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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Feig, A. D. (2010). Technology, accuracy and scientific thought in field camp: An ethnographic study. Journal of Geoscience Education, 58, 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
Kelemen, D., & Rosset, E. (2009). The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition, 111, 138–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Libarkin, J. C. (2006). Geoscience education in the United States. Planet Special Issue on Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge, 60.Google Scholar
Libarkin, J. C., & Kurdziel, J. P. (2006). Ontology and the teaching of earth system science. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54, 408.Google Scholar
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
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
Odum, E. P. (1977). The emergence of ecology as a new integrative discipline. Science, 195, 1289–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, A., & Feig, A. (2011). Qualitative inquiry in geoscience education research (Special papers, Geological Society of America). Boulder: Geological Society of America.Google Scholar
Titus, S., & Horsman, E. (2009). Characterizing and improving spatial visualization skills. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57, 242–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar