Geoscience Education Research Research Articles

The geoscience education research (GER) community of practice: a brief history and implications from a needs assessment survey

The geoscience education research (GER) community has evolved and grown over the past several decades. Using Wenger et al.'s Community of Practice (CoP) model (2002), we discuss how the GER CoP (which is broader than the formal discipline of GER) has changed, highlighting noteworthy events and growth points. Trends in community membership and connections are noted. Additionally, we conducted a GER community needs assessment to identify ways in which the CoP could build on its momentum. The survey included questions on CoP member demographics, engagement in GER work, and professional development needs. We received 107 responses, primarily from the United States and from individuals with geology or atmospheric science backgrounds. The survey highlighted the need for intentional outreach to international venues, K-12 teacher audiences, and underrepresented groups in the GER community. The survey also revealed the various ways in which GER CoP members engage in research, teaching, and dissemination activities. The most commonly used resources for increasing GER knowledge were the SERC site and the Journal of Geoscience Education (JGE). Respondents expressed a strong desire for professional development opportunities, including methodological training and community knowledge exchanges. Based on the survey results, recommendations are proposed to enhance the inclusivity, mentorship, and dissemination efforts within the GER community. The findings emphasize the importance of networking, expanding resources, and addressing the needs of diverse members to foster a vibrant and inclusive GER community.

Aligning multiple choice assessments with active learning instruction: More accurate and equitable ways to measure student learning

In response to geoscience education research and calls for the need to reform STEM teaching in higher education, many geoscience faculty are adopting research-based pedagogies to improve student learning in their courses. Our own effort to reform our introductory geology course included daily student-centered activities and other reforms we expected would result in improved student performance, but did not. This paper describes our evaluation of student performance on multiple choice questions (MCQs), which are the largest component of student grades in the course. Student scores were highest on MCQs that were aligned with the style in which students learned material and that required students to interact with the question (active questions) rather than just regurgitating information (passive questions). We also examined whether the style of MCQs impacted student scores equitably and found that the grades of all students would have improved if we had asked MCQs that were aligned and active, and the improvements were equitable, but final grades remain biased.

Cultivating a New Field at the Boundary Between Geoscience and Education Research

AbstractI was privileged to contribute to the creation of a new field, Geoscience Education Research. This liminal field, with roots in both education research and geosciences, is deepening how people think and learn about the Earth. In this article, I recount some of my twists and turns along way, and ponder whether such a zig‐zagging pathway was essential or a distraction. And if essential, what made it possible? Twenty‐first century geosciences aporous boundaries, with insights flowing in and out from health sciences, social sciences, humanities, business, and other physical sciences. Such boundary regions are fertile ground for both basic and use‐inspired research. If you feel drawn to a boundary region, perhaps my story can provide encouragement or advice.

Time to Listen: Children’s Voice in Geoscience Education Research

Arguably the greatest threat facing society is that posed by irreversible climate change. In tandem with mitigating the effects of climate change, we must now make decisions about issues such as renewable energy, sustainable and safe water supplies, management of renewable and non-renewable natural resources, and management of natural disasters. The current school-age generation will see the worst effects of climate change, including greater frequency and intensity of extreme weather events; shortages of water and other necessary resources; and dangers due to pollution and toxicity in human environments and the human food chain. The next generation is coming of age as difficult socio-political choices are being made at local and national levels to manage resources and mitigate environmental damage. It is therefore important to center the voices of children and young people in research aiming to address the social, political, and educational dimensions of geoscience topics, including climate change and related topics. This paper proposes the use of Children’s Research Advisory Groups (CRAGs) to meaningfully include children and young people as co-researchers in geoscience-related research.

A systematic review of the literature on situated learning in the geosciences: beyond the classroom

ABSTRACTSituated learning theory offers a theoretical modality for promoting a knowledge, skilled, and ethically adept future geoscience workforce. Features of situated learning pedagogies include field-based instruction and situating students within a community of practice. While there is an assumed value of such approaches, there is limited research exploring why and how these situated approaches are beneficial for students. Situated learning theory is an underutilised framework applied among geoscience education researchers, which emphasises legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice. In this paper, our research objective was to systematically explore the ways scholars have applied situated learning theory in post-secondary geoscience curricula. To address our research objective, we utilised systematic literature review procedures, wherein we collected and synthesised ten articles extracted from several prominent sources that featured peer-reviewed scholarship for geoscience education research. To analyse articles, we developed a coding framework both deductively from the core tenants of situated learning theory and inductively based on how articles had applied the framework. Thematically, using the codes as a guide, we identified 3 themes highlighting trends in scholars’ application of situated learning theory to undergraduate geoscience curricula, (1) instructional practices, (2) student outcomes, and (3) assessment techniques. Using the codes and themes, this study provides a framework to guide others who aspire to integrate situated learning theory into geoscience curricula.

Examining intersectionality and inclusivity in geosciences education research: A synthesis of the literature 2008–2018

This article reviews geoscience education research published since the December 2007 “Broadening Participation” issue of the Journal of Geoscience Education to examine how research in the field has taken up—or not—calls for greater inclusivity. We also applied recent calls to actively confront and lessen reports of discrimination and harassment in the sciences and looked for evidence of how these goals are included in geoscience education research. This synthesis of the extant literature in geoscience education research was guided by a framework that draws from the concept of intersectionality (Collins, 2015; Crenshaw, 1991) and interventions that can build learning environments that provide physical and psychological safety for diverse students, educators, and field professionals synthesized by a 2018 report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. We identified three primary themes in the literature reviewed and illustrate these with examples from published articles: (a) increased challenges to science as neutral, (b) continued assumptions of meritocracy in higher education, and (c) assimilation as representation. We also highlight exemplary articles that were most closely aligned with our conceptual framework, and then present three recommendations for future research efforts. A key goal of the present article is to call on researchers to more deeply consider the role of social identities in studies of geoscience education.

Undergraduate geoscience education research: Evolution of an emerging field of discipline‐based education research

AbstractDiscipline‐based education research (DBER) conducted by faculty within geoscience departments can address identified needs in undergraduate geoscience education. This study explores the evolution of undergraduate geoscience education research (GER) from 1985 to 2016, primarily in terms of the types of published research and secondarily in terms of the insights this literature offers on the evolution of GER as a scholarly discipline. Stokes’ (1997) quadrant model of research types is used as a theoretical framework for the former and Kuhn's (1970) model of disciplinary paradigm for the latter. An exploratory sequential mixed‐methods approach to a systematic literature review of 1,760 articles is utilized. The period 1985–2000 is characterized by proto‐research as evidenced by the abundance of instructive and informational education articles rather than research articles. From 2000 to 2011, GER underwent a growth period characterized by the presence of applied, use‐inspired, and pure basic research. The period 2011–2016 appears to be a period of relative steady‐state conditions in the normalized number of GER publications per year. Existing gaps in knowledge about geoscience education, the evident unfamiliarity with education and social science research methodologies among authors of GER articles, and efforts to build consensus about what GER is and how to conduct it suggest that GER is preparadigmatic or at a low paradigm state. That is, GER is an immature discipline as far as the evolution of a discipline goes. A path forward is proposed for the continued evolutionary growth of GER. This study provides new perspectives on the emergence of GER as a discipline that can be used as a basis for studies on cross‐disciplinary DBER comparisons.

How explicit is the cognitive science foundation of geoscience education research? A study of syntactical units in JGE articles

ABSTRACTThe National Research Council's report, Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering (Singer, Nielsen, & Schweingruber, 2012), states that discipline-based education research (DBER), such as geoscience education research (GER), is informed by research about cognition and learning. It also states that how different disciplines ground their DBER in existing cognitive theories of learning varies. The aim of this study is to take a first step toward systematically evaluating the degree to which research on undergraduate geoscience education published in the Journal of Geoscience Education (JGE) is informed by cognitive science concepts and grounded in cognitive learning theories. This study's theoretical framework draws on a linguistic theory of representation and a general cognitive theory of learning. The methodology of a systematic literature review was used to examine 1,760 articles published in JGE from 1985 to 2016. Of these articles, 167 articles met the selection criteria (undergraduate geoscience education research) for further appraisal. The results of this study suggest that undergraduate geoscience education scholars (a) have an ongoing interest in cognition-related research topics, (b) have an overall low degree of fluency or familiarity with cognitive science concepts, and (c) can further future GER studies in cognitive learning theories. Recommendations based on this study's findings include independently learning more about cognition, developing partnerships or collaborations with those more knowledgeable about cognitive concepts and theories, and supporting one another in the GER community to increase fluency with cognitive science concepts and increasingly incorporate theoretical frameworks into future GER studies.

Sparking Conversations About Graduate Programs in Geoscience Education Research*

ABSTRACT The calls for a college-educated science and technology workforce, as well as a scientifically literate citizenry, have led to a demand for higher education faculty prepared in discipline-based education research (DBER). These faculty members conduct research on teaching and learning in the context of a specific discipline, including the geosciences. Historically, faculty have become active in geoscience education research (GER) after completing a graduate degree in a “traditional” geoscience discipline such as geomorphology, paleontology, or structural geology. Increasing demand for GER faculty has led to the growth of graduate programs specializing in GER. We explore the current state of GER graduate preparation in the United States and the issues moving forward in establishing and advancing GER graduate programs. We hope to spark discussion in the GER community about what GER graduate preparation entails, as programs grow and proliferate, to assist the community in being intentional in the preparation of future professionals. We make key recommendations for the GER community, including: (1) hold community-wide discussions about GER graduate training, (2) investigate methodological training as a shared graduate training experience in GER, (3) embed authentic teaching and research opportunities in graduate programs that mirror a student's planned career trajectory and assist them in becoming reflective teachers, (4) encourage GER faculty to continue to inform their colleagues and administrators about GER and what it is (and is not), and (5) look beyond GER to how other DBER fields design and implement graduate programs.

The Strength of Evidence Pyramid: One Approach for Characterizing the Strength of Evidence of Geoscience Education Research (GER) Community Claims

ABSTRACT During the past two decades, the Geoscience Education Research (GER) community has been increasingly recognized as an evidence-based research subdiscipline in the geoscience and in the larger discipline-based education research (DBER) field. Most recently, the GER community has begun to address the current state of the field and discuss the best course forward so that it can have the greatest collective impact on advancing teaching and learning in the geosciences. The community has formally recognized that practice should be evidence based and that the strengths and limitations of community-level research claims should be transparent. As such, this commentary article describes a conceptual model—the Strength of Evidence Pyramid—as a pathway to organize the strength of evidence in the GER community of generalizable claims generated by both geo–Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and geo-DBER efforts. Its design is informed by a rubric and the outcomes of a DBER synthesis, as well as by parallels we see in the concept of evidence-based medicine in the health sciences. The proposed GER Strength of Evidence Pyramid uses five levels to categorize GER-community claims: (1) practitioner wisdom/expert opinion; original qualitative and quantitative studies, including (2) case studies and (3) cohort studies; and analyzed published literature in the form of (4) meta-analyses and (5) systematic reviews. The goal of the Pyramid is to assist geoscience-education researchers and geoscience educators to visualize, organize their thinking, and evaluate the quality of the evidence of GER-community claims. The potential applications and limitations of the model for use in the GER community are described.

Identifying Curriculum Design Patterns as a Strategy for Focusing Geoscience Education Research: A Proof of Concept Based on Teaching and Learning With Geoscience Data

ABSTRACT The geoscience education research (GER) enterprise faces a challenge in moving instructional resources and ideas from the well-populated domain of “practitioners' wisdom” into the research-tested domains of St. John and McNeal's pyramid of evidence (this volume). We suggest that the process could be accelerated by seeking out clusters of instructional materials that share a common design pattern and then researching the affordances, pitfalls, and mechanism for the cluster. As a proof of concept, we sought design patterns that would support the learning goal that students be able to use authentic geoscience data to make inferences about Earth processes and decisions about Earth–human interactions. Analyzing intro-level modules from the InTeGrate project revealed six such patterns, each of which was used in at least three modules. For each pattern, we describe the instructional sequence, provide an illustrative example, describe the variability observed within the pattern, hypothesize mechanisms by which the instructional sequence might lead to improved learning, and pose potential research questions. In order from most to least abundant, the observed design patterns are Data Puzzles, Pooling Data to See the Big Picture, Make a Decision or Recommendation, Predict–Observe–Explain, Nested Data Sets, and Deriving a New Data Type. We conclude that a research program based on design patterns for teaching and learning with authentic geoscience data is viable, and we offer recommendations for moving forward.

Developing Student Interest: An Overview of the Research and Implications for Geoscience Education Research and Teaching Practice

ABSTRACT Interest is a complex interplay between affective and cognitive components that drive motivation. Over decades of work in the educational psychology community, a theoretical framework has emerged that explains this complex interplay. Interest is initially externally triggered (triggered situational interest), which, through support, can become maintained situational interest, ultimately leading to individual interest progressing from emerging to well-developed. Student interest tends to be triggered from an external agent (e.g., an engaging instructor or experience), but will not develop into a more sustained, individual interest unless it is repeated, engaging, and intellectually stimulating. This literature review provides an overview into how interest has emerged as a motivational theory and provides examples as to how it has been applied (or misapplied) in the science education and geoscience education literature. The geoscience education research (GER) community has tended to couch interest as a global phenomenon rather than as a part of a progression; as such, there are not many examples of the appropriate application of interest in the GER literature. If we apply the framework presented in this literature review to the themes identified by the larger Discipline-Based Educational Research community for future research, including our ability to best determine student content comprehension and approaches to problem-solving, the most effective instructional strategies, along with emerging categories of research such as metacognition, self-regulation, and other affective components; interest may be an important lens for considering what and how we teach, as well as how we choose to measure student experiences in the geosciences.

Student Learning of Complex Earth Systems: Conceptual Frameworks of Earth Systems and Instructional Design

ABSTRACT Engaging students in authentic problem solving concerning environmental issues in near-surface complex Earth systems involves both developing student conceptualization of Earth as a system and applying that scientific knowledge using techniques that model those used by professionals. In this first paper of a two-part series, we review the state of the geoscience education research field related to systems thinking in the context of Earth systems. The purpose of this study is to build on previous syntheses by conducting a configurative literature review that addresses the following research questions: (1) What are the characteristics of studies that address systems thinking in the context of Earth systems? (2) What conceptual frameworks for systems are present in the geoscience education research literature on systems thinking in the context of Earth systems? (3) How are these conceptual frameworks operationalized in research and educational interventions aimed at understanding and supporting systems thinking in the context of Earth systems? Twenty-seven papers met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Content analysis was conducted on each of these papers, and systems ideas were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Four conceptual frameworks were identified: Earth systems perspective, Earth systems thinking skills, complexity sciences, and authentic complex Earth and environmental systems. This study is, to our knowledge, the first systematic review in this area and allows a more consistent comparison of new findings with previous work. It also facilitates strengthening connections with cognitive science and education research literature related to systems thinking and complex systems.

Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument for Course Experience in a General Education Integrated Science Course

ABSTRACT Identifying instruments and surveys to address geoscience education research (GER) questions is among the high-ranked needs in a 2016 survey of the GER community (St. John et al., 2016). The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a student-centered assessment instrument to measure course experience in a general education integrated science course. A one-shot case study of pre-experimental design (Creswell, 2009, 2014) was used to understand student experiences in a large-enrollment course with digital content integration, including out-of-class video, online presentations, and warm-up questions, as well as in-class video paired with discussion and small group activities. In two sections taught by the same geoscientist, 209 students accessed course content in an online learning management system prior to classroom instruction. We adapted the 36-item Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ; Wilson et al., 1997) to a Web-based survey. We conducted statistical analysis on the CEQ responses, including item factor analysis, examination of communalities and measures of association, confirmatory factor analysis, and reliability and stability testing through bootstrap resampling. The statistical analyses indicate that the results in this study are comparable to those from other cultural contexts and subject areas. Given the moderate fit of the model and reasonably stable results, we propose that the core indicators of the CEQ constructs, including Appropriate Workload, Clear Goals and Standards, Generic Skills, Good Teaching, and Emphasis on Independence are sufficient to assess students' course experiences in general education science settings. These results provided moderately to strongly valid information that can help instructors in designing their technology-integrated classes, although further study with a larger sample population would be beneficial. From this study we conclude that students' perceptions of their course experiences are closely related to their development of problem-solving and analytical skills, clear course expectations to direct their own study plans, their preference for a motivating instructor, the opportunity to have a variety of learning choices, and their workload. We propose the use of a 25-item version of the CEQ that is appropriate for formative assessment in discipline-specific STEM introductory classes, including geoscience classes.

Student Learning of Complex Earth Systems: A Model to Guide Development of Student Expertise in Problem-Solving

ABSTRACT Engaging students in problem-solving concerning environmental issues in near-surface complex Earth systems involves developing student conceptualization of the Earth as a system and applying that scientific knowledge to the problems using practices that model those used by professionals. In this article, we review geoscience education research related to student learning and ill-structured problem-solving in the classroom. This article has two main goals: (1) to propose a model that applies the National Research Council (NRC, 2012) Science and Engineering Practices to students engaged with authentic, ill-structured problems centered on environmental issues and complex near-surface Earth systems (CNSES), and (2) analyze existing literature in the field of ill-structured problem-solving in CNSES to validate the proposed model. Eleven research studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Although none of the selected articles met every component of the model, many of the papers only lacked a few components. We suggest the proposed model will help to alleviate student difficulties in the classroom that arise from lack of background knowledge and enthusiasm about the course or problem, and help guide the design of instructional activities that seek to engage geoscience students in authentic environmental problems.

The Role of Geoscience Education Research in the Consilience between Science of the Mind and Science of the Natural World

ABSTRACT This manuscript addresses the potential role of geoscience education research in understanding geoscience expert practice. We note the similarity between the perception–action framework of Ulric Neisser (Neisser, 1976) and the observation–prediction framework used by geoscience practitioners. The consilience between these two approaches is that learning takes place when links are formed between predictions and observations and that this linkage is formed through conceptual models. Use of conceptual models facilitates learning at all levels; hence, there is little difference between learning in expert practice and student learning at all levels. The field of geoscience education is uniquely poised to enhance geoscience practice through investigation of expert learning, both in traditional field research and when experts adopt new tools and techniques. The consilience of expert practice, student learning, and cognitive science outcomes provides a rich opportunity to enhance both the intellectual merit of research and the direct and indirect broader impacts.

Editorial: Introduction to the Theme: Synthesizing Results and Defining Future Directions of Geoscience Education Research

The community of geoscience education researchers (GER) has reached a critical juncture where it is taking inventory in regard to the work that has been accomplished and what questions still need t...

Applying the Geoscience Education Research Strength of Evidence Pyramid: Developing a Rubric to Characterize Existing Geoscience Teaching Assistant Training Studies

ABSTRACT Graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) are responsible for direct instruction of geoscience undergraduate students at an array of universities and have a major effect on the knowledge, beliefs, and practices of their students. GTAs benefit from in-department training in both beliefs and practices that align with the existing literature on teaching and learning in the discipline, and such training can have long-standing effects when GTAs transition into faculty roles. However, the most recent review, in 2003, revealed little literature examining outcomes of geoscience GTA training programs. Using the framework of the GER Strength of Evidence Pyramid, this article outlines the development and application of a rubric to allow the user to analyze the existing geoscience GTA training literature and provide example study designs at each level of strength. Extending back to 1980, we discovered a total of three peer-reviewed articles describing and empirically evaluating the effect of GTA training programs in the geosciences. Thus, this article also draws from other science disciplines to provide examples for the levels of the rubric not currently represented in the geoscience literature, providing a set of contextually similar models that future designers of geoscience GTA training might draw on to maximize their strength of evidence, given specific institutional and programmatic constraints. Furthermore, we describe ways in which the use of the rubric provides a framework for characterizing the GTA training literature, which revealed areas of research and characteristics of rigor needed for future work.

Demystifying Peer Review: The Journal of Geoscience Education Peer Review Process

Peer review is at the heart of publishing high-quality scholarly work. Unfortunately, the manuscript review process can be dark and mysterious to both authors and reviewers. A clearer understanding of the peer review process at the Journal of Geoscience Education (JGE) will enable authors to better understand the feedback they receive at various levels of the review process and will enable reviewers to direct their comments toward meaningful improvement of submitted papers. In this editorial, we aim to demystify the peer review process for JGE and share the primary reasons why papers are rejected from JGE, based on our collective experience on the editorial board.As previously outlined in our February 2016 editorial (St. John et al., 2016), JGE accepts four types of papers: (1) Research, (2) Curriculum & Instruction, (3) Literature Review, and (4) Commentaries. Typically, all papers go through full peer review. Exceptions are sometimes made for Commentaries on issues that fit within the expertise of the editorial board. The structure of the current editorial board is shown in Figure 1. JGE has dedicated editors for Research papers (Stokes) and Curriculum & Instruction papers (Petcovic), with both editors and the editor-in-chief (St. John) sharing responsibility for other paper types.Any member of the professional community who is knowledgeable about geoscience education research and practices and/or has expertise relevant to the subject of the paper can serve as a peer reviewer. If you have ever published in JGE, or if you have presented your work in geoscience education at a professional conference, then you are eligible to be a peer reviewer! Associate editors (AEs) are invited to join the editorial board from the pool of peer reviewers; we typically invite people who have a record of timely, high-quality reviews over a period of at least a year. Experienced AEs are selected by the editor-in-chief to act as the Research and Curriculum & Instruction editors, who are invited to serve multiyear terms. Finally, the editor-in-chief is selected by the National Association of Geoscience Teachers and serves a renewable 3 to 5 y term.As shown in Figure 2, the peer review process begins (step 1) when an (note that we use the term author here to include both single-authored and coauthored papers) submits his or her paper through the online Allen Press system. The editor-in-chief performs an initial quality check (step 2) to ensure that the paper meets the formatting requirements of JGE. If the paper does not meet these requirements, it is returned to the for reformatting. The may resubmit the paper to start the review process again, but our advice to authors is to make sure that the formatting requirements are adhered to from the outset.Once the paper passes the initial quality check, it is assigned to either the Research or the Curriculum & Instruction editor based on the paper type. The editor-inchief is also assigned papers to keep the editorial workload balanced. The editor (or editor-in-chief) screens the paper (step 3) to decide whether it sufficiently meets the review guidelines to merit peer review. One of two outcomes is possible here: If the paper fails to meet the review guidelines, or if it does not match with the scope of JGE, it is rejected and returned to the author. In this case, the may be invited to revise and resubmit, if the paper offers sufficient potential. If the editor (or editor-in-chief) decides that the paper meets the review guidelines to a sufficient extent, it progresses to full peer review. Sometimes at this stage, the editors may recommend that a paper initially submitted under the Research category be reviewed under the Curriculum & Instruction category, or vice versa. If this happens, and editor or the editor-in-chief will contact the to advise that the paper is being reclassified.To initiate the peer review process, the editor (or editorin-chief) assigns the paper to an AE (step 4). …

Digitization of the Journal Legacy: Improving Access and Literature Research Potential

The Journal of Geoscience Education (formerly the Journal of Geological Education [1951-1995]) has been published for 65 years, but only articles from the last 15 years were available online (Table 1). Therefore, while JGE has been the primary scholarly outlet for geoscience education (Singer et al., 2012), ~80% of all published JGE articles were virtually inaccessible. This has limited the community's ability to do a historical analysis of geoscience education research, assess the strength of evidence on geoscience education community claims, or fully synthesize results. These challenges were raised by participants at the geoscience education research workshop at the 2015 Earth Educators' Rendezvous (http:// serc.carleton.edu/earth_rendezvous/2015/morning_ workshops/w3/index.html), and digitizing back issues of JGE was a specific recommendation that came out of that workshop. I am pleased to share that we are currently in the process of digitizing all of the JGE back issues, which is made possible by funding from the National Science Foundation. This is an important step for JGE and the geoscience education community. All past print-only articles in JGE will now be broadly searchable online and available for full text download, reading, and analysis. This project is making those resources accessible to all; they will be open access, searchable in the widely-used education databases EBSCO and ERIC, and available for free full text download at http://nagt-jge.org/ (click on Available Issues). The digital conversion started earlier this summer, and volumes from 1951 to 1964, and since 2001 are now available. Allen Press will be adding new batches of volumes over the next few months.Making the ~3000 print-only articles published in JGE prior to 2001 available for full text download, reading, and analysis will greatly increase access to foundational studies in geoscience education scholarship, and expand the timeframe and number of studies for inclusion in literature reviews. Earlier synthesis analyses of geoscience education results, including those by Perkins (2004) and by Pibern et al. (2011), the second of which was the primary source of geoscience education research data for the Discipline-Based Education Research (DBER) report (Singer et al., 2012), focused only on short (