was not moving but anchored.
• Each group summarized their findings in a final report and a presentation.
• To the best of their abilities they connected their findings to the research questions
in the proposal.
• Challenges: using MATLAB, the students spent most of their time organizing the
data; little time was left to further analyze the data, e.g., compute fluxes of
sediment, oxygen, or phosphate.
• An example of a final report is included below this poster.
Lessons Learned and Future Improvements
• This was the first time this laboratory class was instructed. Deadlines were often
fluid and grading criteria for the reports were not always clear. The students
provided useful feedback (some examples):
1. “Have a set schedule for the class and stick to it.”
2. “Make each group fill out a weekly report … so they won’t get behind.”
3. “I feel that requirements and grading rubrics should have been provided.”
4. “Maybe early on apply the MATLAB component a bit towards what we are
learning in class at the time (early on it felt a bit disconnected).”
• To better test students’ MATLAB skills, an individual exam will be given next year.
• The analysis of the ADCP data cost more time then expected, in part because the
instructor and students had to develop scripts for analysis
Contributors
Maarten Buijsman (maarten.Buijsman@usm.edu), Ian Church,
Kevin Martin, Alan Shiller, Davin Wallace, Justin Blancher, Anna Foltz,
Anne Griffis, Thomas Kosciuch, Amanda Kincketootle, Ebone Pierce,
Victoria Young (University of Southern Mississippi)
Joann Haydel (Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation)
Stage II: Collecting Data and Cruise Report
• The students agreed on 4 stations that complied with all data collection
requirements.
• Two dates were selected for the cruises: 10/4/2015 (ebb tide)
and 10/7/2015 (flood tide).
• ADCP data was collected at all times; CTD casts were taken at all stations;
subsurface and mid-water depth sampling of sediment, O2 and phosphate were
only conducted at the deepest station S2 (about 30 m deep).
• Each cruise group wrote a cruise report (see example below this poster).
• The students learned during the cruise that equipment can fail (oxygen sensor) or
not work well (ADCP) and that sample data cannot always be analyzed: “The
stoppers on the dissolved oxygen titration bottles became stuck”.
S1
S2
S3
S4
In Summary
• The trajectory of proposal writing, cruise planning, and synthesis
provided the students with a taste of science.
• The limited data collection, a partial ADCP data collection failure, and
limited analysis time prevented a more in depth scientific analysis.
• The student learned that data collection = problem solving.
• Most students did not have any MATLAB experience; in this class they
learned how to organize and visualize data using MATLAB.
C) ADCP
Only good data was collected while the LeMoyne was anchored. When the vessel was moving the data was
adversely affected by the bottom track. The figures show north-south and east-west velocities during flood.
10/4/2016 cruise tracks and stations in the Rigolets, LA
A) Sediment Samples
Bottom samples had higher concentrations than surface samples.
Top: ADCP
Bottom: CTD winch in action
Top: Cockpit of the LeMoyne
Bottom: preparing the Niskin
bottle for water sampling ED44B-1721
B) CTD
Temperature, salinity, and density collected at S4 on 10/7 during a flood
tide, showing increasing salinity and density at depth with time.