geoscience education field officer international programme

11 ■ ASE International ■ No 10 ■ Geoscience ■ 08/20

Keywords: Earth Science, EGU-IUGS/IGEO, FieldOfficer programme, hands-on activities,international programme, teaching geosciences

IntroductionWhilst geoscience topics are included in mostprimary and secondary school national curricula orstandards around the world (Greco & Almberg,2016; King, 2013; King, 2019), the need forimproving geoscience education has been recognisedsince the 1990s by researchers and educators ofdifferent countries (King, 2008). In fact, according toa report by the International Geoscience EducationOrganisation (IGEO), there is ‘a huge and disturbinggap between the importance of Earth Science to thefate of humankind and its low status in schoolsworldwide’ (Greco & Almberg, 2016, p.9) because ofthe weak subject background of many teachers, anduneven availability of good quality teaching materialsand textbooks and of professional developmentopportunities (Greco & Almberg, 2016; King, 2019).

In this critical context of the provision ofprofessional development, a remarkable exceptionis the experience of the Earth Science EducationUnit (ESEU), originally based at Keele University(UK), which developed an innovative teachertraining method based on interactive hands-onworkshops and a wealth of teaching resources.These have been successfully used since 1999with 40,000 teachers across the UK (King &Thomas, 2012). The resources have been freelyavailable since 2008 through a website(https://www.earthlearningidea.com/), accountingfor over 4.7 million downloads throughout theworld by May 2020.

At the international level, the European GeoscienceUnion (EGU) Committee on Education (CoE), inaiming at ‘Inspiring, updating and supporting

Geoscience Education Field OfficerInternational programme:... ■ Gina P. Correia ■ Giulia Realdon ■ Guillaume Coupechoux■ Xavier Juan ■ Ramanathan Baskar ■ Yamina Bourgeoini ■ Chris King

AbstractThe Geoscience Education Field Officer (FO)programme was launched in 2019 by theEuropean Geosciences Union (EGU) Committeeon Education (CoE). The initiative began in sixcountries: France, Italy, India, Morocco,Portugal and Spain. Supported by EGU, theInternational Union of Geological Sciences(IUGS) and the International GeoscienceEducation Organisation (IGEO), thisinternational programme has the objective ofproviding professional development ingeoscience teaching to teachers and futureteachers, from primary to secondary schools,who have limited or no academic backgroundin Earth Science, or who need training coursesin practical geology teaching.

The aim of this paper is to present an analysisof the outcomes of the EGU-IUGS/IGEO FOprogramme one year after its launch (May2019 – April 2020). The methodology is basedon both a quantitative and qualitative analysisof the data provided by two instruments: theFO report presented to the EGU CoE and theteachers’ workshop evaluation form. During thefirst year of activity, this project involved 379workshop participants, from 188 differentteacher education establishments, in a total of21 workshops performed in the differentcountries. Also, FOs have presented four oralcommunications at teachers’ conferences andpublished two abstracts to promote anddisseminate information about this programme.The participants who completed the workshopevaluation form revealed a high level of interestin this kind of workshop and some declaredthat they were the best workshops that theyhad ever attended in their professional careers,and hoped to attend future similar workshops.

...The first year of activity (May 2019-April 2020)

https://www.earthlearningidea.com/


geoscience teachers and educators’ (EGU website),launched the Geosciences Information for Teachers(GIFT) programme in 2003. This programme isbased on annual conferences and workshops,where invited teachers from all around the worldmeet top-level scientists and experts offering talksand teaching activities related to different EarthScience themes. GIFT workshops in Vienna andother locations worldwide involve many dozens ofteachers every year but, for obvious reasons, thereare many more who cannot access this professionaldevelopment opportunity.

To overcome this limitation, in 2019 EGU CoElaunched a new initiative by appointing severalGeoscience Education Field Officers (FOs), initiallyfour from European and two from non-Europeancountries – the latter funded by the InternationalUnion of Geological Sciences (IUGS) and with thesupport of the IGEO. The FOs were trained to offerin-service and pre-service teacher trainingworkshops in their respective countries. Theworkshops were based on the teaching methodsand resources developed and successfully tested byESEU. The EGU aim was to multiply the impact ofthis approach, by involving a much larger numberof teachers across Europe and beyond.

The FO workshops are intended for teachers whohave geoscience in the curriculum that they teach,but who have poor geoscience backgrounds andlack training in geoscience teaching. There arepossibly tens of thousands of teachers in thissituation in Europe and across the world. Theworkshops are targeted at the curriculum, areinteractive, hands-on and designed to developthinking and investigational skills in pupils througha constructivist approach (Cognitive Accelerationthrough Science Education (CASE)) method (Adey, 1999)).

The objective of this paper is to analyse theoutcomes of the EGU-IUGS/IGEO GeoscienceEducation Field Officer programme one year after its

launch (May 2019-April 2020). In particular, theanalysis focuses on the:

■ implementation of the workshops;

■ characteristics of attending teachers; and

■ appreciation expressed by the teachers.

Implementation of the Field Officerprogramme

FO training:

■ Selected though a call by the EGU CoE towardsthe end of 2018, the six FOs, from France, Italy,India, Morocco, Portugal and Spain, first met inVienna in April 2019, shortly before the EGUGeneral Assembly (GA) and GIFT 2019 (GIFT isa three-day updating workshop for teachers runas part of the GA). There, the FOs were trainedin the programme methodology and materialsover a two-day intensive training session run byChris King, Chair of EGU CoE and formerdirector of ESEU.

■ The FOs were given a small budget to purchaseworkshop apparatus and materials and – for the European FOs – additional funding tosupport their travel and accommodation to allowthem to attend teacher workshops andconferences venues.

Promotion of the programme and organisation ofnational workshops:

■ Back in their own countries, the FOscommunicated about the availability of EGUworkshops through their professional networks,receiving requests from schools, nationalteachers’ associations, universities, nationalscientific associations and Ministries ofEducation; the feedback was used to plan aworkshop schedule for the 2019-2020 school year.



■ The FOs presented oral communications atteachers’ conferences and wrote abstracts todisseminate information about the programme.

Finding local support:

■ The FOs were asked to identify a group of localsupporters to help and support them inmanaging the planned activities.

Preparation of workshop materials:

■ Given the practical hands-on approachcharacterising the workshops, the FOs had to setup materials and equipment that attendingteachers would use during the workshops andthen later in their classroom activities.

■ The FOs also translated and adapted the activityworksheets containing the lab protocols andpedagogical guidelines into their languages, asnecessary.

Evaluation:

■ The FOs shared a short evaluation form to collectdata from the attending teachers to assess theoutcome of the workshops.

■ The FOs informed EGU CoE through periodicreports.

Methodology To assess the outcome of the EGU-IUGS/IGEOGeoscience Education Field Officer programme in its first year of implementation, the data from two instruments were considered: the FO annualreport provided to EGU CoE, IUGS and IGEO, and the workshop evaluation forms completed by participants.

The FO annual report gathers the global informationfrom individual reports completed after performingeach workshop and includes indicators includingthe number of visits, workshops, workshopparticipants (teachers and non-teachers), differentteacher education establishments, and workshop

content. The number of communications at teacherconferences where FOs presented the projectdetails, the abstracts published and the types ofinstitution that invited FOs to present workshops,are also indicators used to assess the developmentof the programme.

For the workshop assessment, an evaluation formwas designed based on an instrument used byESEU. The evaluation form included closed andopen-ended questions: the closed questions madeit possible to characterise the workshop participants(gender, role, years of experience, professionalpositions level and taught subjects), and to assessthe interest of the workshop by using a 5-levelLikert scale [Lower interest (1) to higher interest(5)] to answer three questions addressing theirpersonal interest, their professional interest andtheir interest in participating in further workshops(see Figure 1); the two open-ended questionsallowed attendants to give their opinion on theirexperience and suggestions for future workshops.

The quantitative data obtained from the assessmentinstruments were processed for descriptivestatistics, and a content analysis was performed onthe open answers.

Conventional inductive content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) was performed by three coders,separately reading questionnaire open answers,decontextualising meaning units, identifyingcategories and coding each unit according to theidentified categories (Bengtsson, 2016; Graneheim &Lundman, 2004). Finally, the coders combined theirresults, reaching a consensus through discussion.

The evaluation form was provided by all FOs at the end of each workshop session to the 379 participants by using an online or paperquestionnaire. But, as filling in the questionnairewas not compulsory and teachers were asked for their consent to use the evaluation form data, this study includes feedback from only 296 workshop attendees.



The FOs visited 15 cities in their own countries:Nice and Colomars (France); Hisar (India);Camerino, Civitanova Marche, Gorizia and Tivoli(Italy); Lisbon, Montemor-o-Velho and Lamego(Portugal); Barcelona, Madrid, Segovia, Valenciaand Cáceres (Spain). The travel andaccommodation were supported by EGU for theEuropean workshops, or paid directly by theinstitutions visited. Teachers from 188 differentteacher education establishments were involved.

After March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic causedgovernments to close schools and cancel events,leading to 12 workshop cancellations in all thecountries involved: France (2 in Nice); India (1 inNew Delhi); Italy (1 in Alghero, 2 in Barolo; 2 inStaranzano and 1 in Rome); Portugal (2 inCoimbra); and Spain (1 in Cuenca).

Making the programme widely known anddisseminating information is one aim of the FOs, sofour oral communications were presented atteachers’ conferences in Hisar (India), Parma (Italy),

Oporto (Portugal) and the Geopark of Alto Tajo(Spain), and two abstracts were published. Also,several informal meetings took place with nationalteacher associations, universities and nationalscientific institutions to plan workshops across thecountries concerned.

The workshops performed included the geosciencescurricular content shown in Table 2 on page 15.

The range of content addressed by the workshopsdepended on their time limit. Whilst each individualworkshop is normally scheduled for two hours, theworkshop sessions offered lasted between 2 and 15hours (the latter spread over different days), asrequested by the institutions that invited FOs. Thesessions were based on the initial training in Viennaand also on the resources of the Earthlearningideawebsite; FOs adapted and translated activityprotocols (Table 3), and created practical materialsaccording to their national curricula and theteaching level of the attendees.


Results and discussionData from FO annual reportDuring the first year of activity, this project involved 379 workshops participants, of which 378 wereteachers, through a total of 21 workshops (Table 1).

Table 1. Global activity of Field Officers from May 2019 to April 2020.

Country Indicator

Locations Workshops Workshop Teacher Teachers’ Published Cancelled (n) (n) participants education conferences abstracts workshops (n) establishments (n) (n) due to the (n) COVID-19 (n)

France 2 2 45 7 ----- ----- 2

India 1 1 22 17 1 ----- 1

Italy 4 5 80 55 1 1 6

Portugal 3 5 84 53 1 1 2

Spain 5 8 148 56 1 ----- 1

Totals 15 21 379 188 4 2 12


On the Earthlearningidea website, many translatedmaterials are already available, so for somelanguages it was not necessary to carry out thistask (e.g. Portuguese). In India, the workshopswere performed in English.

During the first year of activity, there were differentkinds of institutions that invited FOs to runworkshops (Table 4). Some workshops wereincluded in scientific meetings or in universitylectures, and others, the longer sessions, wereorganised as a teacher training professionaldevelopment course. These and other institutionshave increased their interest in these activities andthe FOs have already scheduled several workshopsfor the next year.

The partnership with such institutions is importantbecause it promotes the growing recognition of theFO programme in the involved countries and givesthe possibility of offering a certificate to the attendees.

The data obtained from completing the evaluationform (n=296) corresponded to 78.1% of theworkshop participants (n=379). It revealed theprevalence of the female gender (82.4%), whilstalmost all the participants were teachers (99.7%)(Table 5). Most of the workshop participants wereexperienced professionals, with seven or more yearsof teaching experience, with 53.0% of teachers onthe stage [7-25 years of teaching], according to thestages proposed by Huberman (1989). Thefrequency of confirmed and permanent teachers,here ranked as ‘Career teacher’ (73.0%), is higherthan those from other professional positions.

Data obtained from teachers’ evaluation form

■ Sample characterisationAll the attendant teachers (n=295) were fromprimary or secondary level schools, with aprevalence of secondary level teachers (74.2%).Primary school teachers usually teach all subjects,thus only secondary teachers (n=219) wereconsidered for the ‘Taught subjects’ categories.


Table 2. Workshop content presented by Field Officers.

Country Workshop contents

Earth science Earth Fossils and Platetectonics Rock cycle Rock Seismic Volcanism out-of-doors structure and geologic time detective waves and magnetic field earthquakes

France x x x

India x x x x x

Italy x x x x x x x

Portugal x x x x x x x x

Spain x x x x x x x x

Totals 3 4 4 4 3 4 5 4

Table 3. Translated activity protocols by Field Officers.

Language Translated (n)

French 10

Italian 13

Portuguese 8

Spanish 192

Catalan 232

Totals 455



Country Ministry of Teacher School University Scientific Education Association association

France x x

India x

Italy x x

Portugal x x

Spain x x x x

Table 4. Types of institution that invited Field officers to present workshops.

Category Number (n) Percentage (%)

Gender Female 244 82.4

Male 52 17.6

Role Teacher 295 99.7

Other 1 0.3

Teaching years [1-3] 42 14.2

[4-6] 29 9.8

[7-25] 157 53.0

[26-35] 53 17.9

[36-40] 14 4.7

> 40 1 0.3

Professional position Career teacher 216 73.0

Hired/supply teacher 57 19.3

Trainee teacher 19 6.4

Technician 1 0.3

Other 3 1.0

School level Primary 76 25.8

Secondary 219 74.2

Taught subjects Natural sciences/

biology/geology 178 81.3

Physics/chemistry 19 8.7

Table 5. Sample characterisation.


The proportion of natural sciences/biology/geologyteachers (81.3%) is higher than the othercategories where Geoscience content is usuallyincluded (physics/chemistry and geography). As acuriosity, the category ‘Other’ (4.1%) comprisedmathematics, technology and philosophy secondaryteachers who were interested in attending theworkshops even if they did not directly address theirteaching subject.

■ Workshop interestThe highest level of appreciation (5) is the mostfrequent feedback category in the evaluation form(Figure 1) from France, Italy, Portugal and Spain(n=274; it was not possible to collect data fromIndia), corresponding to 72.3% of the workshopattendees (n=379).

The global scores in the interest in the workshop(4.79), the interest for professional development(4.75) and for attending future workshops (4.64),reveal the perceived importance of this programme.

The 13 attendees who scored 1 in the last openquestion (‘I am interested in attending otherworkshops of this kind…’) participated in a singleworkshop, which took place in a university as partof their Master of Education. These attendeesscored 4 or 5 in the other two closed questions.The first question was probably misunderstood bythis group.

Out of 296 questionnaires collected, 117 includedgeneral comments about the participant’sexperience of the workshop and 59 includedsuggestions for future workshops. The commentson the workshops ranged from a single word toextended considerations addressing diverse issues.Scanning through them, the coders identified theseconcept categories: General appreciation for thecourse and the trainers; Impact on the participant;Comments on theoretical/pedagogical knowledge;Comments on practical knowledge; Criticism andsuggestions; and General remarks on geoscienceteaching (Figure 2).


�

� � � � �

� � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � �

��

��

��

��

�

� � � � �

� � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � �

��

�

� � � � �

� � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � �

�

� � � � �

� � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � �

��

� � �

� ��

��

��

��

� � � � �

� � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � �

�

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

� � � � �

� � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � �

��

��

� �

� � � � �

� � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � �

��

�

�

� � � � �

� � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � �

�

� � � � �

� � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � �!��"� �� !��!��#�$�

��%��&�'�� " ��#� "� ��

Figure 1. Frequency of the interest appreciation levels from workshop participants.


Half the answers expressed positive appreciation forthe quality of the workshop and the trainers’ skills:interest, methodology, organisation, usefulness andpleasure were the most valued aspects of thetraining. An even higher proportion of answers(53%) highlighted the appreciation of the practicalknowledge provided and of the ease of transferringthis knowledge to classroom practice. About 28%of the comments praised the pedagogical approachto Earth Science: its potential to motivate students,its novelty, flexibility for different age groups, andthe capacity for addressing difficult topics.

More than a quarter of the comments expressedpositive feelings about the workshop’s impact onparticipants, with only 6% of criticisms, mainlyconcerning the short time available for the workshop.

Suggestions for future workshops were offered by59 teachers, presenting one or more requests

(Figure 3). About half of these included specificgeoscience topics, but also different subjects (e.g.biology, environmental sciences) andinterdisciplinary activities. One fifth of therespondents presented suggestions about workshoporganisation (e.g. activities for different schoolgrades, schedule at the beginning of the schoolyear) or methodology (fieldwork, videos). Finally,more than 40% of the suggestions evidencedgeneral approval of the workshop (e.g. continuethis way) or requests for more/longer activities likethese. Only two answers mentioned difficulties,attributing them to factors external to the workshops.

Final considerationsThe collected data confirm that the FO internationalprogramme has been a success in its first year ofimplementation. This is supported by the teacherresponses, which show that workshop attendees


Figure 2. General comments on the workshops.

�

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � �

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � �

��

��

�

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � � ��

�

�

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � �

��

��

�

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � �

��

��

�

�

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � �

�� !��

��"��

��

�

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � �

�� !��

��

��

�

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � ��

�

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � � ��!��

g


enjoyed participating in the activities and intend to participate in future ones. The number ofworkshops requested by national institutions to be conducted in the near future is anothersignificant indicator of success.

The positive outcomes include the high number of teachers in the numerous regions and differentschools in the countries involved; the range ofgeosciences curricular content presented in theworkshops, which cover almost all the topics ofgeoscience taught at school according to theInternational Geoscience Syllabus prepared by theIGEO (IGEO, 2014); the dissemination of pedagogicmaterials and methods among the workshopparticipants; and the establishment of aninternational geoscience teacher trainers’ network.

The elements that contributed to the success of thisprogramme are: the excellent resources stemming

from the internationally acknowledged ESEUexperience and provided by the Earthlearningideawebsite; the interactive hands-on methods used;the constant collaboration and support of the EGUCoE, particularly its Chair, Chris King; the nationalFOs’ supporters; and the permanent andcollaborative interaction between FOs. The physicaldistance did not prevent them from carrying outoutreach work through e-mails and virtual meetingsthat were held as often as required.

The lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemicprevented the running of some scheduled workshopsin March and April 2020, but also nine futureworkshops that had been programmed up to August2020; some workshops had to be postponed untilnext year. This situation was an obvious limitation,but it did not stop the work of the FOs. During thattime, they continued to disseminate the programmeand to plan and prepare future activities.


Figure 3. Suggestions for future workshops.

�

� � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � �

� � �

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

� � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � �

� � �

��

� � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � �

� � �

��(��

��

�

� � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � �

� � �

��

��

�

� � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � �

� � � ��

��

��

�

�

� � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � �

� � �

��

��!��"��

��#��

�

� � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � �

� � �

��$��%��

��&��

�

�

� � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � �

� � � ��)��*�

�

� � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � �

� � �


Because of the positive results from this first pilot year, EGU and IUGS/IGEO decided to continuefunding this programme and the training of newFOs. So, next year, this programme will be extendedto include seven more FOs: four from Europe(Albania, Germany, Hungary and Turkey) and three from beyond Europe (Chile, Malaysia andTogo). Their training was scheduled for May 2020but, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, this was postponed to a future date depending onpandemic conditions.

The extending of the programme over future yearswill allow the initiative to reach more teachers andschools across the world and to increase theinternational geoscience trainers’ network.

The experience of this first year of the FOprogramme allows us to conclude that the initiativeis successful. However, new challenges arise for thefuture, with the objectives of:

■ increasing the number of workshops andparticipants;

■ extending workshop coverage over widergeographic regions of the countries involved;

■ disseminating and presenting the advantages of the programme at teacher conferences;

■ discussing and testing new methods andmaterials for distance training (e.g.https://www.earthlearningidea.com/home/Teaching_videos_workshops.html); and

■ developing websites/social media hubs fordifferent countries to disseminate the workshopplans and geoscience information; alternativelyhosting this information on the websites ofnational geoscience organisations in therespective countries.

The global outcome of these geoscienceprofessional development and training activities isthe promotion of capacity-building in Earth SystemSciences and the contribution to meet the targets ofthe UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),

starting from SDG4 – Quality Education. This willalso educate our communities for a safer world andmake them more resilient to disasters, therebyachieving the objectives of the Sendai Frameworkfor Disaster Risk reduction (SFDRR).

AcknowledgementsThose involved in the FO programme are mostgrateful to the EGU and IUGS for funding theprogramme so far and for the promise of futurefunding. They are also very grateful to EGU CoE,IUGS-COGE and IGEO for their strategic overviewand support. The work of the supporters ofindividual FOs has been crucial to the success ofthe initiative.

ReferencesAdey, P.S. (1999) The science of thinking, and

science for thinking: a description of cognitiveacceleration through science education (CASE).Geneva: UNESCO-IBE International Bureau ofEducation

Bengtsson, M. (2016) ‘How to plan and perform aqualitative study using content analysis’,NursingPlusOpen, (2), 8–14.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001

Earthlearningidea:http//www.earthlearningidea.com (last accessedMay 2020)

European Geosciences Union (EGU):https://www.egu.eu/education/ (last accessedMay 2020)

Graneheim, U.H. & Lundman, B. (2004)‘Qualitative content analysis in nursing research:concepts, procedures and measures to achievetrustworthiness’, Nurse Education Today, 24,(2), 105–112.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

Greco, R. & Almberg, L. (Eds.) (2016) Earthscience education: Global perspectives. PousoAlegre: IFSULDEMINAS, ISBN: 987-85-67952-14-7


https://www.earthlearningidea.com/home/Teaching_videos_workshops.html

https://www.earthlearningidea.com/home/Teaching_videos_workshops.html

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001

http://www.earthlearningidea.com

https://www.egu.eu/education/

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001


Hsieh, H.-F. & Shannon, S.E. (2005) ‘ThreeApproaches to Qualitative Content Analysis’,Qualitative Health Research, 15, (9), 1277–1288.https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

Huberman, M. (1989) La vie des Enseignants.Neuchâtel-Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé

International Geoscience Education Organisation(IGEO) website (2014), International geosciencesyllabus:http://www.igeoscied.org/activities/international-geoscience-syllabus/

King, C. (2008) ‘Geoscience Education: anoverview’, Studies in Science Education, (44),187–222

King, C. (2013) ‘Geoscience education across theglobe – results of the IUGS-COGE/IGEO survey’,Episodes, 36, (1), 19–30

King, C. (2019) ‘Earth science education across theglobe’. In: Geoscience in primary and secondaryeducation, Volume 2: ‘Results of experts’ opinionsurvey 2018’ (pps. 16–36). United NationsEducation Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO):https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000371311 (last accessed May 2020)

King, C. (2020) Report on the internationalGeoscience Education Field Officer Programme:first year of operation, May 2019-April 2020 –the pilot year. Internal report, June 2020

King. C. & Thomas, A. (2012) ‘Earth ScienceEducation Unit workshops – an evaluation oftheir impact’, School Science Review, 94, (347),25–35

Gina P. Correia, Centre for Earth and SpaceResearch of the University of Coimbra (CITEUC), Portugal.E-mail: [email protected]

Giulia Realdon, University of Camerino,UNICAMearth group, Italy.

Guillaume Coupechoux, Collège L. Nucéra,Académie de Nice, Education nationale française,France.

Xavier Juan, Spanish Earth Science TeachersAssociation (AEPECT), Spain.

Ramanathan Baskar, Department of EnvironmentalScience and Engineering, Guru JambheshwarUniversity of Science and Technology, India.

Yamina Bourgeoini, Département des Sciences dela Terre - Laboratoire Géosciences etEnvironnement, Marrakech, Morocco.

Chris King, Education Department, KeeleUniversity, UK.


https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

http://www.igeoscied.org/activities/international-geoscience-syllabus/



https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf00003

mailto:[email protected]

geoscience education field officer international programme

Documents