• descriptive analysis of field-scale structures (may include folds, foliations, lineations, joints, and/or faults, depending on field area available)
• stereonet plotting and analysis
• may include any other concepts appropriate to available field area (general discussion of strain, pure and simple shear, kinematic analysis, fracture analysis, etc.)

• analysis of field data
• evaluation of competing hypotheses (if field area has appropriate problem)
• separation of description and interpretation in writing

• writing (particularly writing spatial descriptions and using structural geology terminology)

These assignments are adaptations of field labs to incorporate writing. For each field lab, students write a partial geologic report, consisting of a description (or "Structural Data") section, an interpretation section, and appropriate supporting figures (potentially including stereonets, field sketches, maps, cross-sections, etc.).

Handouts given at the beginning of lab list:

1. the goals to be accomplished in the field (measurement of foliations and lineations, measurement of bedding around a fold, description of structures, field sketches, etc.),
2. the figures expected in the write-up (stereonets, field sketches, etc.),
3. a list of information to include in the description section, and
4. a list of questions to address in the interpretation section.

Depending on the field area, students may be given two or more competing models to test in the field or may be asked to relate descriptive analysis to kinematic or mechanical analysis. This adaptation can be used for field labs at all levels, from labs designed to review field techniques and identify basic types of secondary structures to labs that simulate research experience. This type of write-up improves student writing by giving students practice using terminology and describing spatial relationships, and improves critical thinking skills by requiring written interpretation of structural data.

Grading is divided into three categories:

1. stereonet data,
2. description, and
3. interpretation.

Each student's stereonet plot is compared to his/her table of data collected in the field for the stereonet grade.

1. completeness of the description (compared to expectations in lab handout),
2. correct identification of structures,
3. correct spatial descriptions (compared to field sketches, stereonets, tables of data collected, and instructor's observations in the field area),
4. correct use of terminology, and
5. separation of interpretation from description.

The interpretation section is graded based on

1. reasonableness of interpretation, given the description of structures and the background of the student (i.e., students are not expected to have mastered material not yet covered in class),
2. completeness of interpretation (compared to expectations in lab handout),
3. correct use of terminology, and
4. separation of description from interpretation.

Quality of writing can also be used as one of the criteria for grading. Grades may be adjusted based on inclusion of a "Further Work" section, in which students can discuss observations they should have made in the field in order to be able to complete the interpretation.