 |
 |
Hi All, Great discussion. I have too many thoughts swirling to get them all down, but I'll throw out a few. First, while I'd not be shocked if you could find examples where GER projects advanced traditional geoscience research, I'd also not be surprised if you couldn't make such connections. It's not where I'd focus the argument. Instead, I'd note that we geoscientists know and can make a compelling case, at least within our own community, that the most serious challenges facing society in the coming decades are problems grounded in, and made less horrible by, understandings of the geosciences. More specifically, climate, energy, soil, and water are all geoscience issues and issues of both current and future crises. As geoscientists, we have a civic duty to help every citizen understand the import of these issues. We're largely failing at these tasks and traditional educational research is failing to assist us. While at least hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on educational research projects in the last 40 years, I'm not aware of a single improvement in the outcomes of the system of science education that can be connected to an advance in educational research. If educational research has led to advancements that improve outcomes on a broad scale, it should be obvious in the scientific literacy of the general population. It's not obvious. It's not obvious at all. I don't think we're more ignorant, though I do think certain ignorant voices have more amplification. This is where I'd focus the argument. It's a civic duty. That alone may not win the day, unfortunately. So, we can take a more selfish and self-promotional tack. Research studies that bring together two or more well understood ideas in non-traditional ways are more likely to advance the field and more likely to be cited (Uzzi, *et al*. 2013). Likewise, innovations are more likely to broadly adopted and improve user experiences if those innovations are "optimally distinct" (Berger, 2016). Optimally distinct innovations are characterized by being different enough from current practice to make a difference, but not so different that they cannot be reasonably easily understood. They, like the impactful research, also bring together two or more well understood ideas in novel ways. That is, bringing well understood finding from the geosciences together with well understood findings from educational research has the potential to both change the world *and *draw positive scholarly attention to your department. I don't really care if you and your department advance this work for civic or selfish reasons, just do it. Dammit. Cheers, Don *References:* Berger, Jonah. “The Goldilocks Theory of Product Success.” Harvard Business Review, July 7, 2016. https://hbr.org/2016/07/the-goldilocks-theory-of-product-success. Uzzi, Brian, Satyam Mukherjee, Michael Stringer, and Ben Jones. “Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact.” *Science* 342, no. 6157 (2013): 468–472. On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Carol Ormand < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > I echo Julie's sentiments... Great question, Glenn. > > You asked, "Have there been cases, published research where a GER project > actually advanced traditional geoscience?" Tim Shipley, Basil Tikoff, I, > and Cathy Manduca published some of our work in the Journal of Structural > Geology, for reasons that sound similar to Julie's publication in > Tectonophysics. Your colleagues might find the reference compelling: > > Shipley, Thomas F., Basil Tikoff, Carol J. Ormand, and Cathryn A. Manduca > (2013). Structural Geology Practice and Learning, from the Perspective of > Cognitive Science: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 54, pp. 72-84. > > cheers, > Carol > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Carol Ormand, Ph.D. > She / Her > Science Education Resource Center > Carleton College > (608) 213-1618 > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Libarkin, Julie <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Glenn: >> >> >> >> Good for you for pushing the boundaries! >> >> >> >> Iris Totten and I came up with “geocognition” for this exact reason, plus >> the fact that the work many of us do is not simply housed in traditional >> educational spaces (although education can occur anywhere) nor is it always >> focused on teaching/learning. I tend to speak about my work as geocognition >> or “at the intersection of human dimensions and earth science”. Generally, >> the level of interest over geocognition or human dimensions is much higher >> than over GER. Do I think that is fair? No – I value all work. Sadly, not >> everyone agrees that pedagogical research or research on people is as >> valuable as traditional science. Personally, I see this work as belonging >> to the disciplines as much as anything else. My colleague who does >> geomicrobiology? He’s a geologist and a biologist and an oceanographer. He >> still has PhDs in the Earth and Environmental Sciences. >> >> >> >> Have you shared the papers in the Geosphere Human Dimensions theme? Since >> you have a paper and since these are quite broad and might be persuasive: >> >> https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosphere/pages/humandimen >> >> >> >> I can’t answer to your other question about impacts on geoscience – >> although, I did ultimately write a paper that appeared in Tectonophysics >> because of my working out how best to teach geoid anomalies in a geophysics >> course. >> >> >> >> Best of luck! Let me know if I can help in any way. My students get PhDs >> in the Dept of Earth and Environmental Science, and I know many other folks >> also have DBER PhDs run through the science department as well. So, this is >> not an uncommon occurrence (as you know!). I’m happy to discuss more in >> person or provide other guidance 😊 >> >> >> >> Julie >> >> >> >> Julie Libarkin >> Professor >> Director - Geocognition Research Lab >> Michigan State University >> 288 Farm Lane >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=288+Farm+Lane&entry=gmail&source=g>, 206 >> Natural Science >> East Lansing, MI 48824 >> >> Phone: 517-355-8369 >> Email: [log in to unmask] >> >> Website: https://geocognitionresearchlaboratory.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Glenn Dolphin <[log in to unmask]> >> *Reply-To: *Glenn Dolphin <[log in to unmask]> >> *Date: *Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 12:35 PM >> *To: *"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> >> *Subject: *Where GER has impacted traditional geoscience >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> Glenn Dolphin >> >> Tamaratt Teaching Professor >> >> Department of Geoscience >> >> University of Calgary >> >> 2500 University Drive NW >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=2500+University+Drive+NW+%0D%0A+Calgary,+Alberta+T2N+1N4&entry=gmail&source=g> >> >> Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4 >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=2500+University+Drive+NW+%0D%0A+Calgary,+Alberta+T2N+1N4&entry=gmail&source=g> >> >> [log in to unmask] >> >> 403.220.6025 >> > > -- <https://priweb.org/tfgcc> <http://bit.ly/DonsGiveGab> Don Haas, Ph.D. Director of Teacher Programming The Paleontological Research Institution and its Museum of the Earth & Cayuga Nature Center President, National Association of Geoscience Teachers <http://nagt.org/> (*Join now!* <http://nagt.org/nagt/membership/index.html>) 1259 Trumansburg Road • Ithaca, NY 14850 • museumoftheearth.org *Google Voice: (607) 288-2669* *My job is to help Earth & environmental educators kick butt at their jobs. Here are some links related to how my colleagues and I are doing that:* - *Teacher-Friendly Guides to Earth Science of the United States <http://geology.teacherfriendlyguide.org/> - *a set of seven regional guides that collectively cover the entire US - On virtual fieldwork in the Critical Zone <http://virtualfieldwork.org/CZO-VFE-Intro.html> - The Science Beneath the Surface: A Very Short Guide to the Marcellus Shale <https://priweb.org/marcellusbook> and <https://priweb.org/marcellusbook>an associated presentation - On connecting the field to the classroom <http://bit.ly/SkypeNiagaraRising> - A seven-minute video on our national outreach <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkGbDiQznPU> - Explore the Critical Zone <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gW-Vy7zFdU> (6 and a half-minute video)