Supplementary material to “How Geoscientists Think and Learn”

Published 4 August 2009

Kim A. Kastens, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, Palisades, New York

Cathryn A. Manduca, Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota

Cinzia Cervato, Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames

Robert Frodeman, Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, Denton

Charles Goodwin, Department of Applied Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles

Lynn S. Liben, Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park

David W. Mogk, Department of Earth Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman

Timothy C. Spangler, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

Neil A. Stillings, School of Cognitive Science, Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusetts

Sarah Titus, Department of Geology, Carleton College

Citation:

Kastens, K. A., C. A. Manduca, C. Cervato, R. Frodeman, C. Goodwin, L. S. Liben, D. W. Mogk, T. C. Spangler, N. A. Stillings, and S. Titus (2009), How geoscientists think and learn, Eos Trans. AGU, 90(31), 265–266. [Full Article (pdf)]

Notes on Sources

The work of the Synthesis of Research on Thinking & Learning in the Geosciences Project has been carried out through an extensive literature review, a virtual Journal Club, a web-based system for sharing manuscript drafts and internal reviews, a week-long writing retreat at Black Rock Forest in Cornwall, NY, and one-to-one collaboration between two-person writing teams each comprising one geoscientist and one cognitive/social scientist. In this online supplement, we document the main human, print and web resources that provided direct input to the EOS article. The individuals cited below participated in structured discussions with the Synthesis group as either members of the virtual Journal Club or as Discussants at the writing retreat. A far larger group of colleagues have informed our thinking through informal discussions.

One of the products of the Synthesis project is an online annotated database of print and on-line resources relevant to the Synthesis themes of geological time, spatial thinking, systems thinking and learning in the field. The database and other information about the project can be accessed at http://serc.carleton.edu/research_on_learning/synthesis/ (click “Browse Synthesis Resources.”) Papers cited below are sources for specific ideas or findings in the EOS article. However, our thinking was informed by the larger group of resources in the database, especially our prioritization of what insights to showcase in this overview article.

Introduction

“Oil is found…”: p. 2236, in Pratt, W., 1952, Towards a philosophy of oil finding: Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 36(12), p. 2231–2236.

Thinking about Time

Jeff Dodick, Stephanie Pfirman, Tim Shipley and Michael Tabor contributed to the Synthesis group discussions of geological time and temporal thinking.

Deep time is important for broader population: Zen, E.-a., What is deep time and why should anyone care?, Journal of Geoscience Education, 49 (1), 5–9, 2001.
The original report of Hutton’s discovery of deep time is available online at Hutton, J., THEORY of the EARTH; or an INVESTIGATION of the Laws observable in the Composition, Dissolution, and Restoration of Land upon the Globe. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1, 1788 (http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/hutton/hutton.htm). A popular account is: Repcheck, J., The Man who found Time: James Hutton and the Discovery of the Earth’s Antiquity, 247 pp., Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA, 2003.
Educational research on students’ recall of geologic time and interventions to improve same: Ault, C.R., Jr., Time in geological explanations as perceived by elementary-school students, Journal of Geological Education, 30, 304–309, 1982. Trend, R.D., Deep time framework: A preliminary study of U. K. primary teachers’ conceptions of geological time and perceptions of geoscience, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 191–221, 2001. Libarkin, J.C., J.P. Kurdziel, and S.W. Anderson, College student conceptions of geological time and the disconnect between ordering and scale, Journal of Geoscience Education, 55, 402–412, 2007. Dodick, J., and N. Orion, Measuring student understanding of geological time, Science Education, 87, 708–731, 2003.
Interventions using imagery and narrative: Dodick, J., and N. Orion, Building an understanding of geological time: A cognitive synthesis of the “macro” and “micro” scales of time, in Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth, edited by C.A. Manduca and D.W. Mogk, pp. 77–93, Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, Denver, 2006.

Understanding the Earth as a Complex System

Patrick Louchouarn, Stephanie Pfirman, Michael Piburn and James Slotta contributed to the Synthesis group discussions of complex systems and systems thinking.

Manifestations of “complexity” in earth systems: Turcotte, D.L., Modeling Geocomplexity: “A New Kind of Science”, in Earth & Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Complex Earth, edited by C. Manduca and D. Mogk, Geological Society of America, 2006.
Water cycle for K-12: http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycle.html
Definition of “threshold concept”: Meyer, J., and R. Land, Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practicing with the discipline, in Occasional Report of the Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses Project, University of Edinburgh, School of Education, Edinburgh, 2003.
Interconnections among spheres: Barstow, D., and E. Geary, Blueprint for Change: Report from the National Conference on the Revolution in Earth and Space Science Education, TERC, Cambridge, MA, 2002.
Undergraduate systems modeling: Bice, D.M., STELLA modeling as a tool for understanding the dynamics of earth systems, in Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, edited by C.A. Manduca and D.W. Mogk, pp. 171–185, Geological Society of America, Denver, 2006.
Learning progressions for systems thinking: Rivet, A., Systems Thinking, in Fortus, D., Hug, B., Krajcik, J., Kuhn, L., McNeill, K., Reiser, B., Rivet, A., Rogat, A., Schwartz, C. & Shwatz, Y., Sequencing and Supporting Complex Scientific Inquiry Practices in Instructional Materials for Middle School Students, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, April 2006.

Field-based learning

Eric Riggs, Tim Shipley and Michael Tabor contributed to the Synthesis group discussions of field-based learning.

Professional vision, definition and examples: Goodwin, C., Professional Vision, American Anthropologist, 96, 606–633, 1994. Koschmann, T., C. LaBaron, C. Goodwin, and P. Feltovich, The mystery of the missing referent: objects, procedures and the problem of the instruction follower, Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 373–382, 2006.
Terms “inscription” and “cascade of inscriptions”: Latour, B., Science in Action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society, Open University Press, Milton, Keynes, England, 1987.
Subsequent inscriptions gain in universality, etc.: Latour, B., Circulating reference: Sampling the soil in the Amazon Forest, in Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, pp. 24–79, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
Students’ inscriptions in field-based learning: Roth, W.-M., Where is the context in contextual word problems?: Mathematical practices and products in Grade 8 students' answers to story problems, Cognition & Instruction, 14, 487–527, 1996.

Spatial Thinking

Ben Jee, Yael Kali, Michael Piburn, Stephen Reynolds, Tim Shipley, and Michael Tabor contributed to Synthesis group discussions of spatial thinking in Geosciences.

Definition of spatial thinking is after Liben, L., L.J. Myers, and K.A. Kastens, Locating oneself on a map in relation to person qualities and map characteristics, in Spatial 2008, edited by C. Freska, N.S. Newcombe, P. Gärdenfors, and S. Wölfl, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 2008.
Geoscientists use spatial thinking extensively: Kastens, K. A. & T. Ishikawa, Spatial Thinking in the Geosciences and Cognitive Sciences, in Earth and Mind: How Geoscientists Think and Learn about the Complex Earth, edited by C. Manduca and D. Mogk, pp. 53–76, Geological Society of America Special Paper 413, 2006. Downs, R.M., and L.S. Liben, Getting a bearing on maps: The role of projective spatial concepts in map understanding by children, Children’s Env. Quart., 7 (1), 15–25, 1990. Downs, R.M., and L.S. Liben, The development of expertise in geography: A cognitive-developmental approach to geographic education, Annals of the Assoc. of Amer. Geog., 8 (2), 304–327, 1991. Kali, Y., and N. Orion, Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geologic structures, Jour. of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 369–391, 1996.
Classic geoscience examples of spatial thinking: Lehman, I., Seismology in the days of old, EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 68 (3), 33–35, 1987. Wegener, A.L., The Origin of Continents and Oceans, Translation of the third German edition by J. Biram, 246 pp., Dover, New York, 1929/1966.
Phase diagrams for mineral composition: good examples are at: http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/equilibria/ternary_diagrams.html
Spatial skills differ among individuals: National Research Council, Individual differences in spatial thinking: The effects of age, development and sex, in Learning to Think Spatially. (National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006), pp. 266–280.
Formal education lack of attention to spatial: National Research Council 2006, op. cit.
Instructors unaware of spatial challenge: Liben, L., Education for Spatial Thinking, in Handbook of child psychology, sixth edition, volume four: Child psychology in practice, edited by K.A. Renninger, and I.E. Sigel, pp. 197–247, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2006.
Spatial skills can be improved: Sorby, S.A., and B.J. Baartmans, The development and assessment of a course for enhancing the 3-D spatial visualization skills of first year engineering students, Journal of Engineering Education, 89, 301–308, 2000. Piburn, M., S. J. Reynolds, C. McAuliffe, D.E. Leedy, J.P. Birk, and J.K. Johnson, The role of visualization in learning from computer-based images, International Journal of Science Education, 27, 513–527, 2005.
Collaborations between geoscientists and cognitive scientists: National Research Council, Learning to Think Spatially, 313 pp., National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006. Downs, R.M., L.S. Liben, and D.G. Daggs, On education and geographers: The role of cognitive development theory in geographic education, Annal. Ass’n Amer. Geogr., 78, 680–700, 1988. Liben, L., and R.M. Downs, Geography for Young Children: Maps as Tools for Learning Environments, in Psychological Perspectives on Early Childhood Education, edited by S.L. Golbeck, pp. 220–252, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2001. Piburn, et al, op. cit. Kastens & Ishikawa, op. cit.

Community of Practice

Richard Duschl provided insights on including mastery of scientists’ professional practices as an important learning goal for science education.

Concept of “community of practice”: Lave, J., Situating learning in communities of practice, in Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, edited by L. Resnick, J.M. Levine, and S.D. Teasley, pp. 63–84, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 1991.

Figure Credits

Illustration by Linda Pistolesi, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

(b) left: Photo credit: Hagemann, Judy. cheasapeakebaybeginning.jpg. January 2007. Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 from http://pics.tech4learning.com. Reuse permitted for educational use.

(d) after Titus, S., and Horsman, E., in press, Characterizing and improving spatial visualization skills, Journal of Geoscience Education. Used with permission.