Nsf 2004 Ci In Geosciences And Education

Geoscience Education and Cyberinfrastructure

Supported by the National Science Foundation W W W . D L E S E . O R G

Geoscience Education and Cyberinfrastructure

Report from a workshop held in Boulder, Colorado April 19-20, 2004

Sponsored by the National Science Foundation November 2004 Mary R. Marlino Director, Digital Library for Earth System Education (DLESE) Program Center Tamara R. Sumner Assistant Professor, Center for LifeLong Learning and Design, University of Colorado at Boulder Michael J. Wright Director of Technology and Operations, DLESE Program Center

Executive Summary Table of Contents Executive Summary

3

Background

6

Introduction

8

This report lays out strategies for achieving a

sensors, software, computational platforms, and data

well-integrated and synergistic relationship between

management and visualization. Success in producing

advances in geoscience education and a robust

such a workforce depends upon implementing new

cyberinfrastructure supporting geoscience research.

approaches to geoscience education that emphasize

These recommended strategies are the result of a

the kind of experiential learning that leads to

community workshop that brought together 50

technical competence and intellectual self-confidence

Workshop Approach

12

Vision Statement

13

scientists, educators, and information technology

in research. These approaches need to be systemic

Integrating Core Values

14

specialists to engage in brainstorming and spirited

throughout the entire educational system. In turn,

Goals

17

discussion about the future of geoscience education.

to be successful, the geoscience education enterprise

Recommendations

32

The importance of integrating research and education

Conclusion

36

within research and development programs in

Workshop Attendees

38

the cyberinfrastructure arena is clear. Continuing

References

40

will require application of a full suite of tools, concepts, technologies, and data products produced at the cutting edge of cyberinfrastructure.

advances in unraveling the complex interactions of the components of the Earth system—with the goal of truly understanding Earth processes—will require a scientific workforce of individuals well-trained in a discipline, but also conversant with cutting-edge approaches to

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Geoscience education and cyberinfrastructure can co-develop and complement one another, achieving a measure of success that neither one alone can achieve.

The task of the workshop was to arrive at a consensus

can now obtain 24/7 learning on-

strategy for achieving the vision of fully integrating

demand. Cyberinfrastructure projects

research and education within an emerging geocy-

should encourage the creation of informal

berinfrastructure enterprise. Six goals emerged from a

and ubiquitous learning environments that

series of intense discussions among participants repre-

capitalize on these emerging patterns

senting a range of viewpoints:

of learning.

Collaborate and build new social structures

Maximize a computational approach

Collaboration and communication are critical to

to geoscience

the practice of geoscience research and education.

The research community has harnessed the power

Future scientific discovery and innovation

of computers to better understand complex Earth

necessitate that the definition of collaboration

system problems through exciting new models,

extends beyond today’s norm to guarantee multiple

visualizations, and analysis techniques. Educators

Develop smart tools for authentic learning

projects should support teacher professional

perspectives, skill sets, and expertise. This requires:

are now beginning to integrate such approaches

Authentic learning focuses on solving real-world

development that incorporates the latest scientific

into the learning environment. However, the

problems to engage student interest and create

data, tools, and analytical techniques; develops

increasing use of computation requires that

understanding. The very nature of science—

partnerships with educators; and encourages

educators have a basic understanding of computers

involving investigation, research, analysis, and

teachers and learners to serve as co-researchers.

and relevant software. It also requires that future

discovery of natural phenomena—makes it an ideal

Partnerships should be encouraged with state

geoscientists, information technology specialists,

geoscientists develop advanced knowledge of

platform for authentic learning activities. Many

boards of education to support high stakes testing

and educators

computer science skills. Equally important, data

geoscience programs have successfully integrated

and to coordinate the development and adoption

and tools must be freely available and housed in

collaboration tools and distributed data capabilities

of materials that align with state-based standards.

repositories to establish a culture of repurposing

into the geosciences curriculum. The next

Digital libraries can play a leadership role in

between the research and education community.

challenge to be addressed in authentic learning

supporting an educational cyberinfrastructure by

requires that cyberinfrastructure projects enhance

facilitating collaboration between educational

the collection and analysis of those data through

practitioners and the research community.

• New types of partnerships across academia, government agencies, and the private sector • Multidisciplinary collaborations between

• Mentoring, scaffolding, and collaboration across age groups • Increased transparency across geopolitical boundaries so that global concerns and solutions can be applied to local communities

Create dynamic models of student understanding As our population of learners becomes more

smart tools that automate the capture, recording, retrieval, and preservation of research information.

On the strength of these six goals, workshop participants developed a set of recommendations for future

To support this goal, cyberinfrastructure projects

diverse, educators must increasingly account

should emphasize the creation of collaboration

for individual learning styles, language barriers,

Expand educator professional development

cyberinfrastructure initiatives and projects. These

tools and technologies and encourage projects

cultural contexts, and learning challenges.

The correlation between teacher preparedness and

are described in the report that follows. Participants

that embed collaboration and communication

Cyberinfrastructure can play a critical role

student participation in science is a strong one;

repeatedly emphasized the interdependencies between

skills throughout all stages of formal and informal

in reinventing concepts of testing, student

thus, investing in teacher professional development

geoscience education and geoscience research, and

comprehension, and assessment in many

programs is an investment in the future scientific

noted the important synergies between the goals and

disciplines. When coupled with new models

workforce. Educators must continually develop

recommendations detailed here with those previously articulated in other cyberinfrastructure reports.

geoscience education. Support ubiquitous learning environments

of student understanding, true student-centric

their skills; however, they are often marginalized

The pervasiveness of technology and media,

learning environments can be developed and

in the research effort, acting as mere recipients

coupled with an explosion of informal education

promulgated. Cyberinfrastructure should be

of research rather than active participants and

initiatives, has dramatically influenced where and

harnessed to better understand the specific

partners. Additionally, they often lack an engaged

how individuals learn. Through museum exhibits,

learning processes that promote comprehension

educational community through which to share

educational programming, web sites, online

and learning of geoscience concepts over time.

innovative teaching practices. Cyberinfrastructure

repositories, and e-learning courses, individuals

4

5

Background

Over the past several years, cyberinfrastructure has emerged as an important framework for the current and future conduct of science (Atkins, Droegemeier et al. 2003). Cyberinfrastructure is a term coined by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to describe new research environments in which the capabilities of advanced computing tools are readily available to researchers in an interoperable network. The concept builds on substantial prior NSF initiatives in academic computing infrastructure, supercomputer centers, terrascale networked grids, middleware initiatives, and digital libraries. Within the NSF Geosciences Directorate, reports have been issued from the atmospheric, oceanographic, and solid earth communities outlining cyberinfrastructure priorities for scientific research and education (CyRDAS 2004;

OITI Steering Committee 2002; NCAR 2003). While

The very nature of science—involving investigation, research, analysis, and discovery of natural phenomena—makes it an ideal platform for authentic learning activities.

many of these reports detail recommendations for scientific research, few delve into the myriad facets of education and how cyberinfrastructure can transform the fundamental way in which individuals learn, adapt, and think using a scientific framework.

In recognition of the dramatically changing landscape of scientific research and information technology, the NSF convened a Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure to consider the future directions of NSF-sponsored infrastructure development. In its 2003 report, the panel recommended an immediate NSF imperative to lead the charge in reinvigorating the development of a technical and social infrastructure to support science and engineering research and education. The panel also recommended a new Advanced Cyberinfrastructure Program (ACP) that offers an

Although these reports, along with the National

the workshop was consensus on a vision for cyberin-

Science Board (NSB 2003), have emphasized the

frastructure and geoscience education, the articulation

importance of integrating research and education,

of core community values that can support the

what has not been articulated are specific strategies

integration of geoscience education into future cyber-

and recommendations for achieving this integration.

infrastructure projects, the enumeration of six goals to

This report addresses this gap by focusing on the

guide these efforts, and recommendations for action.

specific needs and opportunities for cyberinfrastructure and geoscience education.

Written for the broad geoscience community, this report offers a roadmap and an initial starting point

A common thread linking past initiatives and reports

to seed discussions on how geoscience education can

is an acknowledgement of the importance of cyber-

become a critical component in cyberinfrastructure.

infrastructure to support future economic growth.

The report specifically highlights education’s unique

In this context, workforce development stands apart

role in developing a scientifically literate citizenry

opportunity to reformulate numerous processes of scientific investigation and education around

as an important facet of education. As a first step

and workforce, and the synergies between scientific

the unique opportunities of information technology (IT). The recommended investment in these

towards a fully integrated scientific research and

research and geoscience education that can result

cyberinfrastructure initiatives was $1 billion per annum (Atkins, Droegemeier et al. 2003).

education agenda, the NSF sponsored a workshop on

from such an integrated approach.

Geoscience Education and Cyberinfrastructure in April 2004, hosted by the Digital Library for Earth System Education (DLESE) Program Center. The outcome of

6

7

The Definition of Cyberinfrastructure “The term infrastructure has been used since the 1920s to refer collectively to the roads, power grids, telephone systems, bridges, rail lines, and similar public works that are required for an industrial economy to function. Although good infrastructure is often taken for granted and noticed only when it stops functioning, it is among the most complex and expensive things

Introduction

that society creates. The newer term cyberinfrastructure refers to infrastructure based upon distributed computer, information and communication technology.” – Report of the NSF Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure, Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through Cyberinfrastructure, Daniel E. Atkins, Chair, 2003 (Atkins, Droegemeier et al. 2003)

We have long been aware of numerous science problems that threaten the health and safety of the citizens of our planet. Dramatic advances in remote-sensing capabilities have enabled us to characterize and monitor the changes in our biosphere, lithosphere, atmosphere, and hydrosphere. Increasingly detailed and comprehensive observations of the Earth system have contributed to the realization that many of the environmental concerns previously understood as local problems transcend national borders and can only be understood on a global scale. Cyberinfrastructure already in place enables scientists

• Interdisciplinary education in geoscience and information technology • Increased numbers and

worldwide to access and analyze massive data sets

diversity of students in geoscience

obtained from a variety of platforms both on Earth

and information technology

and in space. As productive international research collaborations between scientists increase, this cyberinfrastructure will expand to accommodate the need to rapidly distribute data to computational

• An informed citizenry broadly knowledgeable about cyberinfrastructure and its essential role in enabling scientific discovery

facilities and analysis centers around the globe,

Workshop attendees felt strongly about the

disseminate research results, and enable scientists and

centrality of these issues, and that a broad and

policymakers to work together to develop solutions.

systemic perspective is absolutely critical to the

Building a geoscientific cyberinfrastructure, however, is incomplete without the concurrent development of a geoscientific workforce capable of maximizing its use. To this end, we need a systemic program to nurture a future workforce deeply knowledgeable across geoscientific and information technology disciplines. All citizens, whether oriented towards geoscience careers or not, should have a foundation

Community-Specific Knowledge Environments for Research and Education (collaboratory, co-laboratory, grid community, e-science community, virtual community) Customization for discipline- and project-specific applications

success of geoscience education and cyberinfrastructure initiatives.

High performance

Data, information,

Observation,

Interfaces,

Collaboration

computation

knowledge

measurement,

visualization

services

services

management

fabrication services

services

services Networking, Operating Systems, Middleware Base Technology: computation, storage, communication

in science and mathematical concepts and critical thinking skills. Thus, the notion of workforce development in

= cyberinfrastructure: hardware, software, services, personnel, organizations Integrated cyberinfrastructure services to enable new knowledge environments for research and education (Atkins, Droegemeier et al. 2003)

cyberinfrastructure must include:

8

9

INTRODUCTION

reduction of students pursuing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, thus compounding the shortfall. Continued innovation and discovery hinges upon our ability to cultivate participation and facilitate communication between scientists, researchers, and science teachers with diverse cultural backgrounds, life experiences, and ideas. African-American, Hispanic, Native American

efforts to engage historically underrepresented populations in STEM disciplines, minority students continue to enter science and technology professions at rates far below their proportional representation in the general population (NSF 2004a). Today, underrepresented U.S. born minorities holding at least a bachelor’s degree comprise only 6.7% of scientists and engineers in the labor force (NSF 2004b). Over the past 28 years, approximately 400 of the nearly 20,000 PhDs in earth, atmospheric, and

and Pacific Islander populations remain a virtually

marine sciences have been awarded to traditionally

untapped resource of scientific and technical talent to

underserved minority individuals. Yet, statistics from

fill our future workforce needs. Despite targeted

the U.S. Census Bureau indicate that over 41% of the U.S. workforce will be composed of ethnic minorities by 2050 (US Census Bureau 2004).

U.S. Students Fall Behind in Science Knowledge

Building a geoscientific cyberinfrastructure is incomplete without the concurrent development of a geoscientific workforce capable of maximizing its use.

so that students who develop an interest in STEM early in their academic careers remain engaged as they develop the capacity for further study (Jolly, Campbell

540

We face a critical national shortfall of new talent in science and mathematics. The Trends in International

U.S vs. 79% internationally for mathematics, and 53% in the U.S. vs. 67% internationally for science (Calsyn,

that recruiting and retaining historically underrepresented populations requires “sealing the pipeline”

580 560

Workforce Development and Geoscience

A recent analysis of STEM diversity initiatives indicates

et al. 2004). Workshop participants repeatedly acknowledged the promise of a robust cyberinfrastruc-

520

ture as a critical component in achieving our national

500

STEM diversity initiatives. To this end, cyberinfrastruc-

Gonzales et al. 1999).

ture initiatives should actively seek partnerships with

480

Left unaddressed, this shortfall of talent in

innovative and systemic efforts to broaden and sustain

Math and Science Study (TIMSS) reported that in 1999

mathematics and science will severely impact

460

the U.S. ranked 18th compared to other nations in

our nation’s future competitive advantage. The

440

science achievement of 8th graders (Gonzales, Calsyn

knowledge economy is dependent upon a productive,

et al. 2000). A steadily declining interest in science has

motivated workforce: one that is technologically

been reported between 4th grade and high school.

literate and positioned to contribute ideas and

The percentage of U.S. students studying mathematics

information, and engage in creative thinking. As

and science in their final year of secondary education

our need for a technical and scientific workforce

is significantly lower than other countries—66% in the

has increased, however, we have seen a significant

420

participation in geoscience by diverse communities.

Grade 4 U.S. Average

Grade 8

Grade 12

International Average

U.S. students in fourth grade score above the international average in science achievement, according to the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. However, as students approach their final year in secondary school, the performance in U.S. schools drops well below the international average. Source: Calsyn, C., P. Gonzales, and M. Frase. Highlights from TIMSS [Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study]. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1999.

10

11

Workshop Approach

Vision Statement

The purpose of the Geoscience Education and

Workshop participants felt strongly that geoscience

Workshop participants envisioned the

Cyberinfrastructure workshop was to articulate

education must work in concert, not in isolation,

impact of cyberinfrastructure on geoscience

a vision for the future of cyberinfrastructure in

with the cultural context of science, technology, and

education as potentially having an equally

geoscience education in 2010 and beyond. It was

societal trends. The progress of the last two decades

significant impact. Within the context of this

a unique opportunity to understand the values of

in achieving a more integrated perspective within the

vision, geoscience education and cyberinfrastruc-

representative participants and the requirements the

scientific and education communities was repeatedly

ture can co-develop and complement one another,

educational community deems critical to linking

acknowledged. The significant impact of systemic

achieving a measure of success that neither one alone

cyberinfrastructure with scientific and societal impacts.

initiatives such as the National Science Education

can achieve.

Standards (NSES) in advancing the integration of

The workshop was structured around 4 key issues:

science, technology, and society was also noted

• What is the vision for geoscience education and

(NRC 1996).

cyberinfrastructure? • What are the steps to achieving that vision? • How can the geoscience community integrate cyberinfrastructure to transform teaching and learning processes? • How can the needs and desires of geoscience education inform cyberinfrastructure development and impact?

During the workshop, participants created a suite of scenarios illustrating their vision for geoscience education in the year

We envision a geoscience education cyberinfrastructure that will dramatically transform the landscape of teaching

The workshop brought together 50 leaders in science,

2010. Six working groups rigorously

research, and education from across the U.S. To

analyzed these scenarios to identify

ensure broad representation, invitees included

goals, challenges, and recommendations

K-12, community college, undergraduate/graduate

for action. Four participants were selected to

will support innovative strategies for inquiry-based, collaborative learning among teachers, students, and

science, and computer science educators, informal

survey the working group activities and identify

researchers in both formal and informal settings. This cyberinfrastructure will enable free and open access to

educators, educational researchers, scientists, software

important crosscutting issues. These data were

valuable geoscience content, services, and expertise that transform geoscience education, excite a passion

developers, and students. The group was tasked with

used to inform the development of this report and

for the pursuit of geoscience careers, and promote a scientifically literate citizenry. The impact of this cyber-

systematically considering the transformative potential

synthesized into the vision, values, goals, and

of cyberinfrastructure within science and society.

recommendations that follow.

12

and learning for all. This cyberinfrastructure will promote the recognition and understanding of the connections, interactions, and relationships among local and global phenomena in the Earth system. Cyberinfrastructure

infrastructure will be an informed citizenry that embraces their responsibility as stewards of planet Earth.

13

Integrating Core Values Key Values

One important outcome of the workshop was the emergence of a set of core values, reflecting broad principles for effective participation of geoscience education in cyberinfrastructure projects: • Promoting stewardship of the Earth • Building a broad-based scientifically and technically literate society • Integrating education as a high priority in cyberinfrastructure projects • Supporting human-to-human communication and collaboration • Providing open access to educational and scientific content and data, tools, and services

recommendations considered by the participants.

Scientific and technical literacies are basic requirements for an informed and productive workforce and citizenry.

Stewardship of the Earth Cyberinfrastructure should be harnessed to encourage active and informed decision-making by all citizens with respect to the

to increase participation in geoscience education

instead emphasizes reading and mathematics in the

Earth’s resources and the impact of humans on the

and research. Cyberinfrastructure-enabled technolo-

primary grades, and biology, physics, and chemistry in

planet. With the opportunities and stresses presented

gies and workforce development programs should be

secondary education. In addition, there are significant

by globalization, geoscience education is in a unique

designed to capitalize and build on these interests,

institutional barriers such as higher education’s lack of

position to promote the appreciation of Earth as

and support lifelong learning about the Earth in a rich

recognition of geoscience as a legitimate prerequisite for college admission. Cyberinfrastructure projects

a system, and to enrich and inform discussions

variety of forms and settings.

These value statements permeated participant interac-

and decisions regarding a sustainable Earth and its

tions and discussions to such a degree that they are

A scientifically and technically literate society

resources. Cyberinfrastructure should also be used to

worthy of calling out. Throughout the workshop, they

Scientific and technical literacies are basic require-

leverage the inherent interests that many learners and

provided an important touchstone for all the goals and

ments for an informed and productive workforce

citizens have in the environment and the outdoors

and citizenry. Cyberinfrastructure projects should be carefully designed to optimize interest in geoscience and science education. Declining participation in geoscience is a particular concern for all levels of education from K-12 to undergraduate and graduate.

should also support the development of technical literacies required for workforce development. Today, computation pervades the conduct of science, while new media and communication technologies pervade professional discourse and knowledge creation. Thus, it is imperative to integrate geoscience education with the range of information technology skills and competencies required of our 21st century workforce.

“Education is key to building the sense of global citizenship that global problem-solving requires.

The majority of students are electing not to study

Education as a high priority in

And it is a major tool for developing a sense of shared global values that may help spare the next

science before they enter college (Tobias 1990; Calsyn,

cyberinfrastructure development

Gonzales et al. 1999). This is not surprising, given that

Educational settings, audiences, and goals are too

today’s high school seniors are scoring at or below the

important to be adequately addressed as afterthoughts

international average in science testing (NSB 2004).

or add-ons to cyberinfrastructure projects, and instead

This situation is further exacerbated by the current

must be treated as high priorities integrated in a

dominance of “core” topics in the K-12 curriculum,

project’s overall design. The educational perspective

which usually does not include geoscience, but

can legitimately inform both the scientific research and

generation’s unnecessary, obsolete tensions between civilizations.” – J.F. Rischard, High Noon: 20 Global Problems, 20 Years to Solve Them, 2002 (Rischard 2002)

14

15

INTEGRATING CORE VALUES

technical development goals of cyberinfrastructure

Open access to educational and scientific content

projects. For cyberinfrastructure to have any impact

and data, tools, and services

on education, and in turn, for workforce development

For the full vision of cyberinfrastructure to be realized,

needs to be met, projects should adopt best practices

international open access must be a requirement.

in learner- and user-centered design, engaging

Projects should allocate some portion of their content,

educational users as co-designers. Many educators

tools, or services for educational and future scientific

throughout all grade levels are master teachers who

use, at no or low cost. Enabling future use will require

can offer insight into tools and techniques that are

processes for creating derivative works, e.g., by

effective in geoscience education.

adopting appropriate copyright models such as those

Goals The workshop attendees envisioned a future that would be significantly transformed by cyberinfrastructure. By harnessing the full power of these emerging technologies and networks,

Definition of Open Access “There are many degrees and kinds of wider and easier access to this literature. By ‘open access’ to this

educators, researchers, and learners can augment and redefine the learning process, making science and

literature, we mean its free availability on the public Internet, permitting any users to read, download,

technology more engaging and relevant to our lives.

copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them

To this end, workshop participants articulated

as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers

six goals for cyberinfrastructure in support of

other than those inseparable from gaining access to the Internet itself. The only constraint on reproduc-

geoscience education:

tion and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.”

• Collaborate and build new social structures • Support ubiquitous learning environments

– Budapest Open Access Initiative (OSI 2002)

• Maximize a computational approach to geoscience • Create dynamic models of student understanding • Develop smart tools for authentic learning

Human-to-human communication

proposed by the Creative Commons, a non-profit

and collaboration

organization seeking to promote the sharing of high-

Human communication and collaboration, particularly

quality content (Center for Internet and Society 2004).

in educational settings, should remain a major focus

Similar to the ideals of the Open Access movement,

of cyberinfrastructure projects. Multiple perspectives

which promote worldwide electronic distribution of

improve problem-solving and knowledge creation.

scientific and scholarly literature on the Internet (OSI

Contact with a caring teacher or mentor sustains

2002), access is an important prerequisite for the

and motivates learners, particularly at-risk students.

democratization of science and science education.

Cyberinfrastructure can support a broad spectrum

Workshop attendees expressed concern about the

“Today, the knowledge required to run the economy, which is far more complex than in our past, is both deeper

of communication and collaboration strategies,

trend toward privatization and proprietarization of

and broader than ever before. We need to ensure that education in the United States, formal or otherwise, is

spanning the range from face-to-face to distal, and

geoscience data resources. Together, cyberinfra-

supplying skills adequate for the effective functioning of our economy. The recent exceptional trends in U.S.

beyond, to agent-based tools and services. Technology

structure and geoscience education have a unique

productivity suggest that we are coping, but this observation should not lead to complacency.”

developments should be guided by a theoretical and

opportunity to counter this trend. Through open

empirical understanding of effective communication

access, research can be accelerated, education can be

– Remarks by Chairman Alan Greenspan, The critical role of education in the nation’s economy at the Greater

and collaboration, not solely technical possibilities. As

enriched, and learning can be shared more equitably

Omaha Chamber of Commerce 2004 Annual Meeting, Omaha, Nebraska, February 20, 2004 (Greenspan 2004)

cyberinfrastructure projects themselves become more

on a global scale.

• Expand educator professional development

complex, involving multiple and often remote partners, this value becomes even more paramount.

16

17

GOAL 1: COLLABORATE AND BUILD NEW SOCIAL STRUCTURES

Goal 1 Collaborate and build new social structures There is enormous potential in adopting new forms of social structures and teams for conducting science and engaging in authentic science learning (Okada and Simon 1995; Bennis and Biederman 1997). New social structures include flexible models for partnering

opportunity to use

across academia, government agencies, and the

cyberinfrastructure to

private sector, as well as multidisciplinary collabora-

address global concerns

tions between geoscientists, information technology

that are rooted in the

specialists, and educators (Finholt and Olson 1997;

concrete issues facing local

Pea 1999). Ad hoc teams form for the duration of a

communities. Workshop

project or experiment. Such collaborations are often

participants recognized that

characterized by vertical integration, i.e., collabora-

collaboration and team skills

tions across age groups and experience levels that lead

were equally relevant to both the

to mentoring and scaffolding of skills between and

scientific research and the education

among researchers, educators, and learners

communities. Thus, advances through

(Fischer 1998).

these collaborative efforts will inform

To achieve a deeper level of teamwork, a

and enhance both science and education.

portfolio of cyberinfrastructure projects should

Cyberinfrastructure should support

be initiated that is designed to teach and develop

projects with an international scope,

collaboration and communication skills from an

particularly those that encourage under-

early age, and to embed these skills in significant

standing local phenomena within the

“Environmental scientists and engineers increasingly consider the interplay of physical, biological, and social factors

and meaningful ways throughout all stages of

context of global issues, and those that offer

and are required to use advanced observational, database, and networking technologies. As a consequence, there

formal and informal learning.

cross-national collaborative opportunities for

is a growing need for scientists, engineers, managers, and technicians who have the ability to work on multidis-

Collaborations must also transcend national borders,

scientists, educators, and learners.

ciplinary and cross-cultural teams to use sophisticated new instrumentation, information systems, and models;

recognizing that scientific and environmental

and to interpret research results for decision makers and the general public. Fresh and innovative approaches to

challenges are not limited to geopolitical distinctions

education are needed to train individuals to undertake interdisciplinary, collaborative, and synthesis activities.”

and that the necessary expertise to solve significant problems is also distributed. International workforces

– Complex Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth, Life, and Society in the 21st Century, A 10-Year Outlook

and research environments have become increas-

for the National Science Foundation, NSF Advisory Committee for Environmental Research & Education

ingly common. The ability to look at local problems

(AC-ERE), January 2003 (AC-ERE 2003)

from a global perspective, e.g., comparing pollutants in local water supplies with similar problems in other countries, has become a necessity. Thus, there is

18

19

GOAL 2: SUPPORT UBIQUITOUS LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Goal 2 Support ubiquitous learning environments The learning landscape has altered dramatically over the past twenty years as a result of a set of complex and dynamic cultural, economic, technological, and social drivers. Historically, the focus has been on traditional learning environments such as K-12, twoand four-year undergraduate programs, and graduate schools. Yet, learning is not always mediated by a teacher or professor, or confined to formal classroom settings or accredited courses. A growing number of adults are seeking educational experiences for personal and economic gain through lifelong learning, occupational retraining, and personal development courses (Florida 2002).

Culturally, a shift in attitudes has transpired that recognizes opportunities for ubiquitous learning in our just-in-time world (Vavoula, Lefrere et al. 2004). Technology has inspired a media- and device-rich environment, with hundreds of television channels, omnipresent technologies such as mobile phones and PDAs (personal digital assistants), and millions, if not billions, of informational web pages. A 9-to-5 paradigm has been replaced by the 24/7 reality of continuous access and availability. As a result, expectations for how and when learning takes place have been dramatically raised. Future generations of learners will not buy into an outdated model of education that is rooted in the Industrial Age, when educational resources were limited, precious, and only

to be shared among the privileged few. Self-directed

Our relationship with the natural world is one of our

learning is now a required skill, and ongoing profes-

most cherished; we hike and camp in national forests,

sional development is fundamental for operating

boat and swim in our oceans and lakes, and carefully

effectively in our contemporary world.

tend our backyard gardens. These pursuits are made

This new learning landscape offers an opportunity to influence educational, as well as commercial domains. “Rather than using technology to imitate or supplement conventional classroom-based approaches,

However, fundamental research is needed to address

exploiting the full potential of next-generation technologies is likely to require fundamental, rather

the pedagogical, cognitive, and social dimensions of

than incremental reform…Content, teaching, assessment, student-teacher relationships and even

effective learning in a world where interaction and

the concept of an education and training institution may all need to be rethought…we cannot

human activities are shaped by cyberinfrastructure.

afford to leave education and training behind in the technology revolution. But unless something changes, the gap between technology’s potential and its use in education and training will only

Viewed in this light, understanding human protocols of learning, interaction, and communication is as important as understanding technical protocols for

grow as technological change accelerates in the years ahead.”

system interaction.

– Phillip Bond, Department of Commerce Undersecretary for Technology, Enhancing Education

Geoscience education is well positioned to use

Through Technology Symposium, Pasadena, CA April 29, 2004 (Bond 2004)

cyberinfrastructure to leverage natural curiosities and concerns about the Earth system. As citizens and communities grapple with maintaining, managing,

safer and more enjoyable through electronic instrumentation, maps, GPS, soil and water data, weather information, and other geoscience data. People learn about the things they need to know, and, more importantly, about the things they love to do (Csikszentmihalyi 1991). In this way, geoscience education supported by cyberinfrastructure is not just about fulfilling needs. It is about enriching the whole human experience. Cyberinfrastructure projects should be supported that investigate creating and evaluating informal and ubiquitous science learning environments, with an emphasis on developing design principles for 24/7 learning.

and improving their surroundings, this ubiquitous learning environment can help elevate their inquiries and answer immediate needs for critical information.

20

21

GOAL 3: MAXIMIZE A COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH TO GEOSCIENCE

Goal 3 Maximize a computational approach to geoscience Over the past four decades, the phenomenal increases in computing power, coupled with the significant decreases in hardware costs, have been the basis for the rising use of computation in the Earth sciences. In addition, advances in software development, network stability, and bandwidth have improved analysis of both real-time observational data and computerbased data. The availability of such computational power to the science research community (e.g., higher

to pursue studies either directly in the geosciences, or in computer and information sciences applied to the geosciences (Pandya, Contrisciane et al. 2002). However, the use of computation in geoscience education requires that the educational community maintain a basic level of technical literacy, including familiarity with computers and relevant software, such as data visualization tools, and knowledge of how to effectively use these technologies to answer scientific questions.

resolution, better physical representation and coupling

Cyberinfrastructure has the potential to bring together

in modeling systems, along with improved observa-

new approaches that can readily integrate multiple

tional resolution and data assimilation techniques)

scales, data points, and timelines to vividly illustrate

has enabled a better understanding of more complex

Earth system processes (GEON 2004). Thus, there

Earth system problems. The computational link

is a mandate to create more user-friendly tools and

between theory and observation is a fundamental part

immersive environments that allow science research

“Vast improvements in raw computing power, storage capacity, algorithms, and networking capabilities

of geoscience and how we now learn and understand

and education to be conducted and understood by

the world around us (NSF 2000).

have led to fundamental scientific discoveries inspired by a new generation of computational models

someone other than an expert in the field. It is not

Educators have begun to incorporate these scientific tools into classrooms in order to stimulate motivation and curiosity, and to support learners in developing a more sophisticated understanding of the environment. The use of computational models for simulation and the comparison to observational data can make science concepts and environmental phenomena more engaging and less abstract for learners at all levels (Manduca and Mogk 2002). Immersive technologies such as 3-D visualization and virtual reality can help transform negative or fearful perceptions of science, helping learners to reason scientifically about naturally-occurring and humaninfluenced events, and providing a stimulus for them

22

uncommon for scientists wanting to do interdisciplinary work to be frustrated and limited in their

that approach scientific and engineering problems from a broader and deeper systems perspective. Scientists in many disciplines have begun revolutionizing their fields by using computers, digital data, and

efforts to bridge disciplines because the technology

networks to extend and even replace traditional techniques. Online digital instruments and wide-area

is designed only for subject matter experts. Thus,

arrays of sensors are providing more comprehensive, immediate, and higher-resolution measurement of

software applications designed for a variety of skill

physical phenomena. Powerful ‘data mining’ techniques operating across huge sets of multidimensional

levels will also support the ability of scientists to move more easily among disciplines and their traditional

data open new approaches to discovery.”

boundaries.

– Executive Summary of the Report of the NSF Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure,

Cyberinfrastructure projects should be

Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through Cyberinfrastructure, Daniel E. Atkins, Chair, 2003

supported that incorporate computational

(Atkins, Droegemeier et al. 2003)

geoscience approaches with the development of age-appropriate tools for learners. Tool creation should be accompanied by supporting educational materials that facilitate the integration of the tools into the curriculum.

23

GOAL 4: CREATE DYNAMIC MODELS OF STUDENT UNDERSTANDING

Goal 4 Create dynamic models of student understanding Much cognitive research over the past two decades has focused on the role of individual differences and preferred learning styles in influencing learning outcomes (Bransford, Brown et al. 2000). Simultaneously, there have been major demographic shifts taking place in learning populations. Education is no longer perceived as a “one size fits all” proposition. Instead, educators are increasingly called on to tailor educational content and activities to meet the individual needs of an increasingly heterogeneous student population (Jonassen and Grabowski 1993). Educators at all levels must address many different learning styles, a broad range of disabilities or learning challenges, and diverse socio-economic populations and cultural backgrounds. Tools and services that offer such student-centered capabilities are predicated on the existence of rich, dynamic models of student understanding (Corbett, Koedinger et al. 2001). Such models would depict the key ideas that learners should understand, common learner conceptions and misconceptions, and how these ideas change over time as student understanding becomes increasingly sophisticated (AAAS 1993; AAAS 2001a; Sumner, Ahmad et al. 2004). Additionally, these models need to acknowledge how people learn, specifically how new knowledge

The implications for geoscience education are profound. Earth processes occur on extreme scales (very small, very large, very long). They are frequently not readily visible and they are almost always interdependent. Models of student learning specific to geoscience education might include dimensions such as the competencies required for global data collection, understanding the range of spatial and temporal scales that link Earth processes, and understanding the multifaceted (dynamic, thermodynamic, chemical, biological, ecological) way in which components of the Earth system are linked. What does it mean to understand these complex and subtle processes? This question is equally relevant to scientists and educators. Scientists seek to identify the next area of investigation; educators, to define boundaries or measures of understanding of what is already known. Cyberinfrastructure has the potential to reinvent the concepts of testing, student comprehension, and assessment. Educators must consider what it means for students to demonstrate understanding of Earth

What does it mean to understand these complex and subtle processes? This question is equally relevant to scientists and educators. Scientists seek to identify the next area of investigation; educators, to define boundaries or measures of understanding of what is already known.

system processes (Atkin, Black et al. 2001). Student understanding in this area must move beyond rote and nominal information. In doing so, both formal and informal geoscience education initiatives will have more promising opportunities to instill basic science concepts that can be used throughout a person’s life.

is filtered and integrated into one’s own existing

Cyberinfrastructure projects should be

cognitive structure (Yekovich, Walker et al. 1990; Voss

encouraged to address how learners of all ages

and Silfies 1996), and how existing structures are

acquire and refine geoscience concepts over time.

reshaped as a result (Ferstl and Kintsch 1999).

24

25

GOAL 5: DEVELOP SMART TOOLS FOR AUTHENTIC LEARNING

Goal 5 Develop smart tools for authentic learning Authentic learning involves solving real-world problems, addressing issues relevant to the lives of students, and linking students and scientists through data sharing, critiquing, and direct communication (Brown, Collins et al. 1989; Lave and Wenger 1991; Bransford, Brown et al. 2000). In fact, authentic

be an important part of collecting observational data of the planet. Multidisciplinary integration of data and cross-collaboration among learners of all ages is essential to making science relevant to students’ lives (NCAR 2003). The next advance for authentic learning environments requires leveraging cyberinfrastructure to enhance the collection and analysis of those data.

learning and inquiry-based science are closely coupled:

Cyberinfrastructure must provide a platform upon

both involve the critical processes of investigation,

which to build authentic and smart learning tools that

research, analysis, and discovery.

are customized for all levels of education from early

Authentic learning environments demand both technical and social support systems. They require technical infrastructure and tools to support data collection and analysis, and social infrastructure to provide the critical scientist-educator interactions to support student analysis and interpretations. This dual support, combining investigation/observation and research and analysis around real problems, can provide an ideal environment for student discovery and understanding of underlying science or mathematics principles. Many students enter the field of geoscience because of their love of nature and a desire to understand the underlying processes that define how the Earth works. One of the most enjoyable and exciting aspects of discovery is field research and the ability to observe, collect, and analyze data. Data collection activities can

grades through undergraduate education and into lifelong learning. There are numerous instances of how the current infrastructure, with its convergence of mobile, handheld, and wireless technologies, can be used to develop smart tools that support the investigation, research, and analysis of our world (Sharples 2000; OSI 2002; Hunter, Falkovych et al. 2004). This is yet another area in which educational and scientific research needs intersect. The same smart tools that are required for education will also support scientific investigation and research. Cyberinfrastructure should support projects

Collaboration and communication are critical to the practice of geoscience research and education. Future scientific discovery and innovation necessitate that the definition of collaboration extends beyond today’s norm to guarantee multiple perspectives, skill sets, and expertise.

to create intelligent, portable research tools, develop technologies that automate the capture, recording, retrieval, and preservation of field research information, and devise smart tools that enable experiential learning.

be conducted by learners at all levels, e.g. undergraduate students providing data for fossil databases, K-12 students collecting weather observations for the GLOBE program, and amateur bird watchers recording migratory bird sightings (Penual, Korbak et al. 2003). Such wide-ranging activity in the field continues to

26

27

GOAL 6: EXPAND EDUCATOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Goal 6 Expand educator professional development

curricula, student interest in science

Formal public education is “big business” in terms

especially those at two- and four-year

of the numbers of students served and the requisite

undergraduate institutions, also struggle to

infrastructure. There are approximately 47 million

stay current in the science and technology

public school students in the U.S. today, being taught

fields (Egger 2003). To have a real impact on

by 2.1 million K-12 teachers in 91,380 schools across

workforce preparedness, cyberinfrastructure must

the nation (Gerald and Hussar 2002; Hoffman 2003).

address issues of training, awareness, and general

Over 3,700 schools of higher education prepare the

educational infrastructure.

has swelled [ibid]. Thus, investments in teacher professional development are direct investments in the nation’s future scientific workforce. College educators,

There are significant issues in current educator professional practices that must

“The frequency of computer use is surprisingly low, with only about 1 in 10 lessons incorporating their

be addressed. Many

use. The explanation for this situation is far more likely lack of teacher preparedness than lack of

teacher preparation

computer equipment, given that 79 percent of secondary earth science teachers reported a moderate

programs are outdated

or substantial need for learning how to use technology in science instruction (versus only 3 percent of

and often fail to include

teachers needing computers made available to them.)”

leading-edge scientific practices and pedagogies, such as integrating data in

– 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education: Status of Secondary School Earth Science Teaching, Horizon Research, Inc., December 2000 (Horizon Research Inc. 2000)

the classroom, employing computational approaches to geoscience, and leveraging

how to construct meaningful and coherent curricula

to effectively integrate cyberinfrastructure

advanced communica-

from a vast array of online learning resources

research and innovation into teacher

tion technologies to support

available in digital libraries and other data and

education curricula.

the collaborative conduct

information repositories (AAAS 2001b; Sumner,

of science (NRC 2000a; NRC

Ahmad et al. 2004).

2000b, Sanders 2004).

Too often, teachers are marginalized and limited to passively receiving research that has been repurposed

Cyberinfrastructure should support the

for educational consumption, rather than being

Educators must develop for themselves and learn

development of educational methods, courses,

active participants in the research endeavor. In a

(NSB 2004). Research indicates strong interdepen-

how to inculcate in their students scientific habits of

and teacher certification programs that

recent national survey of K-5 science teachers, only

dencies between teacher preparation and student

mind and technical literacies. As the pace of scientific

incorporate current scientific data, tools, and

one in 10 indicated having direct interaction with

participation in science study and careers (Seymour

innovation accelerates, there will be less dependence

analytical techniques. Large cyberinfrastructure

scientists in professional development activities. For

2002). Historically, when there has been large scale,

on traditional textbooks. Future educators, at all levels,

projects should be encouraged to develop formal

those with such contact, the overwhelming impact

systemic support for science teachers and scientific

including undergraduate and graduate, must learn

partnerships with teacher preparation programs

of this experience was a better understanding of

next generation scientific and educational workforce

28

29

GOAL 6: EXPAND EDUCATOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Investments in teacher professional development are direct investments in the nation’s future scientific work force.

science content, improvement in science teaching,

prompted by the No Child Left Behind legislation have

and increased motivation and enthusiasm (Bayer

placed even greater stress on teachers. Digital libraries,

2004). Cyberinfrastructure offers an opportunity to

such as DLESE and the National Science Digital Library

rekindle the excitement of scientific inquiry within the

(NSDL – www.nsdl.org), are critical in supporting

educational community. Conversely, scientific research

teacher preparedness, promoting the development

projects can benefit by leveraging the experience

and sharing of innovative teaching practices, and

of expert and master teachers who know the types

developing a sense of community. As part of their

of lessons, data gathering methods, and tools that

leadership role in educational cyberinfrastructure,

work in different learning environments. Desirable

digital libraries should:

partnership models would offer teachers opportunities for reflective practice, new skill development, mentoring, and the excitement of participating as a full partner in science research (Loucks-Horsley, Love et al. 1998). A current promising model that cyberinfrastructure might consider emulating is the NSF’s GK-12 program, which brings research-oriented graduate students into K-12 settings (NSF 2004c). Cyberinfrastructure projects should develop significant partnerships with individuals or groups of teachers, and make available sabbatical and internship opportunities between teachers and researchers. Projects should encourage K-16 teachers and learners to act as co-designers and co-researchers. Cyberinfrastructure also has an opportunity to address the very significant issues of teacher turnover, isolation, and burnout. Today’s K-12 educator stays in the classroom an average of three to five years (NCTAF 2003). The new demands of high stakes testing

30

• act as brokers and actively facilitate strong ties and collaboration between educational practitioners and the science research community • seek to develop leadership opportunities for teachers within cyberinfrastructure initiatives • develop partnerships with cyberinfrastructure projects to make their innovations more broadly accessible and educationally relevant • develop partnerships with state boards of education to support high stakes testing and coordinate the development and adoption of materials that are aligned with state-based standards Cyberinfrastructure should support digital libraries as a critical technology thread that promotes teacher professional development, innovation, and communities of practice.

The very nature of science, involving investigation, research, analysis, and discovery of real-world phenomena, makes it an ideal platform for authentic learning activities.

Recommendations

The following recommendations were articulated by workshop participants as practical steps towards integrating geoscience research and education within the emerging cyberinfrastructure. These recommendations are organized by the core values and specific goals that emerged from the workshop. Although participants arrived at a consensus on a

are accessible

common vision, values, and goals, active engagement

via partnerships

by the entire geoscience research and education

with recognized

communities will be required to make this vision a

data archives and digital

reality. These recommendations are intended to offer

libraries, such as DLESE

important first steps towards this end.

and NSDL.

Recommendations based on the core values

• A targeted working group should be formed that includes educational outreach staff from existing funded

• A concerted effort needs to be undertaken to

cyberinfrastructure efforts. This group

document, measure, and understand the impact

should be charged with identifying specific

of cyberinfrastructure on geoscience education.

issues and solutions, within the context of their

This will require the engaged commitment of

funded projects, to the immediate challenges

educational evaluators working closely with

of integrating geoscience education into large

all stakeholders of funded cyberinfrastructure

cyberinfrastructure projects.

initiatives. • Submitters to cyberinfrastructure programs should be encouraged to clearly relate how their proposed educational activities directly address one or more of the goals outlined in this report and how they will specifically evaluate those activities. • Cyberinfrastructure projects and centers should

Recommendations based on Goal 1: Collaborate and build new social structures • A portfolio of cyberinfrastructure projects should be initiated that is designed to teach and develop collaboration and communication skills from an early age, and to embed these skills in significant and meaningful ways throughout all stages of formal and informal learning.

• Cyberinfrastructure projects that include collaboration with K-20, informal, and formal educational partners and educators should be encouraged. NSF educational initiatives, such as DLESE and NSDL, should provide leadership in this area and act as brokers between cyberinfrastructure projects, teachers, and teacher professional development opportunities. • Cyberinfrastructure should support projects with an international scope, particularly those that

ensure that their data are available for broad and

offer cross-national collaborative opportunities for

open dissemination, and that appropriate materials

scientists, educators, and learners. International projects should encourage understanding local phenomena within the context of global issues.

32

33

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations based on Goal 4: Create dynamic models of student understanding • Cyberinfrastructure has the potential to bring together new educational approaches

collaborating with teachers and learners, and discussing outcomes should be incorporated into tools and repositories. • Individuals and groups who are interested in intelligent, portable research tools should be encouraged to align themselves with

that can readily integrate multiple scales,

cyberinfrastructure projects. Technologies that

data points, and timelines to vividly illustrate

encourage the automatic capture, recording,

Earth system processes and enhance knowledge

retrieval, and preservation of field research

adoption. Cyberinfrastructure projects should

information, and that underpin the development

investigate how these advanced technical

of smart tools enabling experiential learning should

approaches—when coupled with models of

be developed and supported.

student understanding—enable the dynamic creation of tailored learning environments and learning assessments that are meaningful and realistic. • Cyberinfrastructure projects should be encouraged • Proposed technical advances in collaboration and

• Projects should address lifelong learning or citizen

Recommendations based on Goal 6: Expand educator professional development • Large cyberinfrastructure projects should be

to contribute to basic research on how people

encouraged to develop formal partnerships

learn, interact, and communicate through

with teacher preparation programs to effectively

communication technologies should be grounded

science components, i.e., investigating how

partnerships with researchers in cognizant

integrate cyberinfrastructure research and

in theoretical and/or empirical understandings

cyberinfrastructure can positively influence the way

disciplines. These projects should contribute basic

innovation into teacher education curricula.

of effective communication, collaboration,

we live, govern, and recreate.

knowledge that will advance theories of learning, particularly types of cognition and skills

and teamwork. • Proposed technical advances in collaboration and communication technologies should provide educator training on the effective use of technologies within educational settings.

Recommendations based on Goal 3: Maximize a computational approach to geoscience • Cyberinfrastructure projects should be supported that incorporate computational geoscience

• Individual projects should consider collaborations

appropriate tools and services for learners. Tool

researchers, educators, and learners, and

creation should be accompanied by supporting

that provide a clear structure for evaluating

educational materials that facilitate integration of

these efforts.

the tools into the curriculum.

• Cyberinfrastructure projects should be supported that investigate creating and evaluating informal and ubiquitous science learning environments, with an emphasis on developing design principles for 24/7 learning.

and data analysis.

significant partnerships with individuals or groups of teachers, and make available sabbatical and internship opportunities between teachers and

• Cyberinfrastructure projects should be encouraged

researchers. Projects should encourage K-16

to address how learners of all ages acquire and

teachers and learners to act as co-designers

refine geoscience concepts over time.

and co-researchers.

approaches with the development of age-

that support mentoring and scaffolding among

Recommendations based on Goal 2: Support ubiquitous learning environments

important to geoscience, such as spatial thinking

• Cyberinfrastructure projects should develop

• Cyberinfrastructure should support innovative

• Cyberinfrastructure should support the

approaches to developing computational

development of educational methods, courses,

representations that capture, record, and

and teacher certification programs that incorporate

model learners’ understanding of geoscience

current scientific data, tools, and analytical

concepts. Projects should investigate how

techniques. Cyberinfrastructure projects that

• Cyberinfrastructure should support projects that

innovative tools and services can leverage

support national and state-based educational

help learners and future geoscientists develop

these models of understanding to provide

standards, and in particular, projects that link the

advanced computer science skills that are required

tailored learning experiences.

issues surrounding high stakes testing, teacher professional development opportunities, and

for geoscience education and research, e.g., algorithm development, current software analysis, and design practices.

Recommendations based on Goal 5: Develop smart tools for authentic learning • Projects should offer field research opportunities to K-16 teachers and learners, where they can master

learner achievement should be supported. • Cyberinfrastructure should support digital libraries as a critical technology thread that promotes teacher professional development, innovation, and communities of practice.

and utilize advanced tools for data collection and data analysis. Mechanisms for sharing information, 34

35

Conclusion

Our nation’s role in the global economy, the strength

Achieving the vision set forth in this report will require

and vitality of our labor force, and our ability

long-term funding, meaningful collaborations, and

to generate and sustain scientific creativity and

strong leadership within the geoscience education and

innovation are all dependent upon a scientific and

research communities. The recommendations set forth

technically literate citizenry. This citizenry, in turn,

herein, coupled with broad community support, can

must appreciate the role that science and scientists

dramatically transform the landscape of geoscience

play in understanding our natural and human-built

teaching and learning, and generate a passion for

worlds, and their relationship to our social and political

the pursuit of geoscience careers in a new generation

institutions. Previous cyberinfrastructure reports have

of learners. In so doing, we will come closer to

acknowledged these dependencies and recognized

realizing the vision of a geoscientific workforce

the importance of human capital and workforce

that is truly diverse in opportunity, productivity, and

development. This report complements those efforts

intellectual innovation.

by focusing on this critical issue and developing specific goals and recommendations that advance the present and future conduct of geoscience education.

“If infrastructure is required for an industrial economy, then we could say that cyberinfrastructure is required for a knowledge economy.” – Report of the NSF Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure, Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through Cyberinfrastructure, Daniel E. Atkins, Chair, 2003 (Atkins, Droegemeier et al. 2003)

36

Workshop Attendees • Faisal Ahmad, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder • Joan Aron, Science Communication Studies • Lecia Barker, Alliance for Technology, Learning and Society (ATLAS), University of Colorado at Boulder • Hedi Baxter, Institute for Learning, Learning Research Development Center, University of Pittsburgh

• Frank Ireton, Space and Earth Sciences Data Analysis (SESDA)/Science Systems and Applications, Inc. (SSAI) and National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA) • Cliff Jacobs, Geosciences Directorate, Division of Atmospheric Sciences (GEO/ATM), National Science Foundation (NSF) • Karon Kelly, DLESE Program Center, UCAR

• Libby Black, Math Department, Manhattan Middle School for Arts and Academics

• Mick Khoo, Department of Communication, University of Colorado at Boulder

• Ann Bradford, Office of Education, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) Labs

• Scott Lathrop, National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

• Kirsten Butcher, Digital Library for Earth System Education (DLESE) Program Center, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)

• Russanne Low, Science CentrUM, University of Minnesota

• Barbara Buttenfield, Department of Geography, University of Colorado at Boulder

• Christine McLelland, Geological Society of America (GSA)

• Paula Coble, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters

• Mary Marlino, DLESE Program Center, UCAR

• LuAnn Dahlman, TERC • Lynne Davis, DLESE Program Center, UCAR • Sebastian de la Chica, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder

• Tim McCollum, Charleston Middle School

• George Matsumoto, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) • Mike Mayhew, Geosciences Directorate, Division of Earth Sciences (GEO/EAR), National Science Foundation (NSF) • Susan Metros, Office of the CIO, Technology Enhanced Learning and Research (TELR), Ohio State University

• Tom Reeves, Department of Instructional Technology, University of Georgia • Randy Sachter, Nederland Middle/Senior High School

• John Weatherley, DLESE Program Center, UCAR • Marianne Weingroff, DLESE Program Center, UCAR

• Judy Scotchmoor, Museum of Paleontology, University of California at Berkeley

• Tom Whittaker, Space, Science and Engineering Center (SSEC)/Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies (CIMSS), University of Wisconsin at Madison

• Dogan Seber, San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC), University of California at San Diego

• Stedman (Ted) Willard, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

• Sharon Sikora, GLOBE Education Team, UCAR

• Mike Wright, DLESE Program Center, UCAR

• Don Murray, Unidata Program Center, UCAR

• Len Simutis, Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC)

• Katy Ginger, DLESE Program Center, UCAR

• Jonathon Ostwald, DLESE Program Center, UCAR

• David Steer, Geology Department, University of Akron

• Memorie Yasuda, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO), Geological Research Division and California Space Institute at SIO

• Michelle Hall, Science Education Solutions, Inc.

• Rajul Pandya, Significant Opportunities in Atmospheric Research and Science (SOARS) Program, UCAR

• Tamara Sumner, Center for Lifelong Learning and Design, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder

• Eric Eiteljorg, School of Education, Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado at Boulder • Susan Eriksson, UNAVCO, Inc. • Barry Fried, John Dewey High School • Dave Fulker, National Science Digital Library (NSDL) Central Office, UCAR

• Maggie Helly, A.C. Mosley High School

38

• John Moore, Environmental Studies, Burlington County Institute of Technology • Julie Moore, Instructional Technology, University of Georgia

39

References AAAS, 1993. Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York; Project 2061, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Oxford University Press. AAAS, 2001a. Atlas of Science Literacy. Washington, DC; Project 2061, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Science Teachers Association. AAAS, 2001b. Designs for Science Literacy. New York; Project 2061, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Oxford University Press. AC-ERE, 2003. Complex Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth, Life, and Society in the 21st Century, A 10-Year Outlook for the National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA; National Science Foundation, Advisory Committee for Environmental Research & Education (AC-ERE). Atkin, J. M., P. Black and J. Coffey, Eds., 2001. Classroom Assessment and the National Science Education Standards. Washington D.C.; National Academy Press, 115 p. Atkins, D. E., K. K. Droegemeier, S. I. Feldman, H. Garcia-Molina, M. L. Klein, D. G. Messerschmitt, P. Messina, J. P. Ostriker and M. H. Wright, 2003. Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through Cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. Arlington, VA; National Science Foundation, 84 p. Bayer Corp. 2004. Bayer Facts of Science Education 2004: Are the Nation’s Colleges Adequately Preparing Elementary Schoolteachers of Tomorrow to Teach Science? Philadelphia, PA: Bayer Corp. Retrieved 10 October, 2004: http://www.bayerus. com/msms/news/facts.cfm?mode=detail&id=survey04 Bennis, W. and P. W. Biederman, 1997. Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration; Perseus Books Group. Bond, P., 2004. Remarks of Phillip Bond, Department of Commerce Undersecretary for Technology. Enhancing Education Through Technology Symposium, Pasadena, CA, April 29. Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown and R. R. Cocking, Eds. 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School; National Academy Press. Brown, J. S., A. Collins and P. Duguid, 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, Jan-Feb: 32-42. Calsyn, C., P. Gonzales and M. Frase, 1999. Highlights from TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study). NCES 1999 081. Washington D.C.; National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Center for Internet and Society, 2004. Creative Commons. Center for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School. Retrieved 24 September 2004; http://creativecommons.org/ Corbett, A. T., K. R. Koedinger and W. H. Hadley, 2001. Cognitive tutors: from the research classroom to all classrooms. Technology Enhanced Learning: Opportunities for Change. P. S. Goodman, Ed. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1991. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience; Perrenial. CyRDAS, 2004. Cyberinfrastructure for the Atmospheric Sciences in the 21st Century. Boulder, CO; National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Ad Hoc Committee for Cyberinfrastructure Research, Development and Education in the Atmospheric Sciences (CyRDAS), 56 p. Retrieved 24 September 2004; http://www.cyrdas.org/report/cyrdas_report_final.pdf Egger, A. E., 2003. Teaching and Research in Taiwan. GSA Today 13(12): 30-31. Ferstl, E. C. and W. Kintsch, 1999. Learning from text: Structural knowledge assessment in the study of discourse comprehension. The Construction of Mental Representations During Reading. S. R. Goldman and H. van Oostendorp, Eds. Mahweh, NJ, Erlbaum.

40

Finholt, T. A. and G. M. Olson, 1997. From laboratories to collaboratories: A new organizational form for scientific collaboration. Psychological Science 9: 1-9. Fischer, G., 1998. Creating the University of the 21st Century: Cultural Change and Risk Taking - Consequences of and Reflections on Teaching an Experimental Course. Center for LifeLong Learning and Design, University of Colorado. Retrieved 28 September 2004; http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/~gerhard/reports/cu-risktaking1998.pdf Florida, R., 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York; Basic Books. GEON, 2004. GEON: Cyberinfrastructure for the Geosciences. NSF Annual Report, Year 2, 2004. San Diego, CA; University of California at San Diego, 32 p. Gerald, D. E. and W. J. Hussar, 2002. Projections of Education Statistics to 2010. National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Department of Educational Research and Improvement, NCES 2002-030, 137 p. Gonzales, P., C. Calsyn, L. Jocelyn, K. Mak, D. Kastberg, S. Arafeh, T. Williams and W. Tsen, 2000. Pursuing Excellence: Comparisons of International Eighth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement from a U.S. Perspective, 1995 and 1999. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2001-028. Greenspan, A., 2004. The critical role of education in the nation’s economy. Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce 2004 Annual Meeting, Omaha, Nebraska, February 20. Hoffman, L. M., 2003. Overview of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools and Districts: School Year 2001-02. Statistical Analysis Report. National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, NCES 2003411, 56 p. Horizon Research Inc., 2000. National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education: Status of Secondary School Earth Science Teaching. Hunter, J., K. Falkovych and S. Little, 2004. Next generation search interfaces - Interactive data exploration and hypothesis formulation. 8th European Conference on Digital Libraries (ECDL 2001), Bath, UK (September 12 - 17), Springer. Jolly, E. J., P. B. Campbell and L. Perlman, 2004. Engagement, capacity and continuity: A trilogy for student success. GE Foundation. Retrieved 27 September 2004; http://www.campbell-kibler.com/trilogy.pdf Jonassen, D. H. and B. L. Grabowski, 1993. Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning & Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lave, J. and E. Wenger, 1991. Situated Learning. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. Loucks-Horsley, S., N. Love, K. E. Stiles, S. Mundry and P. W. Hewson, 1998. Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics; Corwin Press. Manduca, C. A. and D. W. Mogk, 2002. Using Data in Undergraduate Science Classrooms. Final report on an interdisciplinary workshop held at Carleton College, April 2002. Science Education Resource Center (SERC), Carleton College. Sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the National Science Digital Library (NSDL). Retrieved 28 September 2004; http://www. dlesecommunity.carleton.edu/files/usingdata/UsingData.pdf

41

REFERENCES

Pandya, R. E., C. Contrisciane, C. Seider and J. Yoder, 2002. Using inquiry- and visualization-based curricula in real classrooms. GSA 2002, Fall Meeting of the Geological Society of America, Denver, CO, Geological Society of America (GSA). Pea, R., 1999. New media communications forums for improving education research and practice. Issues in Education Research: Problems and Possibilities. E. Lagemann and L. Shulman, Eds. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Penual, W. R., C. Korbak, A. Lewis, L. Shear, Y. Toyama and L. Yarnall, 2003. GLOBE Year 7 evaluation: Exploring student research and inquiry in GLOBE. Menlo Park, CA; SRI International. Rischard, J. F., 2002. High Noon: 20 Global Problems, 20 Years to Solve Them. New York; Basic Books.

NCAR, 2003. Cyberinfrastructure for Environmental Research and Education (CERE). Report from a workshop held at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, October 30 - November 1, 2002. NCAR. Retrieved 24 September 2004; http:// www.ncar.ucar.edu/cyber/cyberreport.pdf NCTAF, 2003. No Dream Denied: A Pledge to America’s Children. Washington D.C.; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF), 164 p. NRC, 1996. National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC; National Research Council, National Academy Press. NRC, 2000a. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. National Research Council. Retrieved 24 September 2004; http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064767/html/

Sanders, T., 2004. No Time to Waste: The Vital Role of College and University Leaders in Improving Science and Mathematics Education. Conference on Teacher Preparation and Institutions of Higher Education: Mathematics and Science Content Knowledge. U.S. Dept. of Education, Washington, D.C., October 5. Seymour, E., 2002. Tracking the processes of change in U.S. undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Science Education 86: 79-105. Sharples, M., 2000. The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers and Education 34: 177-193. Sumner, T., F. Ahmad, S. Bhushan, Q. Gu, F. Molina, S. Willard, M. Wright, L. Davis and G. Janee, 2004. Linking learning goals and educational resources through interactive concept map visualizations. (To appear in the special issue on Information Visualization Interfaces for Retrieval and Analysis). International Journal of Digital Libraries. Tobias, S., 1990. They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier. Tucson; Research Corporation.

NRC, 2000b. Educating Teachers of Science, Mathematics, and Technology: New Practices for the New Millenium. National Research Council. Retrieved 24 September 2004; http://books.nap.edu/books/0309070333/html/

US Census Bureau, 2004. Projected population change in the U.S., by race and Hispanic origin: 2000 to 2050. US Census Bureau. Retrieved 28 September 2004; http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/natprojtab01b.pdf

NSB, 2003. Science and Engineering Infrastructure for the 21st Century: The Role of the National Science Foundation. NSB02-190. Arlington, VA. National Science Board, 74 p. Retreived 24 September 2004; http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2002/nsb02190/nsb02190.pdf

Vavoula, G. N., P. Lefrere, C. O’Malley, M. Sharples and J. Taylor, 2004. Producing guidelines for learning, teaching and tutoring in a mobile environment. Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE). J. Roschelle, T. Chan, Kinshuk and S. J. H. Yand, Eds. Los Alamitos, CA, Computer Society Press: 173176.

NSB, 2004. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. Volume 1. Washington D.C.; National Science Board Subcommittee on Science and Engineering Indicators, 496 p. NSF, 2000. NSF Geosciences Beyond 2000: Understanding and Predicting Earth’s Environment and Habitability. Arlington, VA; National Science Foundation Directorate for Geosciences, NSF 00-28. NSF, 2004a. Science and Engineering Degrees by Race/Ethnicity of Recipients: 1992-2001. NSF 04-318. Arlington, VA; National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, 103 p.

Voss, J. F. and L. N. Silfies, 1996. Learning from history texts: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction 14: 45-68. Yekovich, F. R., C. H. Walker, L. T. Ogle and M. A. Thompson, 1990. The influence of domain knowledge on inferencing in low-aptitude individuals. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. A. C. Graesser and G. H. Bower, Eds. New York, Academic Press: 175-196.

NSF, 2004b. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering. National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Science Resources Statistics. Retrieved 7 October 2004; http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/wmpd/pdf.htm NSF, 2004c. NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-12) Program. National Science Foundation, Division of Graduate Education (DGE). Retrieved 28 September 2004; http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/dge/programs/gk12/ OITI Steering Committee, 2002. An Information Technology Infrastructure Plan to Advance Ocean Sciences. Office of Naval Research and the National Science Foundation. Retrieved 24 September 2004; http://www.geo-prose.com/projects/pdfs/oiti_ plan_lo.pdf Okada, T. and H. A. Simon, 1995. Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Erlbaum. OSI, 2002. Budapest Open Access Initiative. Open Society Institute. Retrieved 24 September 2004; http://www.soros.org/ openaccess/

42

43

Photo credits: Pages 34-35, front and back cover: © UCAR and Carlye Calvin Page 37, inside front and back covers: courtesy of NASA Landsat Project Science Office and USGS EROS Data Center (Earth as Art) Pages 4-5, 13, 40-41: © University Corp. for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) Pages 8-9: courtesy of NASA/ESA/S. Beckwith (STScI) and The HUDF Team

This workshop was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation, received under grant #0215640. Pages 10-11, 18-19, 20-21, 24-25: courtesy of the Significant Opportunities in Atmospheric Research &

© 2004 University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)

Science (SOARS) program, and the University Corp. for

Recommended citation:

Atmospheric Research (UCAR)

Marlino, M. R., T. R. Sumner, and M. J. Wright, 2004. Geoscience Education and Cyberinfrastructure. Report of

Pages 14-15: © Carlye Calvin

a workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF), April 19-20. Boulder, CO: Digital Library for

Pages 22-23, 32-33: courtesy of the Unidata Program

Earth System Education (DLESE) Program Center; University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), 43p.

Center, Integrated Data Viewer (IDV) Group; University Corp. for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) Pages 26-27: © UCAR and Charles Meertens Page 39: © UCAR and Stephen Collector

Available at: http://www.dlese.org/documents/reports/GeoEd-CI.html Graphic design and page layout by Vermilion Inc. Production support by Folsom Point, Inc.

NOVEMBER 2004

W W W. D L E S E . O R G