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
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
Executive Summary 3
advances in geoscience education and a robust such a workforce depends upon implementing new
Background 6
cyberinfrastructure supporting geoscience research. approaches to geoscience education that emphasize
Introduction 8
These recommended strategies are the result of a the kind of experiential learning that leads to
Workshop Approach 12
community workshop that brought together 50 technical competence and intellectual self-confidence

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

will require application of a full suite of tools,

Recommendations 32 The importance of integrating research and education
concepts, technologies, and data products produced
Conclusion 36 within research and development programs in
at the cutting edge of cyberinfrastructure.
Workshop Attendees 38 the cyberinfrastructure arena is clear. Continuing

advances in unraveling the complex interactions of the

References 40
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
The task of the workshop was to arrive at a consensus
strategy for achieving the vision of fully integrating
research and education within an emerging geocy-
berinfrastructure enterprise. Six goals emerged from a
series of intense discussions among participants repre-
senting a range of viewpoints:
Collaborate and build new social structures
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. This requires:
• New types of partnerships across academia,
government agencies, and the private sector
• Multidisciplinary collaborations between
geoscientists, information technology specialists,
and educators
• Mentoring, scaffolding, and collaboration across
age groups
• Increased transparency across geopolitical
boundaries so that global concerns and
solutions can be applied to local communities
To support this goal, cyberinfrastructure projects
should emphasize the creation of collaboration
tools and technologies and encourage projects
that embed collaboration and communication
skills throughout all stages of formal and informal
geoscience education.
Support ubiquitous learning environments
The pervasiveness of technology and media,
coupled with an explosion of informal education
initiatives, has dramatically influenced where and
how individuals learn. Through museum exhibits,
educational programming, web sites, online
repositories, and e-learning courses, individuals
4 5
can now obtain 24/7 learning on-
demand. Cyberinfrastructure projects
should encourage the creation of informal
and ubiquitous learning environments that
capitalize on these emerging patterns
of learning.
Maximize a computational approach
to geoscience
The research community has harnessed the power
of computers to better understand complex Earth
system problems through exciting new models,
visualizations, and analysis techniques. Educators
are now beginning to integrate such approaches
into the learning environment. However, the
increasing use of computation requires that
educators have a basic understanding of computers
and relevant software. It also requires that future
geoscientists develop advanced knowledge of
computer science skills. Equally important, data
and tools must be freely available and housed in
repositories to establish a culture of repurposing
between the research and education community.
Create dynamic models of
student understanding
As our population of learners becomes more
diverse, educators must increasingly account
for individual learning styles, language barriers,
cultural contexts, and learning challenges.
Cyberinfrastructure can play a critical role
in reinventing concepts of testing, student
comprehension, and assessment in many
disciplines. When coupled with new models
of student understanding, true student-centric
learning environments can be developed and
promulgated. Cyberinfrastructure should be
harnessed to better understand the specific
learning processes that promote comprehension
and learning of geoscience concepts over time.
Develop smart tools for authentic learning
Authentic learning focuses on solving real-world
problems to engage student interest and create
understanding. The very nature of science—
involving investigation, research, analysis, and
discovery of natural phenomena—makes it an ideal
platform for authentic learning activities. Many
geoscience programs have successfully integrated
collaboration tools and distributed data capabilities
into the geosciences curriculum. The next
challenge to be addressed in authentic learning
requires that cyberinfrastructure projects enhance
the collection and analysis of those data through
smart tools that automate the capture, recording,
retrieval, and preservation of research information.
Expand educator professional development
The correlation between teacher preparedness and
student participation in science is a strong one;
thus, investing in teacher professional development
programs is an investment in the future scientific
workforce. Educators must continually develop
their skills; however, they are often marginalized
in the research effort, acting as mere recipients
of research rather than active participants and
partners. Additionally, they often lack an engaged
educational community through which to share
innovative teaching practices. Cyberinfrastructure
Geoscience education and cyberinfrastructure can co-develop and
complement one another, achieving a measure of success that neither
one alone can achieve.
projects should support teacher professional
development that incorporates the latest scientific
data, tools, and analytical techniques; develops
partnerships with educators; and encourages
teachers and learners to serve as co-researchers.
Partnerships should be encouraged with state
boards of education to support high stakes testing
and to coordinate the development and adoption
of materials that align with state-based standards.
Digital libraries can play a leadership role in
supporting an educational cyberinfrastructure by
facilitating collaboration between educational
practitioners and the research community.
On the strength of these six goals, workshop partici-
pants developed a set of recommendations for future
cyberinfrastructure initiatives and projects. These
are described in the report that follows. Participants
repeatedly emphasized the interdependencies between
geoscience education and geoscience research, and
noted the important synergies between the goals and
recommendations detailed here with those previously
articulated in other cyberinfrastructure reports.
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 capabili-
ties of advanced computing tools are readily available
OITI Steering
to researchers in an interoperable network. The
Committee 2002;
concept builds on substantial prior NSF initiatives in
NCAR 2003). While The very nature of science—involving investigation, research, analysis, and
academic computing infrastructure, supercomputer discovery of natural phenomena—makes it an ideal platform for authentic
many of these reports detail
centers, terrascale networked grids, middleware learning activities.
recommendations for scientific
initiatives, and digital libraries. Within the NSF
research, few delve into the myriad
Geosciences Directorate, reports have been issued
facets of education and how cyberin-
from the atmospheric, oceanographic, and solid earth
frastructure can transform the fundamental
communities outlining cyberinfrastructure priorities
way in which individuals learn, adapt, and
for scientific research and education (CyRDAS 2004; Although these reports, along with the National the workshop was consensus on a vision for cyberin-
think using a scientific framework.
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

In recognition of the dramatically changing landscape of scientific research and information This report addresses this gap by focusing on the guide these efforts, and recommendations for action.
specific needs and opportunities for cyberinfrastruc-
technology, the NSF convened a Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure to consider Written for the broad geoscience community, this
ture and geoscience education.
the future directions of NSF-sponsored infrastructure development. In its 2003 report, the panel report offers a roadmap and an initial starting point

recommended an immediate NSF imperative to lead the charge in reinvigorating the development A common thread linking past initiatives and reports
is an acknowledgement of the importance of cyber-
of a technical and social infrastructure to support science and engineering research and education.
infrastructure to support future economic growth.
The panel also recommended a new Advanced Cyberinfrastructure Program (ACP) that offers an
In this context, workforce development stands apart
opportunity to reformulate numerous processes of scientific investigation and education around as an important facet of education. As a first step
the unique opportunities of information technology (IT). The recommended investment in these towards a fully integrated scientific research and
to seed discussions on how geoscience education can
become a critical component in cyberinfrastructure.
The report specifically highlights education’s unique
role in developing a scientifically literate citizenry
and workforce, and the synergies between scientific
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 char-
acterize and monitor the changes in our biosphere,
lithosphere, atmosphere, and hydrosphere. Increas-
ingly detailed and comprehensive observations of
• Interdisciplinary
the Earth system have contributed to the realization
education in
that many of the environmental concerns previously
geoscience and
understood as local problems transcend national
information technology
borders and can only be understood on a global scale.
Cyberinfrastructure already in place enables scientists • 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
• An informed citizenry broadly
collaborations between scientists increase, this
knowledgeable about cyberinfrastructure and
cyberinfrastructure will expand to accommodate
its essential role in enabling scientific discovery
the need to rapidly distribute data to computational
facilities and analysis centers around the globe, Workshop attendees felt strongly about the Community-Specific Knowledge Environments for Research and Education
disseminate research results, and enable scientists and centrality of these issues, and that a broad and (collaboratory, co-laboratory, grid community, e-science community, virtual community)
policymakers to work together to develop solutions. systemic perspective is absolutely critical to the
Customization for discipline- and project-specific applications
success of geoscience education and
Building a geoscientific cyberinfrastructure, however,
cyberinfrastructure initiatives. High performance Data, information, Observation, Interfaces, Collaboration
is incomplete without the concurrent development
of a geoscientific workforce capable of maximizing computation knowledge measurement, visualization services

its use. To this end, we need a systemic program services management fabrication services services

to nurture a future workforce deeply knowledge- services

able across geoscientific and information technology

Networking, Operating Systems, Middleware
disciplines. All citizens, whether oriented towards
geoscience careers or not, should have a foundation
Base Technology: computation, storage, communication
in science and mathematical concepts and critical
thinking skills. = cyberinfrastructure: hardware, software, services, personnel, organizations
Integrated cyberinfrastructure services to enable new knowledge environments for research and education
Thus, the notion of workforce development in (Atkins, Droegemeier et al. 2003)

cyberinfrastructure must include:

8 9
 INTRODUCTION
Building a geoscientific cyberinfrastructure is incomplete without
the concurrent development of a geoscientific workforce capable
of maximizing its use.
Workforce Development
and Geoscience
We face a critical national shortfall of new talent in
science and mathematics. The Trends in International
Math and Science Study (TIMSS) reported that in 1999
the U.S. ranked 18th compared to other nations in
science achievement of 8th graders (Gonzales, Calsyn
et al. 2000). A steadily declining interest in science has
been reported between 4th grade and high school.
The percentage of U.S. students studying mathematics
and science in their final year of secondary education
is significantly lower than other countries—66% in the
10
and Pacific Islander populations remain a virtually
untapped resource of scientific and technical talent to
fill our future workforce needs. Despite targeted
U.S vs. 79% internationally for mathematics, and 53%
in the U.S. vs. 67% internationally for science (Calsyn,
Gonzales et al. 1999).
Left unaddressed, this shortfall of talent in
mathematics and science will severely impact
our nation’s future competitive advantage. The
knowledge economy is dependent upon a productive,
motivated workforce: one that is technologically
literate and positioned to contribute ideas and
information, and engage in creative thinking. As
our need for a technical and scientific workforce
has increased, however, we have seen a significant
reduction of students pursuing efforts to engage historically underrepresented
science, technology, engineering, populations in STEM disciplines, minority students
and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, continue to enter science and technology professions
thus compounding the shortfall. at rates far below their proportional representation in
the general population (NSF 2004a).
Continued innovation and discovery
hinges upon our ability to cultivate partici- Today, underrepresented U.S. born minorities holding
pation and facilitate communication between at least a bachelor’s degree comprise only 6.7%
scientists, researchers, and science teachers with of scientists and engineers in the labor force (NSF
diverse cultural backgrounds, life experiences, and 2004b). Over the past 28 years, approximately 400
ideas. African-American, Hispanic, Native American of the nearly 20,000 PhDs in earth, atmospheric, and
marine sciences have been awarded to traditionally
underserved minority individuals. Yet, statistics from
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
A recent analysis of STEM diversity initiatives indicates
Science Knowledge
that recruiting and retaining historically underrepre-
sented populations requires “sealing the pipeline”
580
so that students who develop an interest in STEM
560 early in their academic careers remain engaged as they
develop the capacity for further study (Jolly, Campbell
540
et al. 2004). Workshop participants repeatedly
520 acknowledged the promise of a robust cyberinfrastruc-
ture as a critical component in achieving our national
500
STEM diversity initiatives. To this end, cyberinfrastruc-
480 ture initiatives should actively seek partnerships with
innovative and systemic efforts to broaden and sustain
460
participation in geoscience by diverse communities.
440
420
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12
U.S. Average International Average
U.S. students in fourth grade score above the interna-
tional 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.
11
Workshop Approach
The purpose of the Geoscience Education and
Cyberinfrastructure workshop was to articulate
a vision for the future of cyberinfrastructure in
geoscience education in 2010 and beyond. It was
a unique opportunity to understand the values of
representative participants and the requirements the
educational community deems critical to linking
cyberinfrastructure with scientific and societal impacts.
The workshop was structured around 4 key issues:
• What is the vision for geoscience education and
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?
The workshop brought together 50 leaders in science,
research, and education from across the U.S. To
ensure broad representation, invitees included
K-12, community college, undergraduate/graduate
science, and computer science educators, informal
educators, educational researchers, scientists, software
developers, and students. The group was tasked with
systematically considering the transformative potential
of cyberinfrastructure within science and society.
12
Vision Statement
Workshop participants felt strongly that geoscience Workshop participants envisioned the
education must work in concert, not in isolation, impact of cyberinfrastructure on geoscience
with the cultural context of science, technology, and education as potentially having an equally
societal trends. The progress of the last two decades significant impact. Within the context of this
in achieving a more integrated perspective within the vision, geoscience education and cyberinfrastruc-
scientific and education communities was repeatedly ture can co-develop and complement one another,
acknowledged. The significant impact of systemic achieving a measure of success that neither one alone
initiatives such as the National Science Education can achieve.
Standards (NSES) in advancing the integration of
science, technology, and society was also noted
(NRC 1996).
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
2010. Six working groups rigorously
and learning for all. This cyberinfrastructure will promote the recognition and understanding of the connections,
analyzed these scenarios to identify
interactions, and relationships among local and global phenomena in the Earth system. Cyberinfrastructure
goals, challenges, and recommendations
for action. Four participants were selected to will support innovative strategies for inquiry-based, collaborative learning among teachers, students, and
survey the working group activities and identify researchers in both formal and informal settings. This cyberinfrastructure will enable free and open access to
important crosscutting issues. These data were valuable geoscience content, services, and expertise that transform geoscience education, excite a passion
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-
synthesized into the vision, values, goals, and
infrastructure will be an informed citizenry that embraces their responsibility as stewards of planet Earth.
recommendations that follow.
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
These value statements permeated participant interac-
tions and discussions to such a degree that they are
worthy of calling out. Throughout the workshop, they
provided an important touchstone for all the goals and
“Education is key to building the sense of global citizenship that global problem-solving requires.
And it is a major tool for developing a sense of shared global values that may help spare the next
generation’s unnecessary, obsolete tensions between civilizations.”
– J.F. Rischard, High Noon: 20 Global Problems, 20 Years to Solve Them, 2002 (Rischard 2002)
14
recommenda-
tions considered
by the participants.
Stewardship of
the Earth
Cyberinfrastructure should
be harnessed to encourage active and informed
decision-making by all citizens with respect to the
Earth’s resources and the impact of humans on the
planet. With the opportunities and stresses presented
by globalization, geoscience education is in a unique
position to promote the appreciation of Earth as
a system, and to enrich and inform discussions
and decisions regarding a sustainable Earth and its
resources. Cyberinfrastructure should also be used to
leverage the inherent interests that many learners and
citizens have in the environment and the outdoors
to increase participation in geoscience education
and research. Cyberinfrastructure-enabled technolo-
gies and workforce development programs should be
designed to capitalize and build on these interests,
and support lifelong learning about the Earth in a rich
variety of forms and settings.
A scientifically and technically literate society
Scientific and technical literacies are basic require-
ments for an informed and productive workforce
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.
The majority of students are electing not to study
science before they enter college (Tobias 1990; Calsyn,
Gonzales et al. 1999). This is not surprising, given that
today’s high school seniors are scoring at or below the
international average in science testing (NSB 2004).
This situation is further exacerbated by the current
dominance of “core” topics in the K-12 curriculum,
which usually does not include geoscience, but
Scientific and technical literacies are basic requirements for an
informed and productive workforce and citizenry.
instead emphasizes reading and mathematics in the
primary grades, and biology, physics, and chemistry in
secondary education. In addition, there are significant
institutional barriers such as higher education’s lack of
recognition of geoscience as a legitimate prerequisite
for college admission. Cyberinfrastructure projects
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 compe-
tencies required of our 21st century workforce.
Education as a high priority in
cyberinfrastructure development
Educational settings, audiences, and goals are too
important to be adequately addressed as afterthoughts
or add-ons to cyberinfrastructure projects, and instead
must be treated as high priorities integrated in a
project’s overall design. The educational perspective
can legitimately inform both the scientific research and
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
educational users as co-designers. Many educators
throughout all grade levels are master teachers who
can offer insight into tools and techniques that are
effective in geoscience education.
Goals
Projects should allocate some portion of their content,
tools, or services for educational and future scientific
use, at no or low cost. Enabling future use will require
processes for creating derivative works, e.g., by
adopting appropriate copyright models such as those

The workshop attendees envisioned a future

that would be significantly transformed by
cyberinfrastructure. By harnessing the full power

Definition of Open Access of these emerging technologies and networks,

educators, researchers, and learners can augment and
“There are many degrees and kinds of wider and easier access to this literature. By ‘open access’ to this
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
• Collaborate and build new social structures
the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.”
• 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
and collaboration
Human communication and collaboration, particularly
in educational settings, should remain a major focus
of cyberinfrastructure projects. Multiple perspectives
improve problem-solving and knowledge creation.
Contact with a caring teacher or mentor sustains
and motivates learners, particularly at-risk students.
Cyberinfrastructure can support a broad spectrum
proposed by the Creative Commons, a non-profit • Expand educator professional development
organization seeking to promote the sharing of high-
quality content (Center for Internet and Society 2004).
Similar to the ideals of the Open Access movement,
which promote worldwide electronic distribution of
scientific and scholarly literature on the Internet (OSI
2002), access is an important prerequisite for the
democratization of science and science education.
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,
spanning the range from face-to-face to distal, and
beyond, to agent-based tools and services. Technology
developments should be guided by a theoretical and
empirical understanding of effective communication
and collaboration, not solely technical possibilities. As
cyberinfrastructure projects themselves become more
complex, involving multiple and often remote partners,
this value becomes even more paramount.
trend toward privatization and proprietarization of
geoscience data resources. Together, cyberinfra-
structure and geoscience education have a unique
opportunity to counter this trend. Through open
access, research can be accelerated, education can be
enriched, and learning can be shared more equitably
on a global scale.
and broader than ever before. We need to ensure that education in the United States, formal or otherwise, is
supplying skills adequate for the effective functioning of our economy. The recent exceptional trends in U.S.
productivity suggest that we are coping, but this observation should not lead to complacency.”
– Remarks by Chairman Alan Greenspan, The critical role of education in the nation’s economy at the Greater
Omaha Chamber of Commerce 2004 Annual Meeting, Omaha, Nebraska, February 20, 2004 (Greenspan 2004)

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
across academia, government agencies, and the
private sector, as well as multidisciplinary collabora-
tions between geoscientists, information technology
specialists, and educators (Finholt and Olson 1997;
Pea 1999). Ad hoc teams form for the duration of a
project or experiment. Such collaborations are often
characterized by vertical integration, i.e., collabora-
tions across age groups and experience levels that lead
to mentoring and scaffolding of skills between and
among researchers, educators, and learners
(Fischer 1998).
To achieve a deeper level of teamwork, 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.
Collaborations must also transcend national borders,
recognizing that scientific and environmental
challenges are not limited to geopolitical distinctions
and that the necessary expertise to solve significant
problems is also distributed. International workforces
and research environments have become increas-
ingly common. The ability to look at local problems
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
opportunity to use
cyberinfrastructure to
address global concerns
that are rooted in the
concrete issues facing local
communities. Workshop
participants recognized that
collaboration and team skills
were equally relevant to both the
scientific research and the education
communities. Thus, advances through
these collaborative efforts will inform
and enhance both science and education.
Cyberinfrastructure should support
projects with an international scope,
particularly those that encourage under-
standing local phenomena within the “Environmental scientists and engineers increasingly consider the interplay of physical, biological, and social factors
context of global issues, and those that offer and are required to use advanced observational, database, and networking technologies. As a consequence, there
cross-national collaborative opportunities for is a growing need for scientists, engineers, managers, and technicians who have the ability to work on multidis-
scientists, educators, and learners.
ciplinary and cross-cultural teams to use sophisticated new instrumentation, information systems, and models;
and to interpret research results for decision makers and the general public. Fresh and innovative approaches to
education are needed to train individuals to undertake interdisciplinary, collaborative, and synthesis activities.”
– Complex Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth, Life, and Society in the 21st Century, A 10-Year Outlook
for the National Science Foundation, NSF Advisory Committee for Environmental Research & Education
(AC-ERE), January 2003 (AC-ERE 2003)
19
 GOAL 2: SUPPORT UBIQUITOUS LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Goal 2

Support ubiquitous Culturally, a shift in attitudes has

transpired that recognizes oppor-
learning environments tunities for ubiquitous learning in
our just-in-time world (Vavoula, Lefrere
The learning landscape has altered dramatically over
et al. 2004). Technology has inspired a
the past twenty years as a result of a set of complex
media- and device-rich environment, with
and dynamic cultural, economic, technological, and
hundreds of television channels, omnipresent
social drivers. Historically, the focus has been on
technologies such as mobile phones and PDAs
traditional learning environments such as K-12, two-
(personal digital assistants), and millions, if not
and four-year undergraduate programs, and graduate
billions, of informational web pages. A 9-to-5
schools. Yet, learning is not always mediated by a
paradigm has been replaced by the 24/7 reality
teacher or professor, or confined to formal classroom
of continuous access and availability. As a result,
settings or accredited courses. A growing number
expectations for how and when learning takes place
of adults are seeking educational experiences for
have been dramatically raised. Future generations
personal and economic gain through lifelong learning,
of learners will not buy into an outdated model of
occupational retraining, and personal development
education that is rooted in the Industrial Age, when
courses (Florida 2002). to be shared among the privileged few. Self-directed Our relationship with the natural world is one of our
educational resources were limited, precious, and only
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
safer and more enjoyable through electronic instru-
This new learning landscape offers an opportunity to
mentation, maps, GPS, soil and water data, weather
influence educational, as well as commercial domains.
“Rather than using technology to imitate or supplement conventional classroom-based approaches, information, and other geoscience data. People learn
However, fundamental research is needed to address
about the things they need to know, and, more
exploiting the full potential of next-generation technologies is likely to require fundamental, rather the pedagogical, cognitive, and social dimensions of
importantly, about the things they love to do
than incremental reform…Content, teaching, assessment, student-teacher relationships and even effective learning in a world where interaction and
(Csikszentmihalyi 1991). In this way, geoscience
the concept of an education and training institution may all need to be rethought…we cannot human activities are shaped by cyberinfrastructure.
education supported by cyberinfrastructure is not just
Viewed in this light, understanding human protocols
afford to leave education and training behind in the technology revolution. But unless something about fulfilling needs. It is about enriching the whole
of learning, interaction, and communication is as
changes, the gap between technology’s potential and its use in education and training will only human experience.
important as understanding technical protocols for
grow as technological change accelerates in the years ahead.” system interaction. Cyberinfrastructure projects should be supported
that investigate creating and evaluating informal
– Phillip Bond, Department of Commerce Undersecretary for Technology, Enhancing Education Geoscience education is well positioned to use
and ubiquitous science learning environments,
Through Technology Symposium, Pasadena, CA April 29, 2004 (Bond 2004) cyberinfrastructure to leverage natural curiosities and
with an emphasis on developing design principles
concerns about the Earth system. As citizens and
for 24/7 learning.
communities grapple with maintaining, managing,
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 computer-
based data. The availability of such computational
power to the science research community (e.g., higher
resolution, better physical representation and coupling
in modeling systems, along with improved observa-
tional resolution and data assimilation techniques)
has enabled a better understanding of more complex
Earth system problems. The computational link
between theory and observation is a fundamental part
of geoscience and how we now learn and understand
the world around us (NSF 2000).
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 human-
influenced events, and providing a stimulus for them
22
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 visu-
alization tools, and knowledge of how to effectively
use these technologies to answer scientific questions.
Cyberinfrastructure has the potential to bring together
new approaches that can readily integrate multiple
scales, data points, and timelines to vividly illustrate
Earth system processes (GEON 2004). Thus, there
is a mandate to create more user-friendly tools and
immersive environments that allow science research “Vast improvements in raw computing power, storage capacity, algorithms, and networking capabilities
and education to be conducted and understood by 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
that approach scientific and engineering problems from a broader and deeper systems perspective.
uncommon for scientists wanting to do interdisci-
Scientists in many disciplines have begun revolutionizing their fields by using computers, digital data, and
plinary work to be frustrated and limited in their
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
data open new approaches to discovery.”
more easily among disciplines and their traditional
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 The implications for geoscience

education are profound. Earth
of student understanding processes occur on extreme scales
(very small, very large, very long). They
Much cognitive research over the past two decades
are frequently not readily visible and they
has focused on the role of individual differences
are almost always interdependent. Models
and preferred learning styles in influencing learning
of student learning specific to geoscience
outcomes (Bransford, Brown et al. 2000). Simulta-
education might include dimensions such as the
neously, there have been major demographic shifts
competencies required for global data collection,
taking place in learning populations. Education is no
understanding the range of spatial and temporal
longer perceived as a “one size fits all” proposition.
scales that link Earth processes, and understanding
Instead, educators are increasingly called on to
the multifaceted (dynamic, thermodynamic, chemical,
tailor educational content and activities to meet the
biological, ecological) way in which components of
individual needs of an increasingly heterogeneous
the Earth system are linked. What does it mean to
student population (Jonassen and Grabowski 1993).
understand these complex and subtle processes? This
Educators at all levels must address many different
question is equally relevant to scientists and educators.
learning styles, a broad range of disabilities or learning
Scientists seek to identify the next area of investiga-
challenges, and diverse socio-economic populations
tion; educators, to define boundaries or measures of
and cultural backgrounds.
understanding of what is already known.
Tools and services that offer such student-centered
Cyberinfrastructure has the potential to reinvent the
capabilities are predicated on the existence of rich, What does it mean to understand these complex and subtle processes? This question is equally
concepts of testing, student comprehension, and
dynamic models of student understanding (Corbett, relevant to scientists and educators. Scientists seek to identify the next area of investigation;
assessment. Educators must consider what it means
Koedinger et al. 2001). Such models would depict the educators, to define boundaries or measures of understanding of what is already known.
for students to demonstrate understanding of Earth
key ideas that learners should understand, common
system processes (Atkin, Black et al. 2001). Student
learner conceptions and misconceptions, and how
understanding in this area must move beyond rote
these ideas change over time as student under-
and nominal information. In doing so, both formal
standing becomes increasingly sophisticated (AAAS
and informal geoscience education initiatives will have
1993; AAAS 2001a; Sumner, Ahmad et al. 2004).
more promising opportunities to instill basic science
Additionally, these models need to acknowledge
concepts that can be used throughout a person’s life.
how people learn, specifically how new knowledge
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 be an important part of collecting

observational data of the planet.
authentic learning Multidisciplinary integration of data
and cross-collaboration among learners
Authentic learning involves solving real-world
of all ages is essential to making science
problems, addressing issues relevant to the lives of
relevant to students’ lives (NCAR 2003). The
students, and linking students and scientists through
next advance for authentic learning environ-
data sharing, critiquing, and direct communication
ments requires leveraging cyberinfrastructure to
(Brown, Collins et al. 1989; Lave and Wenger 1991;
enhance the collection and analysis of those data.
Bransford, Brown et al. 2000). In fact, authentic
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
grades through undergraduate education and into
Authentic learning environments demand both
lifelong learning. There are numerous instances of
technical and social support systems. They require
how the current infrastructure, with its convergence
technical infrastructure and tools to support data
of mobile, handheld, and wireless technologies, can
collection and analysis, and social infrastructure to
be used to develop smart tools that support the inves-
provide the critical scientist-educator interactions to
tigation, research, and analysis of our world (Sharples
support student analysis and interpretations. This
2000; OSI 2002; Hunter, Falkovych et al. 2004). This
dual support, combining investigation/observation
is yet another area in which educational and scientific
and research and analysis around real problems,
research needs intersect. The same smart tools that
can provide an ideal environment for student Collaboration and communication are critical to the practice of geoscience research and
are required for education will also support scientific
discovery and understanding of underlying science or education. Future scientific discovery and innovation necessitate that the definition of
investigation and research.
mathematics principles. collaboration extends beyond today’s norm to guarantee multiple perspectives, skill sets,
and expertise.
Cyberinfrastructure should support projects
Many students enter the field of geoscience because
to create intelligent, portable research tools,
of their love of nature and a desire to understand the
develop technologies that automate the capture,
underlying processes that define how the Earth works.
recording, retrieval, and preservation of field
One of the most enjoyable and exciting aspects of
research information, and devise smart tools that
discovery is field research and the ability to observe,
enable experiential learning.
collect, and analyze data. Data collection activities can
be conducted by learners at all levels, e.g. under-
graduate 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 curricula, student interest in science

professional
development
Formal public education is “big business” in terms
of the numbers of students served and the requisite
infrastructure. There are approximately 47 million
public school students in the U.S. today, being taught
by 2.1 million K-12 teachers in 91,380 schools across
the nation (Gerald and Hussar 2002; Hoffman 2003).
Over 3,700 schools of higher education prepare the
has swelled [ibid]. Thus, investments
in teacher professional development are
direct investments in the nation’s future
scientific workforce. College educators,
especially those at two- and four-year
undergraduate institutions, also struggle to
stay current in the science and technology
fields (Egger 2003). To have a real impact on
workforce preparedness, cyberinfrastructure must
address issues of training, awareness, and general
educational infrastructure.

There are significant issues

in current educator profes-
sional practices that must “The frequency of computer use is surprisingly low, with only about 1 in 10 lessons incorporating their

next generation scientific and educational workforce
(NSB 2004). Research indicates strong interdepen-
dencies between teacher preparation and student
participation in science study and careers (Seymour
2002). Historically, when there has been large scale,
systemic support for science teachers and scientific
be addressed. Many
teacher preparation
programs are outdated
and often fail to include
leading-edge scientific
practices and pedagogies,
such as integrating data in
the classroom, employing
computational approaches
to geoscience, and leveraging
advanced communica-
tion technologies to support
the collaborative conduct
of science (NRC 2000a; NRC
2000b, Sanders 2004).
Educators must develop for themselves and learn
how to inculcate in their students scientific habits of
mind and technical literacies. As the pace of scientific
innovation accelerates, there will be less dependence
on traditional textbooks. Future educators, at all levels,
including undergraduate and graduate, must learn
use. The explanation for this situation is far more likely lack of teacher preparedness than lack of
computer equipment, given that 79 percent of secondary earth science teachers reported a moderate
or substantial need for learning how to use technology in science instruction (versus only 3 percent of
teachers needing computers made available to them.)”
– 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education: Status of Secondary School Earth
Science Teaching, Horizon Research, Inc., December 2000 (Horizon Research Inc. 2000)
how to construct meaningful and coherent curricula to effectively integrate cyberinfrastructure
from a vast array of online learning resources research and innovation into teacher
available in digital libraries and other data and education curricula.
information repositories (AAAS 2001b; Sumner,
Too often, teachers are marginalized and limited to
Ahmad et al. 2004).
passively receiving research that has been repurposed
Cyberinfrastructure should support the for educational consumption, rather than being
development of educational methods, courses, active participants in the research endeavor. In a
and teacher certification programs that recent national survey of K-5 science teachers, only
incorporate current scientific data, tools, and one in 10 indicated having direct interaction with
analytical techniques. Large cyberinfrastructure scientists in professional development activities. For
projects should be encouraged to develop formal those with such contact, the overwhelming impact
partnerships with teacher preparation programs of this experience was a better understanding of

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,
and increased motivation and enthusiasm (Bayer
2004). Cyberinfrastructure offers an opportunity to
rekindle the excitement of scientific inquiry within the
educational community. Conversely, scientific research
projects can benefit by leveraging the experience
of expert and master teachers who know the types
of lessons, data gathering methods, and tools that
work in different learning environments. Desirable
partnership models would offer teachers opportuni-
ties 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 cyberinfra-
structure 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
prompted by the No Child Left Behind legislation have
placed even greater stress on teachers. Digital libraries,
such as DLESE and the National Science Digital Library
(NSDL – www.nsdl.org), are critical in supporting
teacher preparedness, promoting the development
and sharing of innovative teaching practices, and
developing a sense of community. As part of their
leadership role in educational cyberinfrastructure,
digital libraries should:
• act as brokers and actively facilitate strong ties and
collaboration between educational practitioners
and the science research community
The very nature of science, involving investigation, research, analysis, and
• seek to develop leadership opportunities for
discovery of real-world phenomena, makes it an ideal platform for authentic
teachers within cyberinfrastructure initiatives learning activities.
• 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.

30
Recommendations
The following recommendations were articulated
by workshop participants as practical steps towards
integrating geoscience research and education within
the emerging cyberinfrastructure. These recom-
mendations are organized by the core values and
specific goals that emerged from the workshop.
Although participants arrived at a consensus on a
common vision, values, and goals, active engagement
by the entire geoscience research and education
communities will be required to make this vision a
reality. These recommendations are intended to offer
important first steps towards this end.
• A targeted working group should
Recommendations based on the
core values
• A concerted effort needs to be undertaken to
document, measure, and understand the impact
of cyberinfrastructure on geoscience education.
This will require the engaged commitment of
educational evaluators working closely with
all stakeholders of funded cyberinfrastructure
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
ensure that their data are available for broad and
open dissemination, and that appropriate materials
32
are accessible
via partnerships
with recognized
data archives and digital
libraries, such as DLESE
and NSDL.
be formed that includes educational
outreach staff from existing funded
cyberinfrastructure efforts. This group
should be charged with identifying specific
issues and solutions, within the context of their
funded projects, to the immediate challenges
Recommendations based on Goal 1: • Cyberinfrastructure projects that include
of integrating geoscience education into large
Collaborate and build collaboration with K-20, informal, and formal
cyberinfrastructure projects.
new social structures educational partners and educators should be
encouraged. NSF educational initiatives, such
• A portfolio of cyberinfrastructure projects should
as DLESE and NSDL, should provide leadership
be initiated that is designed to teach and develop
in this area and act as brokers between
collaboration and communication skills from an
cyberinfrastructure projects, teachers, and teacher
early age, and to embed these skills in significant
professional development opportunities.
and meaningful ways throughout all stages of
formal and informal learning. • Cyberinfrastructure should support projects with
an international scope, particularly those that
offer cross-national collaborative opportunities for
scientists, educators, and learners. International
projects should encourage understanding local
phenomena within the context of global issues.
33
 RECOMMENDATIONS
• Proposed technical advances in collaboration and
communication technologies should be grounded
in theoretical and/or empirical understandings
of effective communication, collaboration,
and teamwork.
• Proposed technical advances in collaboration
and communication technologies should
provide educator training on the effective use of
technologies within educational settings.
• Individual projects should consider collaborations
that support mentoring and scaffolding among
researchers, educators, and learners, and
that provide a clear structure for evaluating
these efforts.
Recommendations based on Goal 2:
Support ubiquitous
learning environments
• 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.
34
• Projects should address lifelong learning or citizen
science components, i.e., investigating how
cyberinfrastructure can positively influence the way
we live, govern, and recreate.
Recommendations based on Goal 3:
Maximize a computational approach
to geoscience
• Cyberinfrastructure projects should be supported
that incorporate computational geoscience
approaches with the development of age-
appropriate tools and services for learners. Tool
creation should be accompanied by supporting
educational materials that facilitate integration of
the tools into the curriculum.
• Cyberinfrastructure should support projects that
help learners and future geoscientists develop
advanced computer science skills that are required
for geoscience education and research, e.g.,
algorithm development, current software analysis,
and design practices.
Recommendations
based on Goal 4:
Create dynamic models of
student understanding
• Cyberinfrastructure has the potential to
bring together new educational approaches
that can readily integrate multiple scales,
data points, and timelines to vividly illustrate
Earth system processes and enhance knowledge
adoption. Cyberinfrastructure projects should
investigate how these advanced technical
approaches—when coupled with models of
student understanding—enable the dynamic
creation of tailored learning environments
and learning assessments that are meaningful
and realistic.
• Cyberinfrastructure projects should be encouraged
to contribute to basic research on how people
learn, interact, and communicate through
partnerships with researchers in cognizant
disciplines. These projects should contribute basic
knowledge that will advance theories of learning,
particularly types of cognition and skills
important to geoscience, such as spatial thinking
and data analysis.
• Cyberinfrastructure projects should be encouraged
to address how learners of all ages acquire and
refine geoscience concepts over time.
• Cyberinfrastructure should support innovative
approaches to developing computational
representations that capture, record, and
model learners’ understanding of geoscience
concepts. Projects should investigate how
innovative tools and services can leverage
these models of understanding to provide
tailored learning experiences.
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
and utilize advanced tools for data collection and
data analysis. Mechanisms for sharing information,
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
cyberinfrastructure projects. Technologies that
encourage the automatic capture, recording,
retrieval, and preservation of field research
information, and that underpin the development
of smart tools enabling experiential learning should
be developed and supported.
Recommendations based on Goal 6:
Expand educator
professional development
• Large cyberinfrastructure projects should be
encouraged to develop formal partnerships
with teacher preparation programs to effectively
integrate cyberinfrastructure research and
innovation into teacher education curricula.
• 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 should support the
development of educational methods, courses,
and teacher certification programs that incorporate
current scientific data, tools, and analytical
techniques. Cyberinfrastructure projects that
support national and state-based educational
standards, and in particular, projects that link the
issues surrounding high stakes testing, teacher
professional development opportunities, and
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.
35
Conclusion

Our nation’s role in the global economy, the strength
and vitality of our labor force, and our ability
to generate and sustain scientific creativity and
innovation are all dependent upon a scientific and
technically literate citizenry. This citizenry, in turn,
must appreciate the role that science and scientists
play in understanding our natural and human-built
worlds, and their relationship to our social and political
institutions. Previous cyberinfrastructure reports have
acknowledged these dependencies and recognized
the importance of human capital and workforce
development. This report complements those efforts
by focusing on this critical issue and developing
specific goals and recommendations that advance the
present and future conduct of geoscience education.
Achieving the vision set forth in this report will require
long-term funding, meaningful collaborations, and
strong leadership within the geoscience education and
research communities. The recommendations set forth
herein, coupled with broad community support, can
dramatically transform the landscape of geoscience
teaching and learning, and generate a passion for
the pursuit of geoscience careers in a new generation
of learners. In so doing, we will come closer to
realizing the vision of a geoscientific workforce
that is truly diverse in opportunity, productivity, and
intellectual innovation.

“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, • Frank Ireton, Space and Earth Sciences Data Analysis
University of Colorado at Boulder (SESDA)/Science Systems and Applications, Inc. (SSAI)
and National Earth Science Teachers Association
• Joan Aron, Science Communication Studies (NESTA)

• 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
• 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 • Mick Khoo, Department of Communication, University
School for Arts and Academics of Colorado at Boulder

• Ann Bradford, Office of Education, National Oceanic • Scott Lathrop, National Center for Supercomputing
& Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Oceanic and Applications (NCSA) Department, University of Illinois at
Atmospheric Research (OAR) Labs Urbana-Champaign

• Kirsten Butcher, Digital Library for Earth System • Russanne Low, Science CentrUM, University of
Education (DLESE) Program Center, Minnesota
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) • Tim McCollum, Charleston Middle School

• Barbara Buttenfield, Department of Geography, • Christine McLelland, Geological Society of America

University of Colorado at Boulder (GSA)

• Paula Coble, National Aeronautics and Space • Mary Marlino, DLESE Program Center, UCAR
Administration (NASA) Headquarters
• George Matsumoto, Monterey Bay Aquarium
• LuAnn Dahlman, TERC Research Institute (MBARI)

• Lynne Davis, DLESE Program Center, UCAR
• Sebastian de la Chica, 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
• Katy Ginger, DLESE Program Center, UCAR
• Michelle Hall, Science Education Solutions, Inc.
• Maggie Helly, A.C. Mosley High School
• 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
• John Moore, Environmental Studies, Burlington County
Institute of Technology
• Julie Moore, Instructional Technology, University of
Georgia
• Don Murray, Unidata Program Center, UCAR
• Jonathon Ostwald, DLESE Program Center, UCAR
• Rajul Pandya, Significant Opportunities in Atmospheric
Research and Science (SOARS) Program, UCAR
• Tom Reeves, Department of Instructional Technology,
University of Georgia
• Randy Sachter, Nederland Middle/Senior High School
• Judy Scotchmoor, Museum of Paleontology, University
of California at Berkeley
• Dogan Seber, San Diego Supercomputer Center
(SDSC), University of California at San Diego
• Sharon Sikora, GLOBE Education Team, UCAR
• Len Simutis, Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC)
• David Steer, Geology Department, University of Akron
• Tamara Sumner, Center for Lifelong Learning and
Design, Department of Computer Science, University of
Colorado at Boulder
• John Weatherley, DLESE Program Center, UCAR
• Marianne Weingroff, DLESE Program Center, UCAR
• Tom Whittaker, Space, Science and Engineering Center
(SSEC)/Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite
Studies (CIMSS), University of Wisconsin at Madison
• Stedman (Ted) Willard, American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS)
• Mike Wright, DLESE Program Center, UCAR
• Memorie Yasuda, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
(SIO), Geological Research Division and California Space
Institute at SIO

38 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,
Finholt, T. A. and G. M. Olson, 1997. From laboratories to collaboratories: A new organizational form for scientific
Oxford University Press.
collaboration. Psychological Science 9: 1-9.
AC-ERE, 2003. Complex Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth, Life, and Society in the 21st Century, A 10-Year Outlook
Fischer, G., 1998. Creating the University of the 21st Century: Cultural Change and Risk Taking - Consequences of and
for the National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA; National Science Foundation, Advisory Committee for Environmental
Reflections on Teaching an Experimental Course. Center for LifeLong Learning and Design, University of Colorado. Retrieved
Research & Education (AC-ERE).
28 September 2004; http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/~gerhard/reports/cu-risktaking1998.pdf
Atkin, J. M., P. Black and J. Coffey, Eds., 2001. Classroom Assessment and the National Science Education Standards.
Florida, R., 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York; Basic Books.
Washington D.C.; National Academy Press, 115 p.
GEON, 2004. GEON: Cyberinfrastructure for the Geosciences. NSF Annual Report, Year 2, 2004. San Diego, CA; University of
Atkins, D. E., K. K. Droegemeier, S. I. Feldman, H. Garcia-Molina, M. L. Klein, D. G. Messerschmitt, P. Messina, J. P. Ostriker
California at San Diego, 32 p.
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. 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.
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. Gonzales, P., C. Calsyn, L. Jocelyn, K. Mak, D. Kastberg, S. Arafeh, T. Williams and W. Tsen, 2000. Pursuing Excellence:
com/msms/news/facts.cfm?mode=detail&id=survey04 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.
Bennis, W. and P. W. Biederman, 1997. Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration; Perseus Books Group.
Greenspan, A., 2004. The critical role of education in the nation’s economy. Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce 2004
Bond, P., 2004. Remarks of Phillip Bond, Department of Commerce Undersecretary for Technology. Enhancing Education
Annual Meeting, Omaha, Nebraska, February 20.
Through Technology Symposium, Pasadena, CA, April 29.
Hoffman, L. M., 2003. Overview of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools and Districts: School Year 2001-02. Statistical
Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown and R. R. Cocking, Eds. 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School; National
Analysis Report. National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, NCES 2003-
Academy Press.
411, 56 p.
Brown, J. S., A. Collins and P. Duguid, 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, Jan-Feb:
Horizon Research Inc., 2000. National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education: Status of Secondary School Earth Science
32-42.
Teaching.
Calsyn, C., P. Gonzales and M. Frase, 1999. Highlights from TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study).
Hunter, J., K. Falkovych and S. Little, 2004. Next generation search interfaces - Interactive data exploration and hypothesis
NCES 1999 081. Washington D.C.; National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
formulation. 8th European Conference on Digital Libraries (ECDL 2001), Bath, UK (September 12 - 17), Springer.
Center for Internet and Society, 2004. Creative Commons. Center for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School. Retrieved 24
Jolly, E. J., P. B. Campbell and L. Perlman, 2004. Engagement, capacity and continuity: A trilogy for student success. GE
September 2004; http://creativecommons.org/
Foundation. Retrieved 27 September 2004; http://www.campbell-kibler.com/trilogy.pdf
Corbett, A. T., K. R. Koedinger and W. H. Hadley, 2001. Cognitive tutors: from the research classroom to all classrooms.
Jonassen, D. H. and B. L. Grabowski, 1993. Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning & Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence
Technology Enhanced Learning: Opportunities for Change. P. S. Goodman, Ed. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Erlbaum Associates.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1991. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience; Perrenial.
Lave, J. and E. Wenger, 1991. Situated Learning. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.
CyRDAS, 2004. Cyberinfrastructure for the Atmospheric Sciences in the 21st Century. Boulder, CO; National Center for
Loucks-Horsley, S., N. Love, K. E. Stiles, S. Mundry and P. W. Hewson, 1998. Designing Professional Development for Teachers
Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Ad Hoc Committee for Cyberinfrastructure Research, Development and Education in the
of Science and Mathematics; Corwin Press.
Atmospheric Sciences (CyRDAS), 56 p. Retrieved 24 September 2004; http://www.cyrdas.org/report/cyrdas_report_final.pdf
Manduca, C. A. and D. W. Mogk, 2002. Using Data in Undergraduate Science Classrooms. Final report on an interdisciplinary
Egger, A. E., 2003. Teaching and Research in Taiwan. GSA Today 13(12): 30-31.
workshop held at Carleton College, April 2002. Science Education Resource Center (SERC), Carleton College. Sponsored by
Ferstl, E. C. and W. Kintsch, 1999. Learning from text: Structural knowledge assessment in the study of discourse the National Science Foundation and the National Science Digital Library (NSDL). Retrieved 28 September 2004; http://www.
comprehension. The Construction of Mental Representations During Reading. S. R. Goldman and H. van Oostendorp, Eds. dlesecommunity.carleton.edu/files/usingdata/UsingData.pdf
Mahweh, NJ, Erlbaum.

40 41
 REFERENCES
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/
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/
NSB, 2003. Science and Engineering Infrastructure for the 21st Century: The Role of the National Science Foundation. NSB-
02-190. Arlington, VA. National Science Board, 74 p. Retreived 24 September 2004;
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2002/nsb02190/nsb02190.pdf
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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: 173-
176.
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.
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
Pages 10-11, 18-19, 20-21, 24-25: courtesy of the
Significant Opportunities in Atmospheric Research &
Science (SOARS) program, and the University Corp. for
Atmospheric Research (UCAR)
Pages 14-15: © Carlye Calvin
Pages 22-23, 32-33: courtesy of the Unidata Program
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
This workshop was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation, received under grant #0215640.
© 2004 University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)
Recommended citation:
Marlino, M. R., T. R. Sumner, and M. J. Wright, 2004. Geoscience Education and Cyberinfrastructure. Report of
a workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF), April 19-20. Boulder, CO: Digital Library for
Earth System Education (DLESE) Program Center; University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), 43p.
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