At the start of the 21st century, undergraduate geoscience education faces a quandary. New courses and new approaches to teaching and learning are being developed, but in most cases these new directions are squeezed into existing models of undergraduate programs. Perhaps it is time, given the rapidly changing nature of geosciences, to rethink overall curriculum models.

Most current curriculum consists of a series of traditional courses, sometimes taught with non-traditional methods. Students must accomplish a set number of courses to earn a degree. In many cases, the material in individual courses is most highly valued for its own right rather than for its role in a linked, repeating sequence of intellectual development. Students may, therefore, become excellent learners of individual course material without developing an integrated perception of the field and without the overall ability to “think like a geoscientist.”

Employers report that transcripts and letters of recommendation get students jobs, but the ability of students to apply their knowledge to new situations, to quickly learn new material and to communicate clearly and effectively keeps students employed and gets them promotions. Does a traditional curriculum model based on segmented parts best meet these lifelong needs?

Self-similarity and repetition of themes are common characteristics of many geological features. A holistic concept of curriculum development based on these characteristics (loosely termed a fractal model) would focus foremost on emphasizing common themes and developing relations among different material presented to students throughout their undergraduate careers. Student’s abilities to ask questions, seek testable answers and communicate their results could well increase if their curriculum, rather than emphasizing individual parts, emphasized links among the parts.