Print

---

Hi all.

I am in the process of trying to convince my Department of Geosciences to welcome a geoscience education research specialization for a Ph.D. awarded by the department. This has been an uphill battle and one of the reasons seems to be that GER is not considered by many in the department as traditional geoscience (by the bye, geophysics was in the same boat through the 1930s to 1950s and look at it now). Anyway, during one extended discussion, I made the supposition that GER had in some instances probably advanced the field of geoscience and said that I would do some research to see if this was, in fact, the case.

So, I am reaching out to those who may have some knowledge of this. Have there been cases, published research where a GER project actually advanced traditional geoscience?

Another thought I am having is that the phrase "education research" in GER is also a bit of a stumbling block as some of my colleagues continue to point out that "if it is education research, it belongs in the school of education." "It's only pedagogical studies." "It's only done by people who want to be better teachers, so why not just create a certificate program?"

Anyway, this is a much larger discussion, but I bring it up now as an idea for which I am seeking feedback. Might dressing the discipline a bit differently help with its acceptance in traditionalist environments? I was thinking of a name change from geoscience education research to geoscience cognition research or geocognition research (credit to Julie Libarkin's group for the name). I was thinking that since we are really studying the interface of geology and the mind,  how people think about geology, learn in geology, do geology, this may be more accurate while still acknowledging that there are educational implications to the research. I'm just sending that out for some possible conversation. If you have any thoughts, please send them my way, or, better yet, to the group. 

Best, Glenn