Advertisement

Preparing Students to Address Societally Relevant Challenges in the Geosciences: The InTeGrate Approach

  • David C. GosselinEmail author
  • Cathryn A. Manduca
  • Timothy Bralower
  • Anne E. Egger
Chapter
Part of the AESS Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and Sciences Series book series (AESS)

Abstract

Society faces many challenges related to its long-term sustainability and resilience of the life-support system upon which Earth depends. Developing solutions to these grand challenges requires an interdisciplinary approach that demands scientific investigation of the interactions of the geological, biological, chemical, and physical environments, in combination with exploration of the human dimensions and societal institutions whose values underlie our currently unsustainable ways of living. Although geoscience literacy—the perspectives and methods of the Earth, ocean, and atmospheric sciences—is key to addressing these challenges, current educational pathways in the United States limit students’ exposure to the geosciences. To increase access to interdisciplinary opportunities and improve geoscience literacy, we developed the Interdisciplinary Teaching about Earth for a Sustainable Future (InTeGrate) Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Talent Expansion Program (STEP) Center. InTeGrate engaged undergraduate educators in the development of interdisciplinary materials, programs, and strategies to teach geoscience in the context of societal issues. The project has reached over 100,000 students at more than 900 institutions across all 50 states and overseas. Here, we provide an overview of the InTeGrate project, its design elements, and the shared values that underpinned development of materials and model programs.

Keywords

Interdisciplinary teaching Geoscience Sustainability Societal issues Education 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) collaboration between the Directorates for Education and Human Resources (EHR) and Geosciences (GEO) under grant DUE-1125331.

References

  1. AGI (2008) Critical needs for the twenty first century: the role of the geosciences. American Geological Institute, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  2. AGI (2012) Critical needs for the twenty-first century: the role of the geosciences. American Geological Institute, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  3. AGI (2016) Geoscience for America’s critical needs. American Geological Institute, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  4. American Meteorological Society (2018) DataStreme Program. https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/education-careers/education-program/k-12-teachers/datastreme-program/. Accessed 8 July 2018
  5. Borrego M, Henderson C (2014) Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: a comparison of eight change strategies. J Eng Educ 103(2):220–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bralower TJ, Feiss PG, Manduca CA (2008) Preparing a new generation of citizens and scientists to face earth’s future. Lib Educ 94(2):20–23Google Scholar
  7. Brand B, McMullin-Messier P, Schlegel M (2014) Map your hazards! assessing hazards, vulnerability, and risk. https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/map_hazards/index.html. Accessed 8 July 2018
  8. Brand BD, Schlegel M, McMullin-Messier P (this volume) “Map your hazards!” assessing hazards, vulnerability and risk through an active learning-based educational module. In: Gosselin DC, Egger AE, Taber JJ (eds) Interdisciplinary teaching about Earth and the environment for a sustainable future. AESS interdisciplinary environmental studies and sciences series. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  9. Brint SG, Turk-Bicakci L, Proctor K, Murphy SP (2009) Expanding the social frame of knowledge: interdisciplinary, degree-granting fields in American colleges and universities, 1975–2000. Rev High Educ 32(2):155–183.  https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chickering AW (2010) Our purposes: personal reflections on character development and social responsibility in higher education. Lib Educ 96(3):54–59Google Scholar
  11. Climate Literacy Network (2009) Climate literacy: the essential principles of climate science. U.S. Global Change Research Program/Climate Change Science Program, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Earth Science Literacy Initiative (2010) Earth science literacy principles: the big ideas and supporting concepts of earth science. National Science Foundation, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. Egger AE, Bruckner MZ, Birnbaum SA, Gilbert L (this volume) Facilitating the development of effective interdisciplinary curricular materials. In: Gosselin DC, Egger AE, Taber JJ (eds) Interdisciplinary teaching about earth and the environment for a sustainable future. AESS interdisciplinary environmental studies and sciences series. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  14. Egger AE, Kastens KA, Turrin MK (2017) Sustainability, the next generation science standards, and the education of future teachers. J Geosci Educ 65(2):168–184.  https://doi.org/10.5408/16-174.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghaye T (2011) Teaching and learning through reflective practice. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Gosselin DC (2012) UNL environmental studies programs: goals, strengths, and challenges. https://serc.carleton.edu/dev/integrate/workshops/programs2012/essays/gosselin.html. Updated August 2018. Accessed 9 Aug 2018
  18. Gosselin DC, Manduca C, Bralower T, Mogk D (2013) Transforming the teaching of geoscience and sustainability. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 94(25):221–222.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2013EO250002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harkavy I, Cantor N, Burnett M (2015) Realizing STEM equity and diversity through higher education-community engagementGoogle Scholar
  20. Henderson C, Beach A, Finkelstein N (2011) Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: an analytic review of the literature. J Res Sci Teach 48:952–984.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huntoon JE, Lane MJ (2007) Diversity in the geosciences and successful strategies for increasing diversity. J Geosci Educ 55(6):447–457.  https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-55.6.447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. InTeGrate (2017) What do we mean by sustainability? https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/societal_issues.html. Accessed 11 Jun 2018
  23. InTeGrate (2018) About the InTeGrate project. https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/about/index.html. Accessed 19 Apr 2018
  24. Iverson ER, Steer D, Gilbert LA, Kastens KA, O’Connell K, Manduca CA (this volume) Measuring literacy, attitudes, and capacities to solve societal problems. In: Gosselin DC, Egger AE, Taber JJ (eds) Interdisciplinary teaching about Earth and the environment for a sustainable future. AESS interdisciplinary environmental studies and sciences series. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  25. Jolly EJ, Campbell PB, Perlman L (2004) Engagement, capacity, and continuity: a trilogy for student successGoogle Scholar
  26. Kania J, Kramer M (2011) Collective impact. In: Stanford social innovation review, pp 36–41Google Scholar
  27. Kastens KA, Baldassari C, Delisi J (2014) InTeGrate mid-project evaluation report. InTeGrateGoogle Scholar
  28. Kastens KA, Krumhansl R (2017) Identifying curriculum design patterns as a strategy for focusing geoscience education research: a proof of concept based on teaching and learning with geoscience data. J Geosci Educ 65(4):373–392.  https://doi.org/10.5408/16-217.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kastens K, Manduca C (2017a) Leveraging the power of a community of practice to improve teaching and learning about the earth. Change Mag High Learn 49(6):14–22.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2017.1398997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kastens KA, Manduca CA (2017b) Using systems thinking in the design, implementation, and evaluation of complex educational innovations, with examples from the InTeGrate project. J Geosci Educ 65(3):219–230.  https://doi.org/10.5408/16-225.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Samir KC, Lutz W (2017) The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Glob Environ Chang 42:181–192.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kezar A, Gehrke S (2015) Communities of transformation and their work scaling STEM reform. University of Southern California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  33. Kezar A, Gehrke S, Bernstein-Sierra S (2018) Communities of transformation: creating changes to deeply entrenched issues. J High Educ:1–33.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1441108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loughran JJ (2002) Effective reflective practice: in search of meaning in learning about teaching. J Teach Educ 53(1):33–43.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Manduca CA, Iverson ER, Luxenberg M, Macdonald RH, McConnell DA, Mogk DW, Tewksbury BJ (2017) Improving undergraduate STEM education: the efficacy of discipline-based professional development. Sci Adv 3(2).  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Manduca CA, Macdonald RH, Feiss PG (2008) Education: preparing students for geosciences of the future. Geotimes 53(4):59Google Scholar
  37. Manduca CA, Mogk DW, Tewksbury B, Macdonald RH, Fox SP, Iverson ER, Kirk K, McDaris J, Ormand C, Bruckner M (2010) On the cutting edge: teaching help for geoscience faculty. Science 327(5969):1095–1096.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mao J-Y, Vredenburg K, Smith PW, Carey T (2005) The state of user-centered design practice. Commun ACM 48(3):105–109.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1047671.1047677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matson P (2009) The sustainability transition. Issues Sci Technol 25(4)Google Scholar
  40. National Academies of Sciences, Medicine (2016) Transitioning toward sustainability: advancing the Scientific Foundation: Proceedings of a Workshop. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.  https://doi.org/10.17226/23533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (2005) Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.  https://doi.org/10.17226/11153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (2010) Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: rapidly approaching category 5. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.  https://doi.org/10.17226/12999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (2011) Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.  https://doi.org/10.17226/12984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. National Research Council (2001) Grand challenges in environmental sciences. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.  https://doi.org/10.17226/9975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. National Research Council (2015a) Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.  https://doi.org/10.17226/19007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. National Research Council (2015b) Reaching students: what research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.  https://doi.org/10.17226/18687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. National Science Board (2010) Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: identifying and developing our Nation’s Human Capital. DIANE Publishing Company, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  48. National Science Board (2018) Science and engineering indicators 2018. National Science Foundation, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. National Science Foundation (2010) Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics talent expansion program centers (STEP Centers) program solicitation. National Science Foundation, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  50. Ocean Literacy Network (2013) Ocean literacy: the essential principles and fundamental concepts of ocean sciences for learners of all ages. Version 2. edn http://www.coexploration.org/oceanliteracy/documents/OceanLitChart.pdf Accessed 31 October 2018
  51. Orr CH, McDaris JR (this volume) Supporting implementation of program-level changes to increase learning about earth. In: Gosselin DC, Egger AE, Taber JJ (eds) Interdisciplinary teaching about earth and the environment for a sustainable future. AESS interdisciplinary environmental studies and sciences series. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  52. Pennington D, Bammer G, Danielson A, Gosselin D, Gouvea J, Habron G, Hawthorne D, Parnell R, Thompson K, Vincent S, Wei C (2016) The EMBeRS project: employing model-based reasoning in socio-environmental synthesis. J Environ Stud Sci 6(2):278–286.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0335-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pratt-Sitaula B, Douglas BJ, Walker B, Charlevoix DJ, Miller MM (2015) Undergraduate teaching modules featuring geodesy data applied to critical social topics (GETSI: GEodetic Tools for Societal Issues). In: Paper presented at the 2015 Fall Meeting. American Geophysical Union, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  54. Riggs EM, Robbins E, Darner R (2007) Sharing the land: attracting native American students to the geosciences. J Geosci Educ 55(6):478–485.  https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-55.6.478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01405730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schuler D, Namioka A (eds) (1993) Participatory design: principles and practices. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  57. Schwerin TG, Botti J, Dauksys C, Low R, Myers R, Slattery W (2006) Earth system science education alliance: online professional development for K-12 teachers. J Geosci Educ 54(3):215–222.  https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-54.3.215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. SERC (2002) On the cutting edge: strong undergraduate geoscience teaching. https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/index.html. Accessed 4 Jan 2018
  59. SERC (2017) Building strong geoscience departments. https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/departments/index.html. Accessed 8 Jul 2018
  60. Steer D, Iverson ER, Egger AE, Kastens KA, Manduca CA, McConnell DA (this volume) The InTeGrate materials development rubric: a framework and process for developing curricular materials that meet ambitious goals. In: Gosselin DC, Egger AE, Taber JJ (eds) Interdisciplinary teaching about earth and the environment for a sustainable future. AESS Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and Sciences Series. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  61. Sunal DW, Hodges J, Sunal CS, Whitaker KW, Freeman LM, Edwards L, Johnston RA, Odell M (2001) Teaching science in higher education: faculty professional development and barriers to change. Sch Sci Math 101(5):246–257.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18027.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Teasdale R, Viskupic K, Bartley JK, McConnell D, Manduca C, Bruckner M, Farthing D, Iverson E (2017) A multidimensional assessment of reformed teaching practice in geoscience classrooms. Geosphere 13(2):608–627.  https://doi.org/10.1130/GES01479.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. U.S. Census Bureau (2017) Quick facts. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217. Accessed 8 Jul 2018
  64. UCAR (2011) The COMET program. UCAR Community Programs. http://www.comet.ucar.edu/index.php. Accessed 8 Jul 2018
  65. University Consortium for Atmospheric Research (2007) Essential principles and fundamental concepts for atmospheric science literacy. National Science Foundation, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  66. Weston T, Seymour E, Thiry H (2006) Evaluation of science education for new civic engagements and responsibilities (SENCER) project. The National Center for Science and Civic Engagement, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  67. Williams Woolley A, Richard Hackman J, Jerde TE, Chabris CF, Bennett SL, Kosslyn SM (2007) Using brain-based measures to compose teams: how individual capabilities and team collaboration strategies jointly shape performance. Soc Neurosci 2(2):96–105.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470910701363041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wilson C (2016) Status of the geoscience workforce. American Geosciences Institute, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  69. Wilson JM, Goodman PS, Cronin MA (2007) Group learning. Acad Manag Rev 32(4):1041–1059.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26585724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Xue Y, Larson RC (2015) STEM crisis or STEM surplus? Yes and yes. In: Monthly labor review, 2015. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C.  https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.22015.21914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zoback ML (2001) Grand challenges in earth and environmental sciences: science, stewardship, and service for the 21st century. GSA Today 11(12):41–47Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • David C. Gosselin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cathryn A. Manduca
    • 2
  • Timothy Bralower
    • 3
  • Anne E. Egger
    • 4
  1. 1.Environmental Studies and School of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA
  2. 2.Science Education Resource Center, Carleton CollegeNorthfieldUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeosciencesThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  4. 4.Geological Sciences and Science EducationCentral Washington UniversityEllensburgUSA

Personalised recommendations