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

Abstract

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.

Keywords:

• Discipline-based education research
• geoscience education research
• communities of practice

Background

In Fall 2021, a community effort began to identify aspects of geoscience education that use or would benefit from greater use of ICON (integrated, coordinated, open and networked) processes and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) principles (Fortner et al., 2022; NAGT, 2023a). This was done across three thematic groups: the practice of geoscience education, geoscience education research (GER), and diversity, equity, inclusion and justice (DEIJ). As part of that process, St. John et al. (2022) developed an overview for the geoscience education research (GER) community specifically, with input from the community. Themes that emerged from this work included highlighting the role of the GER community of practice (CoP), the strong need for capacity building, and desire for more efficient communication. During these discussions, there was a general recognition of the ways in which the community has grown productively, as well as opportunities for it to advance; high level takeaways from these discussions were summarized in the Fortner et al. (2022) commentary. However the conversations also spurred another step.

The authors of this paper were motivated to survey the GER community to expand input on how its needs may have changed over time. The authors include the four founding officers of the GER Division of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT-GER; Ryker, Lukes, Cheek and LaDue), all of whom were authors on a previous paper that explored GER as a CoP and its needs (Lukes et al., 2015). The team was expanded to include representatives from the atmospheric science and graduate student GER communities (McNeal, Klyce). In the past decade, the Atmospheric Science Education Research (ASER) community developed formal efforts at the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in part through the efforts of coauthor McNeal. Klyce, a former Ph.D. student of Ryker, was an essential member of the research team facilitating data analysis. This writing team represents a small subset of the GER perspectives within the community, consisting predominantly of those who witnessed the growth of the GER community over the past decade from leadership roles.

Based on community survey results, and situated in the Wenger et al. (2002) theoretical context of communities of practice, we provide an overview of how the GER CoP has evolved since characterized by Lukes et al. (2015), and propose potential next steps to help it flourish. We also identify ways in which ICON processes and FAIR principles could be leveraged to move GER forward as a discipline and as a community. The data analysis in this study consisted of counting and categorizing responses from a survey.

Positionality

Our positionality due to our individual identities likely influenced our views of CoP stages, as well as the selection of survey questions and deciding which results should be highlighted throughout this paper. As a result, we choose to foreground a brief description of our collective positionality. All authors identify as White women from various economic backgrounds (e.g., working class, middle class, upper class). All authors completed graduate training as education researchers, four with degrees from GER graduate programs within geoscience departments and one from a College of Education. All authors received their PhDs from very high (R1) or high (R2) research activity universities. Five are former K-12 teachers, and one of those five is a former community college instructor. All have at least one graduate degree in geoscience. Two (Ryker, McNeal) have served as Associate Editors for the Journal of Geoscience Education (JGE). Three (Cheek, LaDue, Ryker) are tenured associate professors; two are assistant professors (Lukes, McNeal); one is a lecturer in a non-tenure-track position (Klyce). One (Lukes) previously served in a faculty development role facilitating communities of practice.

GER as a research discipline and its relationship with SoTL

In 2012, GER was identified as an “emerging,” or newer, discipline-based education research (DBER) field (NRC). DBER seeks to understand and improve how learning happens in an academic environment, including both its cognitive and affective aspects, and involves the systematic application of rigorous qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. Like other DBER fields (e.g. Physics Education Research, PER; Biology Education Research, BER), a goal of GER is to test hypotheses and create theories that explain how people learn within the discipline. Efforts that target this goal promote change by applying research findings to improve instruction. Although interrelated, this pursuit is distinct from the geoscience Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL; NRC, 2012; NAGT 2022a). SoTL draws on reflective teaching practices and direct classroom evidence, and is often a source of inspiration for GER. Unlike GER, SoTL does not inherently seek to contribute directly to theory testing or building (NRC, 2012, pp. 11–12). However, there is a spectrum along which GER and SoTL exist, and many scholars identify as doing both (NRC, 2012; NAGT, 2022a). We recognize the great value of both GER and SoTL in advancing our understanding of how people teach and learn about the Earth in K-12, postsecondary and informal learning environments. The distinction between the two here is important in academic settings for recognizing the unique and necessary skill training required to conduct GER successfully and ethically, similar to the training required for other geoscience research subdisciplines. This distinction between GER and SoTL is echoed in JGE’s distinction between research and curriculum and instruction (C&I) article types. Nevertheless, there is overlap between the two in that practitioner wisdom and SoTL can provide important lines of evidence for researchers to pursue (Kastens & Krumhansl, 2017), and research findings may drive classroom implementation. For example, St. John and McNeal (2017) present a strength of evidence pyramid for GER claims. Geo-SoTL (e.g. JGE C&I articles) and Geo-DBER (e.g. JGE Research articles) are represented across the base of the pyramid (Figure 3 in St. John & McNeal, 2017; p. 367), illustrating the value of improving teaching practices and indicating the overlap between the two end-members.

GER as a community of practice

While GER as a formal discipline narrowly defines itself, GER as a CoP is intentionally wider and more inclusive of a range of inquiry approaches, including program evaluation, SoTL, reflective teaching practices, and others. Here, we define the GER CoP inclusively as people engaged in the practice of systematic inquiry of teaching, learning and participation in educational geoscience settings. A CoP (Wenger, 1998, 2002) is an example of a social learning system for practice-based work. It has been widely applied in STEM higher education literature as a model supporting change (Reinholz et al., 2021), likely because of its flexibility in application. For our purposes, we consider this as one mechanism for change, as well as a way to describe the status of communities. Specific models of CoPs vary. However, there is general consensus that CoPs are groups of individuals who share a common concern, interest and body of knowledge, discuss this with one another, and produce new insights (often collaboratively produced tools or practitioner resources) as a result of these discussions over an extended period of time. CoPs can overlap: people can belong to multiple communities at the same time and adjust their levels of community engagement accordingly (Farnsworth et al., 2016). Benefits of a GER CoP include cultivating a shared identity, reduced isolation, and fostering growth of the community. Kastens (2016) proposed that successful CoPs include multiple reinforcing feedback loops that involve the individual and the collective; both need to benefit from CoP activities in order to build capacity for the practice. For a more detailed discussion of CoPs and how GER benefits from having one, see Lukes et al. (2015), Kastens (2016), Kastens and Manduca (2017) and Shipley et al. (2017).

The GER CoP has experienced rapid growth in the number of self-identifying members, increased visibility within the wider scientific community, and collaboratively produced resources and tools for practitioners. Since establishing its own division within the National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT) in 2014, division member numbers rose 171% from 207 (Lukes et al., 2015) to 353 (NAGT, 2022b), with some fluctuations from year to year. Though not representative of the entire GER community, the NAGT-GER division and NAGT more broadly has historically served and continues to serve as the primary hub for the GER community in the U.S. and operational leader of community-wide efforts (e.g., workshops, community-produced documents). GER sessions at national meetings including the Geological Society of America (GSA), American Geophysical Union (AGU), the American Meteorological Society (AMS), Earth Educators’ Rendezvous (EER), GER-related articles in traditional geoscience venues, and the formation of new groups within the GER CoP (e.g., ASER; Kopacz et al., 2021) demonstrate the presence of GER within the broader geoscience research community. Lastly, the community benefited from the collaborative creation of multiple community-wide resources (e.g., the GER Community Framework (St. John, 2018) and toolbox (GER Toolbox, 2016). Below, we discuss the evolution of the GER CoP, its current status, and outline future directions using Wenger et al.’s CoP stages (2002) as a guiding framework to understand our community’s history and needs.

Evolution of the GER community of practice

Wenger et al. (2002) posited that CoPs move through five stages of development: potential, coalescing, maturing, stewardship, and transformation (Figure 1). During this progression, CoPs evolve to have a greater number of formal structures and organization, responding to changes in their environment. Reinholz et al. (2021) characterized these changes as inevitable, but “the nature of such change is shaped by the response of community members” (p. 8). Characterizing the GER community within this framework is useful for capturing the important initiatives that propelled community growth as well as opportunities for future growth. Because CoPs can move fluidly between stages, identifying firm dates bounding each stage is a challenge. We propose years that appear to represent shifts in the GER community and have aligned these events with Wenger et al.’s theoretical model. However, we acknowledge that transitions between CoP stages is a process, and the community may even take pauses or back steps. Various community members may also perceive these boundaries differently based on their individual experiences. A brief overview of the early stages of the GER CoP is provided below.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the stages of community development, as described by Wenger et al. (2002). Figure modified from Wenger et al. (2002), Figure 4-1, p. 69.

Potential: pre-2001

During the potential stage, CoPs exist as informal networks, without a unified objective or central organization. This comes with a low level of recognition for the community, despite a large investment of individual energy (Daele et al., 2009). The DBER Report (NRC, 2012) identified several notable events during what we consider this stage, including: 1) the emergence of NAGT’s Journal of Geology Education in 1951 (changed to the Journal of Geoscience Education in 1995 to better reflect the field’s disciplinary diversity), 2) seminal work from early scholars (those whose academic training and research are grounded in a traditional scientific research field, but who moved into DBER or collaborated with other scholars; e.g. Dodick & Orion, 2003; Kali & Orion, 1996; Kern & Carpenter, 1984, 1986), and 3) a 1996 NSF panel recommending research funding to support geoscientists establishing partnerships with educational experts “to facilitate development of a new generation of geoscience educators” (NSF, 1997). Arthurs (2019) described research articles on undergraduate geoscience education published in JGE from 1985 to 2000 as “characterized by proto-research” (p. 118). That is, papers published during this time focused on carrying out particular teaching activities, courses or programs. Arthurs (2018) observed a low level of fluency with cognitive science concepts in the literature during this same period, based on infrequent connections to fundamental research in related fields (e.g. psychology; p. 188). According to the same study, this did not begin to shift toward a higher degree of fluency until 2001. To make this assessment, Arthurs identified all JGE articles about undergraduate geoscience education with an explicit research hypothesis or question published between 1985 and 2016. Each of these were analyzed for their use of language related to the general cognitive theory of learning, such as encoding, retrieval, cognitive and constructivist. Articles were identified as having low, moderate, or high degrees of fluency based on more frequent integration of these ideas. We use the shift to a higher degree of fluency to mark the transition to the coalescing stage of the GER CoP; however, we again acknowledge that this transition is fuzzier than indicated by a single year.

Coalescing: 2001-2014

In the coalescing stage, the value of a CoP begins to emerge as group members organize around shared goals, leading to the generation of new ideas. Community members begin to develop structures that facilitate communication. For GER, 2001–2014 was a busy and expansive time, and emerging structures included workshops and meetings at professional conferences, updates to JGE, stronger publications, a new listserv and larger, funded research groups.

For much of the coalescing stage, the GER CoP was relatively small, especially if defined as researchers with primary research interests in GER situated in traditional geoscience departments. The 2012 DBER report (NRC, 2012) documents that as of 2012, “fewer than a half dozen faculty nationwide had achieved promotion to tenure based on a GER portfolio, and a similarly small handful had received a Ph.D. in GER from a geoscience department” (p. 29). The authors noted six universities offering a Ph.D. in GER through colleges of education or science. Feig (2013) described some of the challenges of being in a small but growing community around this time. He noted those practicing GER “battled for acceptance and legitimacy” (p. 306) and experienced feelings of “professional isolation” (p. 306, 311–313), though respect for the field was increasing. Participants in Feig’s study described struggling with a lack of formalized training, which intertwined with the low number of people who had earned PhDs and/or tenure in GER (p. 313).

Research publications during this time demonstrated an increase in forward vision and growth for the community (e.g. Lewis & Baker, 2010; Piburn, Kraft, & Pacheco, 2011). Arthurs (2018) described the GER literature emerging from 2000 to 2011 as “characterized by the presence of applied, use-inspired, and pure basic research” (p. 118). During this period, Arthurs noted that there was still a need to improve the discipline’s fluency with the work of social science, including the application of cognitive science concepts in the literature. However, there was an increase in the number of articles identified as having a moderate degree of fluency with cognitive science concepts, compared with those published during the CoP’s Potential stage.

Additionally, the 2002 “Wingspread Report” on “Bringing Research on Learning to the Geosciences” workshop (Manduca et al., 2004) served as a catalyst for the community during this period, bringing together individuals from geoscience education, cognitive science and other DBER fields to develop a path forward for research on learning in the geosciences. One of the calls made in this report was for the development of additional “publication and dissemination mechanisms that promote peer review and reproducibility” (p. 32). This came around the same time as a new, regular column on research in education in JGE (2001) appeared, along with two GSA hosted Pardee Symposia: 1) “Toward a Better Understanding of the Complicated Earth: Insights from Geologic Research, Education and Cognitive Science” (Manduca & Mogk, 2002); and 2) Earth and Mind I (Manduca & Mogk, 2006). These symposia provided high-visibility opportunities to disseminate GER in a conference setting. Shortly after this, GSA produced special volumes and papers on “Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about Earth” (Manduca & Mogk, 2006), Qualitative Inquiry in GER (Feig & Stokes, 2011) and Earth and Mind II (Kastens & Manduca, 2012), which also promoted the work and visibility of the coalescing GER CoP. These resources collated print versions of ideas presented or touched on at the Pardee symposia. The papers contain important observations and questions that would guide lines of research in the coming years (Kastens & Manduca, 2012; Manduca & Mogk, 2006) and advice and examples for how to conduct qualitative research studies (Feig & Stokes, 2011). JGE also updated its guidance for authors to better distinguish Research from C&I articles (Libarkin et al., 2009), marking a greater recognition of the distinction between GER and SoTL. Meanwhile, the work of the Wingspread Report participants continued in the form of the “Bringing Research on Learning to the Geosciences” project (Manduca et al., 2004), which began aggregating resources for the coalescing GER CoP.

Moreover, larger community structures began to emerge and facilitate conversations and work between interdisciplinary and cross-community researchers, strengthening information sharing within the GER CoP. Notably, 2007 saw the emergence of the GER and Geocognition Listserv (Geocognition Research Laboratory, 2024a), spearheaded by Julie Libarkin and Heather Petcovic, which allowed for rapid conversations to take place between people identifying with or interested in getting involved with the GER CoP. The 2012 DBER report (NRC, 2012) included GER, which improved its visibility and recognition. Additionally, several well-funded, cross-community structures emerged. These included: the Spatial Intelligence Learning Center (2006), which brought together geoscientists and learning scientists; the development of the Geoscience Concept Inventory (GCI; Libarkin & Anderson, 2005), a tool for assessing learning that paralleled the Force Concept Inventory in PER (Hestenes et al., 1992); the Geoscience Affective Research Network (GARNET; McConnell & van Der Hoeven Kraft, 2011), which expanded understanding of the affective domain for students in introductory, college-level physical geology courses and called for additional study of student metacognition and self-regulated learning; the Classroom Observation Project (Budd et al., 2013 and later Teasdale et al., 2017, Viskupic et al., 2019 and Teasdale et al., 2020), which provided direct insights of teaching practices; and InTeGrate, which produced (Gosselin et al., 2013) and later studied the use of dozens of data-rich, societally-relevant teaching resources (O’Connell et al., 2016, Gosselin et al., 2019, and others). The maturing stage of the GER CoP continued to feel the impacts of many of these projects in the years that followed (e.g. Cheek et al., 2017; Gosselin et al., 2019; Jaeger et al., 2017; Lukes & McConnell, 2014; Viskupic et al., 2019; Ward et al., 2014).

Maturing: 2014 - Present

In the maturing stage, Wenger et al. (2002) describes the focus of CoPs as shifting from “establishing value to clarifying the community’s focus, role, and boundaries” (p. 97). The community itself moves from being “just a network of professional friends” (p. 97) and instead seeks to define itself apart from and in relation to other domains (e.g. other DBER fields). One sign of this stage is an increase in GER-based Ph.D. projects and the first NSF Graduate Research Fellowships (GRF) awarded to support students pursuing GER. Although we are unable to search for GRFs by topic, at present the authors are aware of at least four GER-focused awardees. Not all GER CoP members may pursue these awards or degrees; however, their availability is an indicator that the field as a whole is viewed as a unique entity by the broader scientific community. Wenger et al. (2002) describes how core members at this transition point “frequently begin to see gaps in the community’s knowledge, identify its cutting edges, and feel a need to be more systematic in their definition of the community’s core practice” (p. 97). The use of the phrase “cutting edges” here is intended to capture the idea of where the community can and should grow, and could also be thought of as “growth edges”. Here, we use the 2014 establishment of the NAGT-GER division and subsequent related community structures as indicators of the transition from the coalescing to the maturing stage. As noted above though, CoPs do not necessarily have clean transitions between stages.

The 2014 establishment of a GER-focused division within NAGT provided a central, named group through which community members could gather, and officers who could act on behalf of the community at large (Lukes et al., 2015). This division helped support the CoP with organizational structures, including the organization of the first NAGT-GER sponsored session at GSA in 2015, which focused on the application of methodologies (NAGT, 2024). As of 2023, that session is ongoing, and has expanded to include a focus on theoretical frameworks. The division routinely invites a speaker from another DBER or related field (e.g. cognitive science) to infuse the community with new ideas. These practices serve to increase the visibility of GER for the geosciences and DBER community. NAGT-GER also began producing a newsletter that highlights researchers, interesting articles, funding opportunities and more, responding to a need for streamlined communication. This has been regularly produced since Winter 2014 (NAGT, 2023b). In 2018, NAGT-GER gave its first Collaboration Award to recognize researchers not identifying as geoscientists, but who through their collaborations have infused GER with new methods, theories and approaches. They also presented the first Transformation Award, which recognizes those within the GER community who have helped propel it forward through discipline and scholar capacity-building. Through the continued work of division officers, this early effort to recognize GER contributions has matured to include awards for GER researchers at emerging and early-career stages (Emerging GER Scholars Award and Early Career Award). The current award structure, which was revised in 2023, offers awards at three career levels: early career (for establishment of one’s research area), mid-career (for collaboration and growth), and advanced (for transformative work).

Another hallmark of the maturing stage is the inaugural EER in 2015 and its subsequent meetings, which brings together all those interested in geoscience education, including its practice, SoTL and GER. The EER has served as a site for NSF-funded workshops, including the Geo-Needs: Stakeholder Needs Assessment for Broadening Participation in the Geoscience Workforce (NSF1445227, 1445228, 1445182, 1445210), Google Earth for Onsite and Distance Education (GEODE - NSF1323419), GEodesy Tools for Societal Issues (GETSI - NSF1612248, 1725347, 1914915), and Project EDDIE: Environmental Data-Driven Inquiry and Exploration (NSF1821567) to disseminate research to practitioners and GER community-building workshops such as the GER Grand Challenges (NSF1708228). NAGT-GER has regularly hosted or co-hosted community gatherings at these meetings, including networking and social events. At the first EER, leaders within the GER CoP organized a National Science Foundation-funded workshop, “Synthesizing Geoscience Education Research: Where are we? What is the path forward?” (NSF1513519; Macdonald et al., 2015). This was the first of a series of funded workshops, webinars, and larger community conversations that led to the publication of the GER Community Framework (St. John, 2018). This collaboratively-produced document helps community members identify areas of the field where contributions are especially valued. Additionally, attendees at the second workshop (NSF DUE-1607543) submitted initial contributions to another community resource: the GER Toolbox (NAGT, 2020). The GER Toolbox is a collection of instruments, tools and advice from GER CoP members.

In 2019, Orion put forth a position paper on the future of Earth science education research, which focused on the K-12 teaching of Earth science. This was part of a special issue that included papers from other DBER fields, which again supports the broader awareness and acceptance of GER. Orion argued for a greater focus on improving high quality K-12 education through improved scholarship. Unlike biology, chemistry and physics, Earth science is not regularly required at the secondary level in the U.S., a factor which likely contributes to recruitment challenges (Levine et al., 2007; Lewis & Baker, 2010; Lyon et al., 2020). This particular challenge is one which the GER CoP is well positioned to help address.

Along with a growing number of supports, this period of growth for the GER CoP has also come with an increase in the number of people identifying with it, including those with a broader array of disciplinary interests (e.g. atmospheric science), theoretical frameworks (e.g. the application of Indigenous ways of knowing; Garcia Jr. et al., 2020; Reano et al., 2020; Alexiades et al., 2021) and a rising profile within the DBER and geoscience communities. NAGT-GER has grown steadily to become NAGT's largest division. It began with an initial membership of 207 (Lukes et al., 2015), and grew to 353 members in 2022 (NAGT, 2022b)—a 171% increase. Though a division within one organization does not capture or represent the entire GER community, it has historically served as a community hub, and so its growth can be seen as a positive indicator of community health. NAGT-GER membership numbers have fluctuated from year to year, reaching a high point of 379 in 2021 (NAGT, 2022b). This ebb and flow is natural as members move in and out of the community and have different professional needs and resources (e.g. desire to access member-only opportunities, departmental support for membership fees).

One identity within the GER CoP that has seen a significant increase is that of the ASER community. Though geosciences is intended to be broadly inclusive of all those who study the Earth, many of the early GER CoP members identified with geology, which is reflected in the literature. ASER scholars recognized a need to identify as an entity within the GER CoP to advance collaborations, share resources, and promote education research within their own unique professional community. A working group at the 2016 EER was instrumental in providing the impetus for the formal designation of ASER as a sub-discipline within GER. A community needs survey followed (Kopacz et al., 2021) with 222 respondents from the atmospheric science community. Of this sample, 60% indicated a moderate to high interest in exploring questions about student learning, while 24% indicated moderate to high interest in presenting ASER. Additional initiatives included an ASER website and email list, an AMS short course and webinar, a review of the existing literature (McNeal et al., 2021), and an ASER special collection within the Bulletin of the AMS (BAMS). Although the AMS annual meeting has incorporated a Conference on Education for 32 years, specific ASER sessions within the conference now include a growing number of presentations. In many ways, the ASER community benefits immensely from prior GER work and fully collaborates within the GER CoP. One example of this was a recent workshop in which individuals with expertise in GER mentored interested atmospheric scientists in conducting education research and served as potential future contacts for these scholars.

Visibility and recognition for the GER CoP has grown within the DBER and geoscience communities. One recent indicator of that growth is the establishment of the AGU Education Section, which includes a dedicated GER component (2018). AGU sections traditionally are anchored in research fields, therefore recognition of this new section is also acknowledgement of the value that GER has to the Earth and space sciences. The formal structure of an AGU section provided the opportunity to nominate GER scholars as AGU Fellows; to date, such honors (selected by a Union level committee) have been bestowed to two GER scholars: Cathy Manduca (2020) and Kim Kastens (2021). The GER CoP is also represented in the section leadership, with 3 of the 4 Presidents/President-Elects including GER and/or SoTL articles in their publication records. Like NAGT-GER and GSA’s Geoscience Education Division, the AGU Education Section started sponsoring a GER session at the annual meeting in 2021. With a large international membership, AGU offers an opportunity for expanding the GER CoP more globally. Despite this increased visibility across organizations, there remains little formal coordination between them.

Other indicators are GER’s inclusion in cross-DBER communities (e.g. X-DBER, STEM DBER Alliance (discussed in Henderson et al., 2017 and encouraged by Shipley et al., 2017), the increasing reputation of JGE, and a growing number of publications in traditional geoscience journals. For example, the 2015 Human Dimensions in Geoscience special issue of Geosphere included multiple GER papers. Individual articles such as Egger (2019) in GSA Today, St. John et al. (2019) in Eos, and Kreager et al. (2022) in Geosphere provide the larger geosciences community with strong examples of GER. Though not a perfect measure, JGE’s CiteScore (Scopus) has risen from a 1.01 in 2018 to a 2.7 in 2021 and a 4.0 in 2022. The inclusion of GER and geoscience education perspectives more broadly in AGU’s efforts to promote ICON science to advance the geosciences are also seen as another indicator of community health and maturity (Fortner et al., 2022).

The maturing stage for the GER CoP has seen increasing numbers of organizational structures that helped guide the community, collaboratively-produced products that support GER practices, community gathering spaces, and a rise in membership numbers, including those of groups within GER (e.g. ASER). Together, these have provided increased visibility and recognition of GER in the broader landscape of DBER and the geosciences. In short, the community is growing, identifying its cutting (growth) edges, and making systematic progress in those directions. It is also determining future priorities.

Toward stewardship and transformation: the needs and future of the GER CoP

Wenger identified the primary issue for a community in the stewardship stage as “how to sustain its momentum through the natural shifts in its practice, members, technology, and relationship to the organization” (p. 104). Community coordinators and so-called core group members need to “be aware of the waxing and waning of community energy and take action to help the community meet the changing demands of its environment in a way that preserves or even develops its own sense of self” (p. 105). This ebb and flow of researcher energy is highlighted by Jolley et al. (2022), who described the impacts of COVID-19 on JGE authors and reviewers. If a CoP is supported through its inevitable cycles (Daele et al., 2009), it can transform into something even stronger. If not, the transformation stage can result in the dissolution of a CoP (Wenger et al., 2002). It is with these ideas in mind that we conducted a needs assessment to better understand how to support the momentum built in earlier stages. We hope that the results of this assessment, along with ongoing learning from interactions with other DBER communities, can support those interested in taking action to support the wider CoP. Through this, we hope to see continued positive momentum through the stewardship and possible transformation stages.

Assessing current and future needs for stewardship and transformation

In order to facilitate its broader stewardship, we developed a survey to conduct an updated needs assessment of the GER community. Our goal was to gain insights about current GER CoP needs to identify avenues through which future work could follow ICON and FAIR principles and recommendations made by Fortner et al. (2022) and St. John et al. (2022). Here, we describe our needs assessment methods and results, and make recommendations based on these.

Methods: survey design and distribution

The needs assessment survey (Supplemental Material) included 34 questions in which participants were asked to provide demographic information, characterize the nature of their GER work and contributions to the GER community, and rate their needs for professional development activities and resources. Some of the questions were based on a survey administered in 2014 by the newly founded NAGT-GER division to gauge community interests at the time. The current survey was distributed in late 2021 and shared across a wide set of geoscience venues to solicit views from established and emerging scholars. Specifically, the survey was distributed through NAGT News, NAGT-GER’s newsletter, AGU’s Education ‘Connect’ Community, the AMS ASER listserv, the GER and Geocognition Listserv, advertised at the 2022 EER, and shared through personal networks. As noted above, many early members of the GER CoP identified with geology. The emergence of new identity groups (e.g. ASER) led us to believe that personal networks were especially important to ensure the widest reach possible, particularly to individuals or groups who may not yet identify themselves as GER CoP members, but would find a home and sense of connection if brought into and supported by this community.

Results and limitations

We received 107 responses from December 20, 2021 to February 28, 2022. Using NAGT-GER membership numbers as a general guide for the size of the community (353 in 2022; NAGT, 2022b), we believe this to be a strong response rate. While duplication of participants was an initial concern, a review of responses did not indicate any such duplication. It is important to note that this survey is not a validated instrument and interpretations of these results are limited by the sample of the GER community who responded. There are limitations in the demographic distribution of responses as reported below (e.g., dominantly US respondents from post-secondary institutions). Future needs assessment would benefit from more intentional outreach to international venues (e.g. iEarth, AGU, the International Geoscience Education Organization), communities that serve a greater number of atmospheric, ocean, and planetary sciences, and K-12 teacher audiences. Though we sought to distribute the needs assessment to the widest audience possible, we caution that these numbers be interpreted as a snapshot of the community able to respond within the time frame provided. Below are some highlights from the survey organized by themes. Individual responses are not provided due to potential identifiability of respondents.

Who identifies with the current GER CoP?

As with the geosciences more broadly (Bernard & Cooperdock, 2018), the racial and ethnic diversity of the GER CoP does not reflect the diversity of the US population from which the majority of respondents came. 81.3% of respondents identified as White, with a much smaller percentage identifying as Asian or Asian American, Black or African American, or Hispanic, Latine or of Spanish origin (5.6%) and 2.8% of respondents self-identifying as two or more races. Due to the potentially identifying nature inherent to a small sample size and community, our survey data is not broken down by race/ethnicity. However, we recognize that needs and perceptions of CoP members may vary based on these identities, and we support the reduction of all barriers which may keep members from feeling fully welcomed (e.g. systemic biases along lines of gender, racial and ethnic identity, visible or invisible disabilities; Marín-Spiotta et al., 2020). Unlike the larger geoscience community (NCSES, 2023), the GER CoP predominantly identifies as female (62.6%), followed by male (29.9%). A 2013 survey of PER graduate students found a similar gender disparity. When given a binary choice for their gender identity, less than 20% of physics graduate students identified as women, yet they comprised 51% of all PER students (Barthelemy et al., 2015). While it is impossible to state why there were far more female than male respondents to our survey, these response rates, along with the results of the PER survey, raise the question as to whether GER (and perhaps DBER, more broadly), may be viewed as gendered. It is unclear whether this might contribute to a marginalization of GER (see, e.g. Britton, 2017; Charles & Bradley, 2002; Doerr, 2023).

Responses came from a mix of 30 states, the District of Columbia, Alberta, and British Columbia. Most responses came from the eastern, central and southwest portions of the US. These areas also contain multiple institutions offering graduate degrees, which may contribute to their higher representation (Geocognition Research Laboratory, 2024b) (https://geocognitionresearchlaboratory.com/graduate-study/geocognition-geoscience-education-research-programs/). The lack of international representation is interpreted to reflect a lack of connection with potential members, rather than a lack of interest. As noted by Fortner et al. (2022) and St. John et al. (2022), our science and our communities are strengthened by being open and networked. This means that all researchers “are enabled to contribute and leverage resources” and that there is a “broad range of stakeholders to ensure mutual benefits” (Goldman et al., 2022, p. 2). To achieve this vision, CoP members will need to be intentional about reaching out to scholars who may have felt “othered” to make the CoP a more welcoming environment, and inviting in new members who may feel on the periphery of our community (Marín-Spiotta et al., 2020).

Survey respondents predominantly (70.3%) identified with geology and geology-related subdisciplines (e.g. geochemistry, geophysics) or atmospheric science and related subdisciplines (18.9%; climate, meteorology) (Figure 2). Trends in response were similar by subdiscipline. Aggregate percentages are reported here; however, the reader may be interested in a review of Figure 2 to see the number of responses by subdiscipline. Respondents could indicate engagement in multiple types of GER or GER-related work. Many reported that they do research, collect data to test hypotheses from educational theory (51.4%) and/or further develop existing educational theory or develop new theory (43.0%). A greater number reported doing SoTL (reflection on teaching practices and collecting data to further reflect on the impact they have on student learning; 71.0%) or use reflective teaching practices (67.3%), with just over two-thirds of respondents reporting engaging with two or more of these categories. Those reporting more formal involvement in testing hypotheses or theories (58.3%) more often also reported that GER was the primary (55.0%) or a major (30.0%) focus of their scholarly research. For those who reported collecting data but not testing hypotheses or theories (i.e. GER-related SoTL; 22.3%), GER was more often a minor focus of their scholarly research (43.4%) or something that they were interested to learn about (26.1%), rather than a major part of their research. This suggests that individuals were responding consistently to various survey questions.

Figure 2. Percent of respondents identifying with different geoscience subdisciplines. Geology and atmospheric science subdisciplines are grouped together. Note: respondents could choose multiple subdisciplines.

The majority of respondents reported having or being in the process of earning a PhD or EdD (72.9%, n = 91). Most of these (n = 78) described their degree as being in geoscience besides GER (56.4%). Degrees described as being in GER from geoscience (24.4%) or non-geoscience departments such as educational leadership (12.8%) accounted for 37.2% of PhDs or EdDs. Additionally, 23 respondents reported the focus of their in-process master’s degree as mostly geoscience besides GER (13) or GER from a geoscience department (3). No respondents self-described as being an undergraduate student.

The majority also reported their primary employment as four-year colleges and universities (70.1%), two-year colleges and universities (8.4%) or identified as students (15%). Other responses (4%) included industry, non-profits, research institutes and those in retirement. Of those in academia (n = 88), 34.1% of respondents said their institution offered a M.Sc., Ed.D. or Ph.D. with a GER focus, though some responses may come from the same institution. This likely marks a significant shift from the stage characterized by the DBER report (NRC, 2012), when only six universities offered a Ph.D. in GER through any department. Though a large percentage of survey responses came from postsecondary institutions, we do not believe that this captures the full strength of the CoP, or its potential. The author team here includes five former K-12 teachers (Cheek, LaDue, Lukes, McNeal, Ryker), and all agree that the GER CoP includes (or should include) members of the K-12 and informal geoscience education community. As described in the limitations, the GER community needs (discussed below) potentially reflect current membership, but may miss opportunities to expand with important groups that have less representation at present.

Of those reporting higher education as their primary employment (n = 88), most reported having tenure (36.4%) or being on the tenure track (17.8%). When asked to describe the portfolio on which they earned or are earning tenure, respondents answered geoscience besides GER (43.1%), GER (24.1%), teaching (24.1%), education research (5.1%) or other (3.4%). This reflects a significant shift over the last decade, at which point fewer than six faculty had earned tenure based on a GER portfolio (NRC, 2012). When asked to describe their position, 26.1% selected a research focus in Geoscience (DBER or Non-DBER), 55.7% selected a teaching focus in geoscience or education, and 18.2% selected “Other.” “Other” responses included a blended research and teaching focus, outreach or evaluation-focused work, or research in broader science or STEM education. As many of our community members are in teaching-focused positions, research may be less incentivized for some.

Past and current engagement in the GER community

GER CoP members reported participating in many activities to increase their GER knowledge and to disseminate knowledge that they generate. The most common ways to increase GER knowledge included reading GER-related resources on the SERC site (88.8%), reading JGE (84.1%) or articles from related disciplines like other DBER fields or cognitive psychology (78.5%), and attending GER webinars, presentations or workshops (75.7%). Almost half of respondents (49.5%) reported having taken university-level coursework in education research or GER. Methods for disseminating GER knowledge include presenting at conferences or leading workshops (74.8%), giving public talks (60.7%) and publishing peer-reviewed articles in JGE (39.2%), other education-related journals (36.4%), or geoscience-related journals (33.6%).

In terms of engaging in GER community-building activities, the most common approaches include reviewing GER-related manuscripts (49.0%), helping connect community members (47.7%), and chairing GER sessions at professional meetings (37.4%). Some members of the GER CoP also share resources and amplify community member work on social media (30.8%), with Twitter (now X) being the most popular, followed by Facebook and Instagram. These numbers suggest that members are interested in supporting fellow members. However, there is a lingering question about how to identify and connect with potential GER CoP members. Microblogging social media sites like X (formerly Twitter) offer possibilities as public platforms on which personal connections can be made across time and space, particularly as an entry point for those new to the CoP. Carpenter and Krutka (2014) observed that educators liked the platform for its potential to combat isolation and opportunities to “engage with colleagues around issues of interest in personalized and accessible ways (p. 428).” While our survey did not ask about personal relationships and feelings of belonging, this could be an important direction for the community to grow. While the GER CoP appears to have grown in size, it is still a relatively small academic community, which makes positive interactions with other CoP members especially critical (Kastens, 2016).

The most popular existing GER community resources include JGE (73.8%), emails from colleagues (70.1%), community workshops and social events at society meetings (62.6%), and the NAGT-GER listserv and newsletter (54.2%). Several respondents noted becoming aware of new resources through the survey itself. These are linked from within the survey in the Supplemental Material. Because not all community members have equal opportunities to attend in-person society meetings, we asked which conferences members do or would want to attend. The three most selected were the EER (77.6%), GSA (73.8%) and AGU (55.1%). However, other conferences may represent important locations to identify additional CoP members. For example, members identified AMS (27.1%) and NSTA (26.2%) as being of interest, and these are meetings designed for atmospheric scientists and K12 community members - two currently underrepresented groups in the GER CoP. Only two people reported not attending and not planning to attend conferences. A mix of formal and informal opportunities to engage with the GER community is seen as a positive. The high emphasis on e-mails and community events highlights the importance of personal networks for bringing in new potential CoP members. While the largest groupings of members are likely to be found at EER, GSA and AGU meetings, other meetings represent important opportunities to further expand the CoP through networking. Communication, coordination, or intentional collaboration across organizations planning such events could further strengthen the CoP and expand access to opportunities for member engagement.

Individual professional development needs & structures

GER CoP members were asked to rate items related to five categories of professional development (PD) opportunities that they needed in order to advance as a geoscience education researcher. These were opportunities for learning, expanding productivity, improving research skills, dissemination and other. There appears to be a strong desire for PD, with only 0.0 − 25.2% responding that they had no need for any PD in each area. Members were also asked what kinds of shared community practices, structures and resources they needed. These are opportunities to provide or expand on existing efforts to steward the GER CoP.

Among the GER CoP, there is a strong desire for methodological training, including workshops on specific theoretical frameworks, methods or tools (66.4%) and repositories for specific methods (58.9%) (Figure 3). There is also a strong desire for relationships that fuel PD, whether from GER peers (54.2%) or interactive community knowledge exchanges (e.g. roundtables, workshop breakout room discussions; 52.3%). Collaborative production events were also seen as highly desirable opportunities to fuel productivity. This was the case for community conversations across both GER (49.5%) and DBER (24.3%), as well as writing events focused on a collaborative product (31.8%) or individual work (30.8%). These events are also opportunities to advance research skills. The most popular PD topics on individual research skills included theoretical frameworks from adjacent disciplines (e.g. educational psychology, sociology, organizational psychology) (51.4%), mixed-method (50.4%) and qualitative research methods (41.1%), and research project design (41.1%). This aligns with the popularity of the NAGT-GER-led session at GSA, and with enrollment at GER-focused workshops at the EER. Two other research skills identified as of high interest for PD were preparing grant proposals (43.0%) and building a research group or local CoP (41.1%). One challenge of being a relatively small research community is the limited number of individuals who may feel equipped to lead PD options like these. Additionally, with so many members in teaching-focused roles, there may not be adequate incentives to encourage members to take on this service. Support for desired PD opportunities may require bringing in others, such as other DBER experts, cognitive psychologists, and sociologists.

Figure 3. Percent of respondents identifying different learning-related professional development opportunities requested by the community.

Though it has been almost two decades since the Wingspread Report called for more peer-reviewed publication venues (Manduca et al., 2004), the journal options to publish GER continues to be a perceived limit on productivity (36.4%). Though more traditional geoscience venues are publishing GER, it is also the case that some editors have not always understood the relevance of GER. For an example of this tension, we point readers to a call for papers for GSA Today from Ducea and Copeland (2021), which suggested that education papers would not be included in the journal’s research articles, and the response to the editors from Crowder et al. (2022). The growing number of submissions to JGE and the misperceptions of GER relative to traditional geoscience research have increased the need for expanded publication opportunities. In terms of developing dissemination skills, GER CoP members perceive a need for PD in talking with geoscientists unfamiliar with GER (32.7%), preparing manuscripts for other education research journals (32.7%), JGE (29.9%) or other science research journals (23.4%). However, 21.5% reported having no dissemination-related PD needs. Of those, roughly 40% identified GER as either not a focus or only a minor focus of their scholarly research and therefore they may not perceive a need to publish GER.

The single most important aspect for PD appeared to be associating it with other conferences (e.g. GSA, AGU), likely to maximize the impact of travel-related money. Offering opportunities where geoscience community members are already present also has a greater likelihood of bringing new members into the community, and welcoming members for whom GER represents a smaller portion of their scholarly work. Single or half-day meetings/workshops were slightly preferred over multiple day (or multiple half-day) meetings/workshops (43.9 vs. 40.2%). Though this needs assessment survey was administered during COVID-related travel restrictions, there still appears to be a strong desire for face-to-face interactions. Allowed to check multiple boxes, 63.2% of the GER CoP reported preferring face-to-face meetings, 57.9% online/virtual interactive meetings/workshops, and 50.5% webinars (a virtual presentation followed by a Q&A). Each format offers its own challenges and opportunities. However, online or hybrid PD options can be more accessible in terms of travel time and cost. Personal connections can greatly enhance the GER CoP, so formal and informal networking opportunities should be strategically considered by organizers, regardless of format. Additionally, volunteering to organize (and participating in) networking events is one way that early career and newer community members can engage and increase their visibility in the community without the pressure of a specific GER project.

Perceptions of GER community needs: Practices, structures and resources

We identified twelve possible community needs in line with calls for greater use of ICON processes and FAIR principles (Fortner et al., 2022; St. John et al., 2022) as well as a review of resources in other DBER fields. We asked respondents to rank each of these as a high, moderate, or low need to advance the GER discipline. The most frequently identified high-level needs were community conversations about the interaction of research and practice, development of an alliance to support efforts across organizations, and methodology workshops (Figure 4). The lowest needs were project registries (where researchers register research plans in advance), community conversations on internationalization of the GER community, and a GER-focused traveling workshop. Though identified as a low need, we would counter that conversations about the internationalization of our community can only strengthen the existing CoP. Expanding the CoP to be more intentionally inclusive of members outside the US touches directly on the “networked” principle of ICON (Goldman et al., 2022), and would allow for the testing of hypotheses in broader multi-site case studies (St. John & McNeal, 2017). Intentional coordination and collaboration across leadership of formal GER-supporting organizations in the format of a virtual summit is one way to advance coordination and collaboration (alliance) across these organizations and facilitate internationalization.

Figure 4. Number of survey respondents identifying different community needs as high, moderate, low, no need, or N/A. For the full text of items represented by each bar, please see question 5 in the Supplemental File.

Independent of the previous question, we asked respondents to identify shared community practices, structures and resources needed to advance their GER work individually. We discuss these here due to their community focus. The two most common practices are a centralized, open-access repository for DBER/GER data (45.8%) and standardization of how data is reported and archived (30.8%). These related practices connect to the idea of open sharing. Greater data sharing would allow for individuals with more limited resources and access to large sample sizes (e.g. community college instructors) to address research questions. Schinske et al. (2017) noted that community college faculty are well positioned to address important BER questions, especially given their diverse stakeholders (AACC, 2023); however, they lack the incentives and support more common at research-focused institutions. Easing data access is one way to lower an unnecessary bar for entry to conducting research, as well as conducting more inter-institutional studies. Journals that publish GER could facilitate such data access by adopting emerging standard human subjects data practices (e.g. American Psychological Association, 2023).

The most common community structure identified was seed grants to start GER projects. Several respondents noted that GER can be inexpensive, and that even small grants would be helpful to those doing the bulk of undergraduate education. While a formal one-on-one mentorship program received less interest (19.6%), informal meetings with other GER scholars (48.6%), special interest groups (45.8%), and opportunities to collaborate with specialists from other disciplines (44.9%) were all popular. Funding could facilitate some of these gatherings, particularly in more accessible online spaces. It can be difficult for newer community members to get connected with others. Additionally, collaborating with specialists from other disciplines requires both time and relationships. These specialists likely lack incentives to collaborate with GER members. Opportunities to engage them as featured speakers could facilitate information exchange. If funding is available, GER PIs could consider asking their “external” colleagues to participate in training opportunities as part of their grant’s broader impact work.

The four most popular community resources were an expanded GER Toolbox (53.3%), reports that compare data, methods and studies across DBER (47.7%), more validated instruments (40.2%), and a more comprehensive directory of GER people and opportunities for students (36.4%). These are all community resources that would support the most frequently mentioned individual PD needs described above. Less frequently selected, but probably of great interest to a smaller number of community members, was the creation of a list of individuals who might serve as promotion and tenure package reviewers (17.8%).

Conclusions: a look back and a path forward

The growth of the GER community of practice can be modeled based on the Wenger (1998) and Wenger et al. (2002) stages. Above, we present an overview of the early stages of the GER CoP with timeframes that appear to represent shifts in the community. The GER CoP appears to have moved through the potential and coalescing stages, and be situated in the maturing stage. We conducted a needs assessment survey to identify opportunities for positive momentum through the stewardship and possible transformation stages. While the survey provides only a snapshot of the community, we identified several potentially relevant themes to inform how the GER community’s momentum could be sustained through the ebb and flow of the evolving needs. The numbering below is intended to help the reader refer to specific points, and not to convey a ranking of priorities.

1. Proper community stewardship requires the diversification and inclusion of leadership with respect to disciplinary, cultural and theoretical perspectives. There are opportunities for the CoP to establish additional connections with existing groups and those groups who do not currently identify with the CoP to better serve their needs.

2. GER is a more inclusive term than originally reported in the DBER report, which centered on geology or geology-related disciplines. However, the majority of community members still report having geology or geology-related backgrounds. As the CoP evolves, it would benefit from intentionally creating spaces for cultural differences across geoscience subdisciplines.

3. As there are more members who have or are in the process of earning terminal degrees in GER, more attention is needed to determine how to best support researchers in being recognized for GER work in promotion and tenure processes to ensure the sustainability of the discipline.

4. Positive interactions with community members using a variety of venues and media can serve as a feedback mechanism to help newer members develop a sense of belonging and sustain the community.

5. While a majority of current CoP members share interests in a relatively small number of conferences, others offer opportunities to expand the CoP. Additionally, virtual meeting technologies offer opportunities for more intentional community stewarding through regular, non-conference gatherings. Additional opportunities for networking including informal meetings with other GER scholars, special interest groups, and collaborations with other disciplines were also popular visions to advance the community.

6. More opportunities for knowledge exchange, relationship building, and collaboration are needed to foster continued community development. This will necessitate purposefully reaching out to those who may not currently identify with the CoP.

7. Strongly desired community resources include data repositories and standardization of data reporting. A data repository could propel GER forward by making research more accessible to those not at research institutions, who traditionally have access to more resources, including larger sample populations.

8. Relatively small seed grants are a community structure that could advance GER. These could be used to advance other themes mentioned here (e.g. supporting virtual, non-conference gatherings).

9. Greater standardization and comparisons of data across studies requires more validated instruments (and instruments validated with new groups), shared in an open format like an expanded GER Toolbox.

10. More generally, we suggest that there be additional opportunities to check in on the state of the GER CoP, potentially through redistributions of the same survey through diverse listservs and e-mail lists. There is not a set timeline for how often this should occur, but could follow larger community efforts to advance the CoP.

While the GER CoP has advanced and matured over the years, members have offered visions forward to ensure the community receives proper stewardship. This will require at least small amounts of funding to support collaborations between and outside of GER, with training and networking opportunities to expand the capacity of GER. We encourage all readers to become more involved in the GER CoP, possibly in a leadership position to help cultivate the very resources they need.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the members of the GER CoP who responded to the needs assessment survey. Early versions of this manuscript benefited greatly from conversations with Kristen St. John.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.