Kristen St. John James Madison University stjohnke@jmu

1. Is there a better model for P&T preparation and evaluation of geoscience education research (GER) in geoscience departments? Kristen St. John James Madison University stjohnke@jmu.edu

2. Motivation & Context:Personal Experience St. John and Leckie, http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/earlycareer/tenure/preparing.html St. John (pseudonym Jones; 2007), http://chronicle.com/article/Tenured-Twice/46472/

3. Journal of Geoscience Education publication statistics Motivation & Context: Publication Trends # pages # articles Change in pub. standards/types of articles Data compiled by Erica Zweifel Year …there appear[s] to have been a noticeable increase in the frequency of research articles within the last 10 years. There is also an increase in both the JGE and the wider literature in research papers on the subject of cognitive issues in teaching and learning. – Pilburn, van der Hoeven Kraft, and Pacheco, (2011), A New Century for Geoscience Education Research. A commissioned study to inform the 2012 DBER Report.

4. Motivation & Context: Formal DBER Training Opportunities Geoscience Education Research (GER): Graduate Programs by Institution Data compiled by Karen McNeal; primary source: Libarkin, https://www.msu.edu/~libarkin/about_programs.html *based on approximate hire dates of lead faculty

5. Motivation & Context: More Geoscience Education Tenure-Track Positions

6. Motivation & Context: Shared concerns about P&T evaluation by DBER journal editors

7. Motivation & Context: Potential for GER marginalization/isolation in the geosciences. - Lukes et al., 2015; Feig 2013; and DBER report 2012, see esp. Dave Mogk’s summary http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/DBER.html • Real and time-sensitive issue for tenure-track geoscience education researchers in traditional geoscience programs. • P&T evaluation of GER faculty is largely conducted by non-GER geoscience faculty and administrators. Geoscience Educational Psychology X Teaching Practice Source: Lukes et al., JGE, 2015

8. P&T and GER Challenges: Appreciating the scope and methods of geoscience education research Publicly Engaged Scholarship Feig and Stokes, 2011, GSA Special Paper v. 474. Doberneck et al., 2012. Beyond Activity, Place, and Partner: How Publicly Engaged Scholarship Varies by Intensity of Activity and Degree of Engagement, Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, v. 4.

9. P&T and GER Challenges: Measuring Impact Thomson Reuters Science Citation Index (SCI) selected 2014 Journal Impact Factors • The impact factorof an academic journal is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to recent articles published in that journal. • Different playing fields can lead to misleading comparisons (e.g., expectation of external citations for DBER fields). • Not all journals are indexed in Thomson Reuters (none in geoscience education), thus no SCI-impact factor. See Julie Libarkin’s Blog on Journal Impact Factors, and references therein: https://geocognitionresearchlaboratory.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/citations-and-impact-who-says-your-research-is-valuable/

10. P&T and GER Challenges: Measuring Impact Geoscience education research results One of the more important goals of DBER is translating research into practice. -DBER report, 2012. • P&T Deliverable  programmatic reform of teaching/student learning. –Feig, 2013 • This is a P&T deliverable that does not have parallels in basic traditional geoscience research. How can this impact be demonstrated? Reform of geoscience education teaching and student learning institutional level national level

11. P&T and GER Recommendations: From the Community • Emphasize high quality of DBER [GER] work -DBER report 2012, Mogk’s summary http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/DBER.html • Clarify expectation for DBER [GER] faculty positions -DBER report 2012, Mogk’s summary http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/DBER.html • Targeted marketing to non-GER colleagues – Feig, 2013 • Be an active part of a GER community of practice – Lukes et al, 2015 Improve communication & define metrics of GER success

12. P&T and GER Recommendations: Additional Suggestions Tenure-track GER Faculty • Talk with department colleagues early and often about what you do, how you do it, and why it is important - St. John and Leckie, 2009, http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/earlycareer/tenure/preparing.html • Avoid jargon. • Maintain respect for colleagues. • wisdom on geoscience teaching and learning isn’t exclusive to those with geoscience education PhDs. • Find common ground. • Geoscience itself. • University mission, program goals P&T Committees • Make informed decisions on what “counts”. • Go beyond Impact Factors (e.g., download statistics) • How to measure “translation of research into practice”?

13. P&T and GER Recommendations: Evolving the P&T Preparation and Evaluation Model Traditional Boyer (1990, Scholarship Reconsidered) Teaching Teaching Research (Discovery) Research Integration of Knowledge Service (Application) Service Integration of knowledge  “making connections across disciplines, placing specialties in a larger connect, illuminating data in a revealing way, often to educate non-specialists too.” http://www.schev.edu/AdminFaculty/OFA/2016OFAGuidelines.pdf

14. P&T and GER Recommendations: Evolving the P&T Preparation and Evaluation Model Metrics for Success An Integrated (modified Boyer) Approach • Use GER best practices • Evidence-based teaching/ model “translating research into practice.”) • Impact on student learning • Research results should advance the GER field • Publications • Grant success Research (Discovery) Teaching Integration of Knowledge • Apply expert GER knowledge to • department (e.g., curriculum com.) • institution (e.g., Center for Teaching) • GER community (e.g., NAGT GER Division) • Geo community (e.g., Broaden Impacts on geo. grants, lead professional development workshops) Service (Application) • In Career Planning • In P&T Narrative • In P&T Evaluation Criteria