Results from the Geoscience Education Research (GER) Survey: Data for Setting Priorities in the GER Community Webinar Monday, June 13, 2016 12:00 PM Pacific.

Results from the Geoscience Education Research (GER) Survey: Data for Setting Priorities in the GER Community Webinar Monday, June 13, 2016 12:00 PM Pacific | 1:00 PM Mountain | 2:00 PM Central | 3:00 PM Eastern Webinar Leaders Kristen St. John, James Madison University Karen McNeal, North Carolina State University Heather Macdonald, The College of William and Mary Kim Kastens, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University Welcome to the webinar. My name is Kristen St. John and I will be joined by Karen McNeal, Heather Macdonald, and Kim Kastens. The webinar will focus on results from the spring 2016 geoscience education research survey that probably some of you contributed to, and thank you for that. We think the results are going to be helpful for setting priorities in the GER community and we are excited to share them with you. This webinar and the survey are supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. During the presentation you are welcome and encouraged to type in comments and questions in the chat box which should be visible to the right of the slide view. Our goal is to leave time at the end of the presentation to address questions. In addition, the webinar, along with the comments and questions in the chat box, is being recorded, and it will be posted soon online. We will send you the link to that. Go to NEXT SLIDE [What was advertised: Please join us for a webinar on Monday, June 13 at 3:00 pm (Eastern) to learn and discuss the results from the Spring 2016 geoscience education research (GER) community needs survey. There were 185 responses from geoscience education researchers and scholars. This is a rich dataset that can be used to help set priorities for the GER community on career navigation, professional development, publication needs, access to GER data to support meta-analyses and other studies, and access and development of geoscience education research instruments and tools. The survey and the webinar are supported by the NSF.] The survey and this webinar are part of the Geoscience Education Research: Community Synthesis and Planning Project funded by the National Science Foundation through grant DUE

Presentation Overview
Background (Kim, Kristen, Heather) Context for GER Community Building Efforts Relevant Outcomes from the 2015 GER Workshop Motivation and Design of the GER Survey (Kristen) Results of the Survey (Karen) Respondents’ Roles and Training in GER Ranked Needs from the Community Differences by Groups Open Response Feedback Implications and Discussion (Kim) Proposed Priorities for the GER Community Questions/Discussion Heather Macdonald The College of William and Mary Kristen St. John James Madison University Karen McNeal North Carolina State University To give you a sense of how the webinar will proceed: First we will provide some background to provide context for where the survey fits within GER and GER community building efforts. One of those efforts in particular will we spend a little time on - Heather will share some of the outcomes of the GER workshop that took place last summer. That helps set the stage for understanding the motivation and design of the survey itself. Then Karen will lead the bulk of the presentation by walking us through the survey results. These will include results on the composition of the GER Community, ranked needs from the community, some differences we see by sub-groups, and then a preliminary look at some of the open response feedback. Lastly, based on those results, Kim will share our proposed set of priorities for the GER community, and then open it up for discussion. Go to NEXT SLIDE Kim Kastens Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University

Context for GER Community Building Efforts
Background Context for GER Community Building Efforts OK, Kim will start us off on the background information now. [Do these section breaks help? Transition point for next presenter to start. But page rather boring. Only expect to be on it a moment though]

A Phylogenetic Tree of DBER in the Geosciences
Background: GER Evolution Live Virtual Complex Systems Modeling Expert-Novice Visualizations Field Environment Learning Resources Spatial Affective Domain Geoscience Expertise Audience Temporal Pre/Mis- Conceptions Curricula Cognitive Studies Learning Outcomes What Works? Programs A Phylogenetic Tree of DBER in the Geosciences Modified from the Webinar on “Discipline-based Education Research (DBER) and Geoscience” By David Mogk and Kim Kastens Teaching & Learning

Webinar to share and discuss GER survey results
Background: Survey is Part of a Trajectory of GER Community Building Efforts Shaping the Future of Geoscience Education Research Project (PI: Heather Macdonald) Geo-DBER webinar Summer 2015 Earth Educator Rendezvous Workshop: Synthesizing Geoscience Education Research: Where are we? What is the path forward? Fall 2015 NAGT GER Division hosts GSA session on Methods for Conducting GER Letters of Intent due for JGE theme issue call for papers on: Synthesizing Results and Defining Future Directions of Geoscience Education Research Geoscience Education Research: Community Synthesis and Planning Project (PI: Kristen St. John) Spring 2016 Start migration of JGE back issue to open online access Summer 2016 Survey of geo ed researchers and scholars to further ID and rank GER needs Webinar to share and discuss GER survey results Design and begin building online GER toolbox to address identified community needs Earth Educator Rendezvous Workshop: GER Community Planning workshop, and Other GER professional development workshops by members of the community GER theme issue articles-Literature Reviews, C&I, Research, and Commentaries due to JGE Fall 2016 NOW The Future: GER priorities and actions that are data-driven and community-driven Post online report of ‘15 GER workshop results Winter 2016 So as GER evolved as a discipline-based education research field we have also seen some GER Community-Building efforts – to make it stronger, more effective, and efficient. And the survey is part of a trajectory of recent GER community building efforts. You can see it situated (in blue) in this timeline of some of the recent steps along that trajectory of community building. If we move earlier on this 1-year timeline, we can see that last summer there was a GER workshop at the Earth Educator’s Rendezvous (and we will here more about outcomes of that in a moment). Last Fall the NAGT GER Division hosted a very good session on Methods for conducting GER at GSA. In the Winter of 2016 letters of intent for a theme issue dedicated to synthesizing GER results were submitted by members of the community, and the digital migration of decades of Journal of Geoscience Education back issues began in the Spring. If we look towards later this summer there are also several GER community activities including a 2nd GER workshop at the Earth Educators’ Rendezvous, at which we want to address some of the needs highlighted in the survey data. Go to NEXT SLIDE [Emphasis here is on GER Community Building Efforts. We recognize there is a rich foundation on geo ed research done by individuals and teams prior to this and concurrent with this timeline. And the goal is to help such research advance (and thereby teaching and learning in the geosciences advance) by building a stronger GER community – by identifying and prioritizing needs, address community needs, synthesizing results (what do we know in GER?) and broaden community input and participation in the process.] NAGT GER Division presence

Relevant outcomes from the 2015 GER workshop
Background Relevant outcomes from the 2015 GER workshop Next, Heather will tell us some of the relevant outcomes from the 2015 GER workshop.

Background: 2015 GER Workshop on Synthesizing Geoscience Education Research
~50 participants geo ed researchers plus cognitive science practitioners interested in GER Initial discussions and ideas on: What is the scope of geoscience education research? What do we know, what do we want to know, what do we need to move the field forward? What are future directions and priorities of GER? Heather will change this The 2015 workshop was funded by the National Science Foundation through grant DUE , Shaping the Future of Geoscience Education Research: Synthesizing Results and Articulating Future Directions (Heather Macdonald, PI). The workshop was facilitated by Heather Macdonald, Anthony Feig, Laura Lukes, Karen McNeal, Eric Riggs, and Kristen St. John.

Outcome: Recognition of the broad spectrum of the GER community Practitioner – Scholar – Researcher “Boarder-Crosser” vs. Formally trained in GER Career level differences Geoscience (Disciplinary Science) Content Geo-DBER Social Science Methods Advancing Teaching & Learning Geo- SoTL Education Research One of the outcomes of the GER workshop was simply the recognition of how broad the community is that conducts GER, and is interested in the results of GER. For example – practitioners depend on the results of GER, but there are geoscience educators who are very good in the classroom, field, or lab and develop and test original curriculum and share that with others. We could consider them Geoscience Scholars of Teaching and Learning (which is abbreviated Geo-SoTL on the diagram – blending the yellow and purple fields). And we would expect that scholarship has a dissemination aspect to it, where they are dissemination to their peers so it can advance teaching and learning beyond their particular setting. Then those researchers who are developing and testing research questions and hypotheses on teaching and learning in the geoscience are almost certainly bring in social science methods to design their study. This then is at the center of this diagram and what Kim was talking about at the beginning of the presentation as Discipline Based Education Research (DBER). From the workshop we also saw a range in the background or training of those who do GER – where many (including all of the presenters) were formally trained in a different geoscience field (e.g., sedimentology) and then expanded our research interested to include geoscience education research, thus we are “boarder-crossers”. And more recently we see faculty who have formal graduate training in GER. This too results in some career level differences in outlook and needs in the GER community. Go to NEXT SLIDE DBER = Discipline-based education research SoTL = scholarship on teaching and learning Figure modified from one presented at the 2015 GER workshop by Laura Lukes, former NAGT GER Division President (see original figure in Lukes et al., 2015).

Outcomes: A conceptual model for strength of evidence of GER community claims Recognition that most GER evidence lies in the Practitioner Wisdom and Case Study levels JGE theme issue on GER ~35 letters of intent ~1/2 intend to write literature reviews, which will increase GER data aggregation and synthesis Another outcome of the workshop last summer was the introduction and modification of model to use when considering the strength of evidence of community claims on “what we know”, “what we are confident about” about teaching and learning in the geosciences. The diagram shown is one that Karen and I developed based on something similar that is used in the medical research field. There is a lot folded in here so if you are interested you can read more about it by going to the link provided, but just two key points from it for our discussion here when we think about GER community needs is that (1) most GER evidence lies in the Practitioner Wisdom and Case Study levels (the green and yellow fields on the diagram) and those are valuable. (2) But what we would like to see are more Cohort Studies, Meta-Analyses and Reviews, (the orange, light blue, and dark blue fields) which can then feedback into Practitioner Wisdom. A related workshop outcomes then was the decision to have a theme issue in the Journal of Geoscience Education specifically on Synthesizing Results GER and the theme issue editors (Karen, Tony Feig, Heather Petcovic, Alison Stokes, and myself) were really pleased to see so many letters of intent, and many of those being literature reviews Which we think will help address this need. Go to NEXT SLIDE [Few GER studies at higher levels on the pyramid  theme issue helps address it The interest we saw among the 2015 GER workshop participants in having a GER theme issue in JGE is panning out. Over 35 letters of intent were submitted in January for the theme issue. Many are from people that were at the summer workshop, but it also includes submissions from other people too, so I think we are seeing nice broad interest and intent to follow-though with manuscripts. Most of the letters describe papers that will be collaboratively written. About half are intending to write Literature Reviews, and the rest are a mix of Commentaries, C&I, and Research papers. The literature review topics look good - some examples include theoretical frameworks as applied to recruitment and retention; reviews on how US programs are preparing graduate students to conduct GER; TA training practices and measurements; evaluation of spatial and temporal reasoning in geoscience instruction; and factors supporting institutional success in diversifying the geosciences, how DBER in other fields can inform geo-DBER. Many others too.] Model proposed by St. John and McNeal and modified by input from the GER workshop participants

Background: Emerging Themes from the 2015 GER Workshop to Support and Strengthen the GER Community
Identify/Share/Develop: appropriate instruments to address research questions in GER best practices in quantitative & quantitative GER research methodologies Develop/Compile a GER resource “Toolbox” Access/Analyze past GER results Write Literature Reviews Develop a GER Data Repository Mentorship by active/senior geoscience education researchers Identify Common “Core” Curricula for GER graduate education Strategic “Outreach” to non-GER colleagues on the value and importance of GER to geoscience education practice Collaborate-collaborate-collaborate, and include social scientists From St. John and Macdonald et al 2015 GSA presentation

Motivation and Design of the GER Survey

Motivation and Design of the GER Community Survey
Broaden community input and discussion Recognized the spectrum of GER community Reached out to GER workshop participants, GER theme issue authors, recent JGE authors, NAGT GER Division, GSA Geo Ed Division Designed questions that built on GER workshop findings NAGT GER Division survey of members findings: 84 responses, administered in 2014 Highest interest: opportunities for networking, updates on funding Strong interest: professional development on preparing grant proposals, mentoring from experienced researchers, skill development in GER research methods Education Research So, building on workshop themes that Heather mentioned, we were motivated to gain broader input from those who do geoscience education research and from those who are impacted by the results of the research – geoscience practitioners. And we wanted to make sure we were reaching out to community members who may not have had the opportunity to be at the workshop last year. Therefore the survey was advertised widely via different listservs or groups. The questions on the survey build on last year’s workshop outcomes, as well as on findings from the NAGT Geoscience Education Division survey of their members that they sent out soon after the division was established in And the members were particularly interested in opportunities that would assist career advancement and research skills. You can see a description of the results of their survey in their 2014 Winter newsletter. Go to NEXT SLIDE [Language from our survey: A recent geoscience education research (GER) survey and recent workshop discussions have identified several areas of need to support GER researchers and those who benefit from the outcomes of their research, including geoscience education practitioners. The purpose of this survey is to share with the broad geoscience education community a compiled list of needs for your consideration, review, and ranking. Your feedback will help the GER community prioritize community needs, and strengthen the community of practice. Your responses to this survey will be kept confidential. You are not required to provide your name or other identifiable information. All data will be reported in aggregate. We recognize that there is a spectrum to what the community means by "geoscience education research"; it involves the development and application of new geoscience teaching innovations and curricula, as well as the development and testing of geoscience education research questions and hypotheses. These can be characterized as the scholarship of geoscience teaching and learning (geo-SoTL), and geoscience discipline-based educational research (geo-DBER), respectively. Both SoTL and DBER are important for improving the geoscience teaching practice. From NAGT GER Division Winter 2014 newsletter: We had 91 people respond to the Fall 2014 membership survey. The goal of the survey was to identify the membership’s expectations of the Division so that we can pursue issues of broad interest. Here we present a summary of the survey results. Overall, 91 people started and 84 people completed the online survey. Participants were fairly well distributed throughout the NAGT divisions, although most participants came from the Central or Eastern Sections (Fig 1). Most participants are either at 4-year M.S. and/or Ph.D.-granting Institutions (n=39) or Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (n=25), although there were also participants from 2-year colleges (10), K-12 institutions (n=8) and other research institutes (n=2). The survey included several Likert-style questions to identify what our members hope to receive from their participation in the GER Division as well as the types of professional development they need at this stage in their career. Participants ranked opportunities to network with other geoscience education re-searchers and news and updates about funding opportunities available to the GER community the highest out of a variety of activities for the Division to ad-dress. More than half the survey participants (n>42) expressed interest in professional development to prepare grants or proposals, mentorship from experienced geoscience education researchers, and opportunities to strengthen their skills at research design, mixed methods techniques, qualitative and quantitative techniques. ] NAGT GER Division member survey results: The GER Exchange [newsletter], Dec 14, 2014,

GER Community Survey IRB compliant, participant consent
Purpose: get broader feedback on needs identified in GER workshop and GER Division member survey, so GER community can organize around and address priority needs. Characterize Respondents Background/Roles Geo-SoTL Geo-DBER Geo-Practitioners Current Position Training The survey itself was online, and IRB compliant. Participants’ responses were anonymous. After communicating the goal of the survey as getting broader feedback on GER community needs, there were questions to help characterize respondents background or roles. These included questions that would help us see how responds saw themselves fitting within the GER community, and their current position and if they had formal graduate school training in GER. Go to NEXT SLIDE

GER Community Survey 14 “needs” identified in prior work
Dropdown Likert-scale menu options: 4-agree 3-tend to agree 2-tend to disagree 1-disagree Consider separately: Your needs Your perception of community needs A major section of the survey was were respondents were asked consider 14 needs identified in the GER workshop and NAGT member surveys. They used a dropdown menu where they could indicate to what extent they agreed or disagreed with it being a need. And do that reflecting on their own needs, as well their perceived needs of the community as a whole. I know the font in screenshot of the survey items is small, but you will see each of these items listed in larger font shortly when Karen reports on the results. Go to NEXT SLIDE

GER Community Survey Opportunity for written feedback on:
Highest ranking needs Needs not already included in survey Practitioner perspectives on GER Lastly, the survey also included the opportunity for respondents to provide written feedback on: their highest ranking need, needs that already included in the survey (issues that were not directly distilled from earlier work) and a couple of open response question targeted specifically to practitioners, because (as the GER strength of evidence pyramid showed earlier), GER results should ultimately inform practice so we want that practitioner (end-user) perspective. Go to NEXT SLIDE

Respondents’ Roles and Training in GER
Results Respondents’ Roles and Training in GER So now what you are waiting for, the results – Karen will take it from here…..

GER Survey Results: Strong representation from Geo-DBER, Geo-SoTL, and Geo-Practitioner community members. 185 responses Geo-SoTL Geo-DBER Geo- Practitioner Will need to clarify that these are not mutually exclusive. A respondent could respond yes to all 3 – that they deve/test GER questions AND dev/apply new teaching innovations AND teach undergrad geosciece courses Karen – can you determine how many respondents checked Yes for #3 and No for #1 + 2? Would that be a reasonable = practitioner?

GER Survey Results: Most are “Boundary-Crossers” into GER.
Consistent with high number of respondents developing and applying new teaching innovations (Geo-SoTL) My thought with the bullet is that it makes sense that those new to GER would migrate to Geo-SoTL (rather than going fully into Geo-DBER). It is referring back to the data in the previous slide that showed 88% of respondents develop and apply new teaching innovations.

GER Survey Results: Most hold college or university faculty positions, but many other professionals are also in the GER community. Made the graph on the right the same color as “other professionals” in the pie chart. A question we might expect: How can we promote greater collaboration in the GER community?

Ranked Needs from the Community
Results Ranked Needs from the Community Karen – maybe emphasize here that what you will show next we want to spend some time on because it contains a lot of data, which we think will be of strong interest.

GER Survey Results: Average Ranking of Perceived Community Needs
Your Perceived Community Needs Tend to Disagree Tend to Agree Disagree Agree A database of published surveys and instruments for GER An online basic skills GER toolbox for those new to GER methodologies Assistance in making GER results accessible & meaningful to geoscience educators (i.e., practitioners) An annotated bibliography of "best practice" papers in GER Prof dev/assist. identifying the best instrumentation to address particular research questions within GER Professional development/assistance with developing quantitative GER research methodologies Mentorship by active/senior GER researchers Professional development/assistance with developing qualitative GER research methodologies Networking opportunities for GER and social (e.g., cognitive) science researchers Community needs first – that is what is shown here. Color (black vs green text) only used to make it easier to read when looking through the list of needs Limitation -preliminary analysis based only on word frequency. Next step - look for themes and insights into reasons why these are high need areas. Respondents generally showed a need for all of the items in Q4 (Average = 3.17 of 4.00) Confirmation that there are many GER community needs. Use this to set priorities. Do natural grouping exist? Respondents generally saw a greater need for the community than themselves (Average “you” = 3.00; Average “Community” = 3.34) Statistical Differences in responses based on the five factors were observed primarily in the areas of: Networking, access to a GER toolbox, GER Curriculum for training grads, and several areas for the individual researcher (e.g., quantitative and qualitative methods, increasing value among Non-GER peer faculty, increasing mentorship in GER, Access to Survey databases). Access to GER data from published studies (e.g., a GER data repository) Assistance in educating non-GER colleagues on the value and important of GER Assistance with developing Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols for GER involving human subjects A national distinguished lecture series for GER A commonly agreed upon curriculum for graduate studies in GER

GER Survey Results: Average Ranking of Community and Individual Needs
Your Needs Your Perceived Community Needs Tend to Disagree Tend to Agree Disagree Agree Assistance in making GER results accessible & meaningful to geoscience educators (i.e., practitioners) An annotated bibliography of "best practice" papers in GER A database of published surveys and instruments for GER An online basic skills GER toolbox for those new to GER methodologies Prof dev/assist. identifying the best instrumentation to address particular research questions within GER Professional development/assistance with developing quantitative GER research methodologies Mentorship by active/senior GER researchers Professional development/assistance with developing qualitative GER research methodologies Networking opportunities for GER and social (e.g., cognitive) science researchers Access to GER data from published studies (e.g., a GER data repository) Assistance in educating non-GER colleagues on the value and important of GER Assistance with developing Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols for GER involving human subjects A national distinguished lecture series for GER A commonly agreed upon curriculum for graduate studies in GER Respondents generally saw a greater need for the community than themselves (Average “you” = 3.00; Average “Community” = 3.34)

GER Survey Results: Average Ranking of Community and Individual Needs
Your Needs Your Perceived Community Needs Open Response comments highest word frequencies Tend to Disagree Tend to Agree Disagree Agree Assistance in making GER results accessible & meaningful to geoscience educators (i.e., practitioners) An annotated bibliography of "best practice" papers in GER A database of published surveys and instruments for GER An online basic skills GER toolbox for those new to GER methodologies Prof dev/assist. identifying the best instrumentation to address particular research questions within GER Professional development/assistance with developing quantitative GER research methodologies Mentorship by active/senior GER researchers Professional development/assistance with developing qualitative GER research methodologies Networking opportunities for GER and social (e.g., cognitive) science researchers Access to GER data from published studies (e.g., a GER data repository) Assistance in educating non-GER colleagues on the value and important of GER Assistance with developing Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols for GER involving human subjects A national distinguished lecture series for GER A commonly agreed upon curriculum for graduate studies in GER Qualitative responses supported quantitative findings with emphasis on professional development, assistance/access to surveys and instruments, and need for data repositories as GER priority areas. Limitation -preliminary analysis based only on word frequency. Next step - look for themes and insights into reasons why these are high need areas.

Results Differences by Group

GER Survey Results: Some Differences Among Respondent Roles/Positions.
Online “Basic Skills” GER Toolbox Agree An online toolbox may benefit those new to GER the most, but many current GER workers also interested in such a resource. Tend to agree Tend to disagree Independent Sample Kruskal-Wallis Non-parametric Test; statistically significant (p<0.05) among the Position factor Based on individual need Comments on Online basic skills: Differences perhaps influenced by wording of item “basic skills”. Survey results can help define the tools for an online toolbox Disagree Does not dev/test GER questions/hypotheses [not currently conducting geo-DBER research] Does dev/test GER questions/hypotheses

Mentorship Common GER Graduate Curriculum Tend to agree Agree Tend to disagree Disagree Degree in other field (e.g., geoscience) Degree in GER Those who have a graduate degree in GER somewhat more interested in a common GER graduate curriculum than those with graduate degrees in other field (e.g., geoscience). Agree Faculty Other Grad Student Post Doc Tend to agree Tend to disagree Disagree Independent Sample Kruskal-Wallis Non-parametric Test One question statistically significant (p<0.05) among the Position factor Based on individual need Those early in their professional GER career value mentoring the most.

Quantitative Skill Assist. Qualitative Skill Assist. Quantitative and qualitative skill assistance appears more consistently important to those who teach undergraduate geoscience, than for those who do not teach at this level/in this field. Agree Tend to agree Tend to disagree Disagree Independent Sample Kruskal-Wallis Non-parametric Test One question statistically significant (p<0.05) among the Position factor Based on individual need Does not teach undergrad geosci. Teaches undergrad geosci. Does not teach undergrad geosci. Teaches undergrad geosci.

Open Response on Additional Needs
Results Open Response on Additional Needs

GER Survey Results: Open Response on Additional Needs
Responses about needs not directly included in the survey point to more professional development and education, strategies/opportunities for collaboration with specialists across disciplines (e.g., social scientists), advice on GER career navigation, greater focus on target populations (e.g., K12) and teaching situations (e.g., field, distance education) and more visible and higher accredited journals. Limitation – preliminary analysis based only on word frequency, and grouping by themes. Next Step – more detailed analysis of theme areas, understand issues behind theme areas.

Practitioner Feedback on GER Topics and Sharing Results

GER Survey Results: Open Response from Practitioners – “Wish-List” of GER Research Areas
Responses point towards studies on teaching in specific content areas, developing/disseminating assessments, student motivations and attitudes, student misconceptions, and best practices for teaching and learning. Limitation – preliminary analysis based only on word frequency. Responses from Practitioners on what they wish GER would tackle point towards studies on teaching in specific content areas, developing/disseminating assessments, student motivations and attitudes, student misconceptions, and best practices for teaching and learning. Limitation – preliminary analysis based only on word frequency. Next Steps – more detailed analysis of theme areas, understand issues behind theme areas. Compare to publications in these areas. Are GER results not well transferred to practitioners? Not well understood? Or difficult to translate into practice? Nvivo was used to determine word frequencies used for open-ended responses – derivations of stem search words were allowed

Practitioner Suggestions on Sharing GER Findings
GER Survey Results: Open Response from Practitioners – Ways to Communicate GER Results Practitioner Suggestions on Sharing GER Findings Suggestions include largely traditional options, as well as targeted delivery associated with interest groups. Nvivo was used to determine word frequencies used for open-ended responses – derivations of stem search words were allowed

Implications and Discussion
Proposed Priorities for the GER Community

Implications: Proposed Priorities in the GER Community
Survey provides a rich dataset for setting priorities. Confirms findings from the GER Workshop and the NAGT Division member survey, and provides additional insights from broader respondent pool. Proposed Priorities for the GER Community: Expand access to existing instruments and tools useful in GER. Develop an online toolbox that can serve those new to GER and active GER workers. Develop resources and relationships to support GER career navigation. More targeted professional development in key GER areas. Expand and strengthen publication venues. Explore the different forms and issues associated with Data Repositories to support meta-analyses and other studies. Involve collaborations across disciplines (e.g., Geo and Social Science). A few of thoughts about implications : 1. Recall that the 3rd ranking community need is for "assistance in making GER results accessible & meaningful to geoscience educators (i.e., practitioners)". Currently, this is a need that we don't address on the implications slide. I think we need to saying that we hope the GER theme issue, esp the collection of lit reviews, will be especially helpful in addressing this need (esp since practitioners rank journal pubs as their preferred way of learning about GER). 2. Maybe worth a verbal comment on the toolbox bullet that the design and contents of a toolbox are still in the planning stages, but could be designed to address several of the highest ranking needs (from slide 21) including: database of published surveys and instruments (ranked #1 need), annotated bibliography of best practice papers(ranked #4 need; plus finding out best papers to read will also come out in theme issue lit reviews some too), and various research tools can also be highlighted in a toolbox (similar the quantitative and qualitative needs, ranked as #6 and #8). 3. Verbal comment on the career navigation bullet that this could help address the need for mentorship (ranked #7 in needs, and something that the NAGT GER Division survey of members also highlighted) - and could be designed similar to P&T prep advice for geoscience faculty (e.g., but targeted to GER faculty.

Questions and Discussion
Continue discussions online – comment field will be included with recorded webinar, and at the Earth Educators’ Rendezvous Thank you all for attending, and for your comments and questions. We look forward to continuing the discussions online (a comment field will be included with recorded webinar) and at the Earth Educators’ Rendezvous in Madison WI in July. Lastly, mid-July is also when GSA abstract submissions will be due, and we encourage you to consider submitting an abstract to the NAGT GER Division’s session on Methodological Decision Making in Geoscience Education Research. Have a great rest of your day! END webinar Session T28. Methodological Decision Making in Geoscience Education Research

Results from the Geoscience Education Research (GER) Survey: Data for Setting Priorities in the GER Community Webinar Monday, June 13, 2016 12:00 PM Pacific.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Results from the Geoscience Education Research (GER) Survey: Data for Setting Priorities in the GER Community Webinar Monday, June 13, 2016 12:00 PM Pacific."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Results from the Geoscience Education Research (GER) Survey: Data for Setting Priorities in the GER Community Webinar Monday, June 13, 2016 12:00 PM Pacific.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Results from the Geoscience Education Research (GER) Survey: Data for Setting Priorities in the GER Community Webinar Monday, June 13, 2016 12:00 PM Pacific."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback