Peggy McNeal

Building on previous work to understand mental transformation of solid objects, our work aims to contribute to theory on how individuals visualize fluid transformation. Working at the intersection of discipline-based research in fluid-Earth sciences (oceanography and atmospheric science) and cognitive science, we began by characterizing students’ mental models of fluids in solid body rotation. Using a common pedagogical tool of oceanography and atmospheric science instructors—large water filled rotating tanks—we conducted semi-structured, interactive interviews in conjunction with demonstrations of solid body fluid rotation to elicit participants’ sketched predictions and explanations of their reasoning. We used emergent coding to analyze the data and found that participants confidently predicted fluid behavior; however, their predictions were highly inaccurate, much to the participants’ surprise. These results suggest that the behavior of rotating fluids is unintuitive, and that the mind adopts prior experiences with fluids to fill the gap. We suggest that a better understanding of how humans reason about fluids can inform the cognitive science of event processing and suggest that framing mental transformation using an event perspective may be a productive approach.

A typical classroom exercise in hydrogeology is to develop a conceptual model of a contaminated site, identify groundwater flow direction(s), and predict the location and mass of a contaminant plume. This requires knowledge of key hydrogeological concepts and is highly visuospatial in nature. Among multiple discrete spatial thinking skills identified by cognitive science, the combination of visual penetrative ability and working in multiple frames of reference were identified to significantly predict performance on a hydrogeology task and showed that together with hydrogeology knowledge, these spatial thinking skills account for 49% of the variability on task performance. Seventy-two hydrogeology practitioners and students with varying levels of expertise were administered multiple spatial thinking tests and an assessment of hydrogeology knowledge before completing a hydrogeology task that was developed for the study. Using spatial thinking and knowledge test scores as predictor variables, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with performance on the hydrogeology task as the outcome variable. The resulting model predicts that at low levels of hydrogeology knowledge, the identified spatial thinking skills account for more than a 25% difference on the hydrogeology task. This study provides empirical evidence that visual penetrative ability and working in multiple frames of reference are important skills in hydrogeology; thus, instructors are encouraged to recognize that underdeveloped spatial thinking skills could present hurdles for students and that targeted spatial thinking training may yield positive results for both weak and strong spatial thinkers.

Educators can enrich their teaching with best practices, share resources, and contribute to the growing atmospheric science education research community by reading and participating in the scholarship of teaching and learning in atmospheric science. This body of scholarship has grown, particularly over the past fifteen years, and is now a sizable literature base that documents and exemplifies numerous teaching innovations in undergraduate atmospheric science education. This literature base benefits the entire atmospheric science community because graduates of atmospheric science programs are better prepared to enter the workforce. This literature base has not yet been examined, however, to see how well the evidence supports education practices in the atmospheric science education literature. In this study, we characterized that evidence and show that the majority of papers we reviewed share education innovations with anecdotal or correlational evidence of effectiveness. While providing useful practitioner knowledge and preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of numerous innovative teaching practices, opportunities exist for increasing readers’ confidence that the innovations caused the learning gains. Additional studies would also help move conclusions toward generalizability across academic institutions and student populations. We make recommendations for advancing atmospheric science education research and encourage atmospheric science educators to actively use the growing body of education literature as well as contribute to advancing atmospheric science education research.

Active learning research emerged from the undergraduate STEM education communities of practice, some of whom identify as discipline-based education researchers (DBER). Consequently, current frameworks of active learning are largely inductive and based on emergent patterns observed in undergraduate teaching and learning. Alternatively, classic learning theories historically originate from the educational psychology community, which often takes a theory-driven, or deductive research approach. The broader transdisciplinary education research community is now struggling to reconcile the two. That is, how is a theory of active learning distinct from other theories of knowledge construction? We discuss the underpinnings of active learning in the geosciences, drawing upon extant literature from the educational psychology community on engagement. Based on Sinatra et al. engagement framework, we propose a model for active learning in the geosciences with four dimensions: behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and agentic. We then connect existing literature from the geoscience education community to the model to demonstrate the current gaps in our literature base and opportunities to move the active learning geoscience education research (GER) forward. We propose the following recommendations for future investigation of active learning in the geosciences: (1) connect future GER to our model of active learning in the geosciences, (2) measure more than content learning, (3) document research methods and outcomes with effect sizes to accumulate evidence, and (4) prioritize research on dimensions of active learning essential to the geosciences.

The geosciences consist of multiple disciplines including geology, oceanography, and atmospheric science. Significant work expended to understand spatial thinking skills important to teaching and learning geology has advanced our ability to support students in geology courses and to achieve increased student success, retention, and diversity in geology programs. However, as we investigate teaching and learning broadly, including oceanography and atmospheric science, an important question is how well spatial thinking frameworks previously used in geoscience education research (GER) map onto these disciplines. A cross-disciplinary exploration of spatial thinking reveals multiple frameworks that classify spatial thinking skills from different perspectives. The spatial sciences, including geographic information systems and cartography, employ frameworks that emphasize geospatial thinking related to maps and navigation. In contrast, GER highlights key spatial skills such as those necessary to visualize landforms from topographic maps, or interpret folded and overturned rock units. Intelligence theorists develop taxonomies based on measurable human intelligence factors, while some cognitive scientists distinguish between object and spatial visualizers. New typologies support categorization of spatial thinking skills by intrinsic-extrinsic and static-dynamic relationships, and recently, a heuristic framework synthesizes spatial factor literature in support of STEM education. In this commentary we recognize the landscape of spatial thinking perspectives, review various frameworks potentially applicable to thinking and learning in multiple geoscience disciplines, raise questions intended to drive forward spatial thinking research across geoscience disciplines, and reflect on how different approaches at the forefront of the field may serve to address related GER Grand Challenges.