The Role of Scholarly Publication in Geocognition and Discipline-Based Geoscience Education Research

  • Julie LibarkinEmail author
Part of the Innovations in Science Education and Technology book series (ISET, volume 20)


Geoscience has a long history of scholarly publication about education and learning. Over time, this work has covered both pedagogical and research findings. Pedagogical findings, related to educational settings, may be most clearly classified as “geoscience education,” while research findings in any setting can be grouped under the heading of “geocognition.” A new domain of scholarship in geocognition, the interdisciplinary study of how people perceive and understand Earth, has clearly emerged. Publication of research into cognitive, affective, or psychomotor processes that relate to human interaction with the Earth, including in educational settings, is occurring in a wide range of journals. Referencing rates within exemplar journals, such as the Journal of Geoscience Education, indicate both areas that the community values, such as learning science, as well as disconnects between geocognition and related communities in other sciences. Research findings need to be communicated among geocognition researchers, to similar scholars in other science domains, and to geoscientists in general. Interdisciplinary communication and oversight may be the most effective pathway to ensuring that geocognition research disseminated to broader scientific communities is of the highest quality.


  1. Feig, A. D. (2010). Technology, accuracy and scientific thought in field camp: An ethnographic study. Journal of Geoscience Education, 58, 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Forbus, K., Usher, J., Lovett, A., et al. (2011). CogSketch: Sketch understanding for cognitive science research and for education. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 648–666. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01149.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Good, G. A. (2000). The assembly of geophysics: Scientific disciplines as frameworks of consensus. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 31, 259–292. doi: 10.1016/S1355-2198(00)00018-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hambrick, D. Z., Libarkin, J. C., Petcovic, H. L., et al. (2011). A test of the circumvention-of-limits hypothesis in scientific problem solving: The case of geological bedrock mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. doi: 10.1037/a0025927.Google Scholar
  5. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 307–331. doi: 10.1080/10508400701413401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kelemen, D., & Rosset, E. (2009). The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition, 111, 138–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lewis, E. B., & Baker, D. R. (2009). A call for a new geoscience education research agenda. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, n/a–n/a. doi:  10.1002/tea.20320
  8. Libarkin, J. C. (2006). Geoscience education in the United States. Planet Special Issue on Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge, 60.Google Scholar
  9. Libarkin, J. C., & Kurdziel, J. P. (2006). Ontology and the teaching of earth system science. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54, 408.Google Scholar
  10. Libarkin, J. C., Ward, E. M. G., Anderson, S. W., et al. (2011). Revisiting the geoscience concept inventory: A call to the community. GSA Today, 21, 26–28. doi: 10.1130/G110GW.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lin, M.-C., Tutwiler, M. S., & Chang, C.-Y. (2011). Exploring the relationship between virtual learning environment preference, use, and learning outcomes in 10th grade earth science students. Learning, Media and Technology, 36, 399–417. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2011.629660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Odum, E. P. (1977). The emergence of ecology as a new integrative discipline. Science, 195, 1289–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stokes, A., & Feig, A. (2011). Qualitative inquiry in geoscience education research (Special papers, Geological Society of America). Boulder: Geological Society of America.Google Scholar
  14. Titus, S., & Horsman, E. (2009). Characterizing and improving spatial visualization skills. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57, 242–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Trend, R. (2005). Individual, situational and topic interest in geoscience among 11- and 12-year-old children. Research Papers in Education, 20, 271–302. doi: 10.1080/02671520500193843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geocognition Research Lab, Department of Geological SciencesMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Center for Integrative Studies in General ScienceMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations