Survey of Geospatial Information Technologies

Survey of Geospatial Information Technologies in Teacher Education Thomas Hammond Department of Education & Human Services Lehigh University USA [email protected] Elizabeth Langran School of Education & Human Services Marymount University USA [email protected] Thomas R. Baker Esri, Inc. and Center for STEM Learning University of Kansas USA [email protected] // [email protected]

Abstract: The rapidly-developing field of geospatial information technologies (GIT) includes such tools as GPS, Google Maps/Earth, and GIS. While GIT holds great potential for learning in preK-16 education, it has been unknown to what extent those who train teachers are preparing future educators to use these tools. An online survey was designed to capture data about how faculty and instructors in teacher education programs are using geospatial technologies in their teacher education courses. Analyses indicate that a wide range of tools are used, mainly in science and social studies education. Almost a third of the participants also named math education or English/language arts education as another context in which they integrated geospatial tools.

Introduction Geospatial information technologies (GIT) are a family of technical tools and scientific methods with significant implications for preK-16 teaching and learning. GIT includes geo-location devices (e.g., handheld GPS units and GPS-enabled mobile technologies), dynamic maps and digital globes (e.g. Google Maps and Earth), analysis and display tools such as Geographic Information Systems (e.g. ArcGIS), and more. Historically, GIT have significant barriers to their use in preK-16 education. Civilian use of GPS was not even possible before 1994, and early GPS devices cost thousands of dollars. While licenses for the more powerful GIS software suites have always been low-cost for U.S. schools, computing hardware has historically been expensive and desktop GIS tools have required a steep learning curve to successfully use the software and data. In the past decade, however, GIT has

become far more accessible. Many tools and services are now free to the public, such as Google Map, GPS Visualizer, Social Explorer, and a wealth of “geo-enabled” mobile apps. GIS has moved from mainframes and desktops into the cloud, making it even more affordable (or even free in many cases) and easily accessible to schools and youth clubs. As GIT moves onto mobile platforms, interfaces are becoming easier to use and datasets are becoming more standardized. In the coming decade, teachers and students will be able to use GIT with drone or LIDAR data as seamlessly as they currently use office productivity software today. Accordingly, in-service and pre-service teacher education must incorporate and model the use of GIT. These tools can be integrated into instruction in a variety of ways. Standing alone, they can supplement instruction, such as integrating digital globes into science or social studies lessons (Schultz, Kerski, Patterson, 2008). They can also be used in conjunction with other instructional technologies--for example, digital stories, and social media can be geo-tagged, and location-aware digital cameras and cellphones can integrate latitude and longitude coordinates in their meta-data (e.g. Palmer & Baker, 2013). All of these uses create exciting new possibilities for teaching and learning as students analyze, create, and communicate their experience of the world. However, GIT integration also perfectly embodies the “wicked problem” (Koehler & Mishra, 2008, 10) of shifting complexities instructors face when incorporating any technology into the restrictive ecology of the classroom, curriculum, and instructional planning. While there is a growing body of literature supporting middle and high school student learning with geospatial tools, these studies focus on student affect or achievement outcomes and seldom tie back to the teacher professional development that supported the technology adoption and implementation (e.g. Alibrandi, Beal, Thompson, & Wilson, 2000; Alibrandi & Sarnoff, 2006; Baker & White, 2003; Barnett, Houle, Mark, Strauss, & Hoffman, 2010; Bednarz, Acheson, & Bednarz, 2006; Doering & Veletsianos, 2007; Donaldson, 2001; Edelson, Smith, & Brown, 2008; Meyer, Butterick, Olkin, & Zack, 2003; Milson & Curtis, 2009; Milson, Gilbert, & Earle, 2007). Some edited volumes and journals have even been produced, focused on student learning yet with negligible tie back to teacher professional development (e.g. Baker & Bednarz, 2003; Milson & Alibrandi, 2008; Milson, Demirci, & Kerski, 2012) Unfortunately, the scope and types of use of these technologies with pre-service teachers is sparse and largely unknown (e.g. Chen, 2012; Rod, Andersland, & Knudsen, 2012). While some survey research has been done with in-service teachers and geospatial professional development, the data from the last national implementation survey is now a decade or more old and did not include pre-service teacher education (Baker, Palmer, Kerski, 2009). More recent efforts have been undertaken to describe recent historical patterns and findings (2000-2012) in geospatial professional development for teachers (e.g. MaKinster, Troutmann, & Barnett, 2014). However, this volume makes no attempt to describe the current scope and only incidental attempts to identify types of use of geospatial technology in either in-service or pre-service teacher education. Despite the relative lack of understanding of current activity, the use of and need for greater understanding in this space is routinely identified in the field (e.g. see Baker, Kerski, Huynh, Viehrig, & Bednarz, 2012). However, there is no definitive picture of what types of geospatial technologies currently exist in teacher education classrooms and to what extent they are being used. For example, the science education community has adopted GIS to some extent, particularly at the middle and secondary level; is the social studies community now undergoing the same trend? If the scope is widened to consider not just GIS but a broader group of geospatial tools (e.g., image processing, GPS or digital globes), are elementary teacher educators also integrating GIT? With the knowledge of how educators are using geospatial technologies in their work to train pre-service teachers, we will be better able to determine and disseminate best practices for geospatial technologies in teacher education. To address this gap in knowledge, an online survey was designed to capture data about how faculty in

teacher education programs are using geospatial technologies in their teacher education courses. The specific research questions are: 1. 2. 3.

What tool use and parallel contexts for geospatial tools instruction exist in teacher education institutions? What processes or activities do instructors choose to employ? How do instructors adapt their practice over multiple iterations of the course?

Methods Data Collection Three researchers collaborated on the construction of items for the survey, and sent it to 3 subject matter experts to prototype and suggest improvements. The survey instrument was constructed in Google Drive Forms and was available from March through August of 2013. The survey contained 38 items divided into five broad sections: background, student profiles, instructional settings and goals, tools and tasks, and levels of technology engagement. Items were primarily multiple choice and narrative. Respondents could opt out of sections they felt weren’t applicable. A snowball sampling method was employed, initially targeting common geospatial education or educational technology listservs and social media outlets. Listservs included GEOGED (University of Kentucky), EDGIS (TERC), HIGHERED-L (Esri), and the Geospatial Education SIG membership of AACE-SITE. Members of the TCEA’s (Texas Computer Education Association) Geospatial SIG were also invited to respond if they worked in teacher education. Data Analysis Phase 1 of data analysis focused on a broad quantitative overview of the collected data. Quantitative survey items were analyzed using descriptive statistics in Minitab 16; qualitative measures were coded to yield thick descriptions to determine the extent to which the conclusions drawn are transferrable, and if GIT is perceived to be an effective method of teaching. As nearly all the data collected were categorical and the sample size small, the scope of the quantitative analysis is necessarily limited. Thirty respondents completed the survey, providing about 2,000 pieces of data. A future Phase 2 of the data analysis will include case studies interviews of select respondents, in an attempt to better document the current state of GIT in teacher education, including why technologies are used and how they are effectively integrated into an already overcrowded teacher education curricula.

Results Who is Using GIT in Teacher Education? Respondents were initially classified based on their departmental affiliation and field of terminal degree to ascertain a best fit class: education, geography/science, or other. “Science teacher educators” were included only in the education class. Given the relatively small number of respondents this classification provides more meaningful categories by which to study the data. These respondents came from a wide range of backgrounds, many holding

advanced degrees in expected fields (instructional technology, curriculum and instruction, geography, and even geochemistry and geology) but some coming from more surprising disciplines (library science, counseling, forestry). One survey participant, a recent graduate currently teaching GIS certification courses, held a degree in Geospatial Management. The survey participants’ teacher education contexts also showed a wide range: while the majority are affiliated with higher education institutions, others work for technology corporations, public school systems, and even a botanical garden. Only two respondents worked outside the United States, coming from Australia and Canada. Two-thirds of respondents hold a doctorate (Ph.D. or Ed.D.). The participants reported using a wide range of geospatial tools, with products from Google and Esri receiving the most mentions. About half also use GPS (or GPS-enabled devices), and slightly less than half used smartphones, tablets, or other mobile computing devices. Augmented reality games were mentioned by one participant, a term that we did not anticipate seeing in the responses. The two largest teacher education contexts were science and social studies education, with slightly more participants identifying as science educators (or an allied field, such as environmental education) than social studies educators. However, almost a third of the participants also named math education or English/language arts education as another context in which they integrated geospatial tools. In What Areas of Teacher Education is GIT Being Used? Among faculty engaged in teacher education, the majority taught social studies methods courses, followed by those teaching science methods courses. For faculty in the sciences who teach geospatial technologies to students, the item was either skipped or reported as “Not applicable”. Teacher education faculty engaged students who were enrolled in various certification levels. Secondary teachers were the most likely to be exposed to geospatial tools during their professional training. Surprisingly, teachers seeking (or holding) elementary certification were the second most likely group to have any geospatial training. Fourteen of 30 responding faculty members reported the teacher education course with geospatial tools as required or elective. Of those reporting, four (4) indicated the course to be required and ten indicated the course was an elective. Instructional Task Analysis: What Tools Are Being Used? Tools: Installed (Desktop) Traditionally, installed (desktop) software has been the mainstay of geospatial tools used across education. It has only been in the last decade that Internet-based services and websites have grown in capacity and popularity, such that they could eclipse desktop tools – at least for educational use. The data from this survey supports the idea that desktop tools still hold a very strong position, relative to other geospatial tools. Only one respondent indicated that they were not using an installed (desktop) tool for at least some geospatial tasks in teacher education. Of the 14 Education faculty who reported using installed (desktop) tools, there were 48 task items divided into four task categories. Education faculty did report slightly more tasks at the introductory level (e.g. “Viewing maps”) and less at the advanced levels (e.g. “Analysis”). Installed (desktop) tasks showed the greatest difference in means (.376) between Education and Geography/Science faculty, when comparing the most advanced uses of installed (desktop) tools by each respondent. When asked to list frequently installed (desktop) tools by product name, Geography/Science faculty

listed professional geospatial tools (e.g. Esri ArcGIS based tools) about 40% more often than Education faculty. However, Education faculty named consumer geospatial tools (e.g. Google based tools) about 30% more frequently that Geography/Science faculty on the same question. Tools: Internet-based Internet-based services and websites were reported as being used by 27 of 30 respondents, with a small but noticeable bent toward simpler tasks such as map viewing and data browsing. Two-thirds of all respondents reported “Map Viewing” and “Data Browsing”. Interestingly, over 50% of respondents reported using Internet-based services and websites to analyze data – a category of tasks which is not frequently available in consumer Internet-based tools. When asked to name Internet-based services or websites by name, differences between Education and Geography/Science faculty were negligible in terms of identifying consumer or professionally oriented tools. However, the Geography/Science faculty was less inclined than Education faculty to identify consumer oriented, Internet-based geospatial tools on the web (42% vs 53% respectively). Tools: Mobile Mobile geospatial tools proved to be the emerging technology for both seasoned Geography/Science faculty and Education faculty, with 73% reporting some use. The reported tasks with mobile technology were relatively rudimentary, focusing on viewing maps and adding datasets to existing maps. Of desktop, internet, and mobile technology, this category received the fewest total responses. Researchers expect activities in this category to grow dramatically in the coming years. Tools: Conclusion Despite a lack of statistically significant findings between Education and Geography/Science faculty uses of tools, there are quantitatively more instructional tasks occurring with installed (desktop) and internet-based services and tools than mobile applications at the time of this survey. Examining the reported tasks by category reveals (by one measure) nearly eight times less activity with mobile tools. Table 1: Total reported task items, by category and faculty type Installed (Desktop)

Internet-based services or websites

Mobile

Education faculty

45

43

19

Geography/Science faculty

48

38

28

Other faculty

4

5

2

Total

93

86

49

The lines between desktop and internet-based applications are becoming less defined. For example, Google Earth, uses installed software but requires access to the internet; ArcGIS was mentioned in both categories, as it exists in desktop and online versions. Many of these same tools can be accessed on mobile devices, either as apps or

through a tablet/smartphone’s web browser. One respondent noted that she uses the GPS on her iPhone rather than the university-provided GPS units because of its greater ease of use, and several noted that they were able to have their students use their personal smartphones for class activities. Instructional Goals: What Are Faculty Hoping to Do With Their Teacher-learners? In examining learning goals, respondents indicated that “skills” and “map skills/spatial thinking” were emphasized most. The right column of Table 2 indicates the number of faculty responding positively divided by the total number of respondents.

Table 2: Instructional Goals Instrument items

“Yes” responses

Awareness

Have you integrated geospatial tools into your teacher education to make your students aware that these tools exist, but without expecting them to engage in their use?

12/28 43%

Skills

Do you use geospatial tools in teacher education to build the students' skills at using these technologies?

26/27 96%

Knowledge Building

Have you used geospatial tools in your teacher ed to encourage teachers to use these tools in developing their students' understanding of curricular content?

26/28 93%

Map skills or Spatial Thinking

Have you used geospatial tools in your teacher ed to encourage teachers to integrate these tools into their instruction regarding how to use maps or think in spatial terms?

27/28 96%

Inquiry or PBL skills

Have you used geospatial tools in your teacher ed to encourage teachers to integrate these tools into instruction to develop students' ability to do inquiry or solve problems?

29/32 91%

Technology Skills

Have you used geospatial tools in your teacher ed to encourage teachers to integrate these tools into instruction to develop students' ability to use geospatial tools in a non-academic context?

22/29 93%

Content Acquisition

Do you integrate geospatial tools into your teacher education in order to develop your teacher-learners' content knowledge?

24/28 86%

Since the only instruction goal below 85% approval was “Awareness”, a closer look is warranted. Five education faculty reported positively on awareness, while ten did not (33% positive within Education faculty). Six Geography/Science faculty reported positively, while 8 did not (43% of Geography/Science faculty). Other faculty contributed one positive response. Instructional Goals: Conclusion

The amount of time respondents spend on integrating geospatial technology varies quite a bit. Some respondents noted, “Geospatial awareness and skills are integral components of every course we teach,” and the “curriculum is entirely GIS based,” while others reported spending “about half of a class session” doing activities with geospatial tools and relying on guest lecturers for GIT instruction. What GIT Activities Are Teacher-educators Doing? The majority of respondents noted that they are integrating GIT into their content area, and frequently require students to develop GIT-based lesson plans. Several integrate GIT through showing examples of the use of GIS or spatial literacy in various disciplines. As the goal is a pedagogical process rather than the mastery of the technology itself, the GIT is clearly articulated by nearly all respondents to be a means to an end. Respondents described several of their geospatial technology activities: Our Power of Data projects pair CTE teachers with Math or Science teachers to integrate GST and project based instruction. The focus is on exploring data to find patterns, learn content, allow students to use data to solve problems and communicate claims using data as evidence. Students practice 21st century workforce skills as they use the GST to explore data and propose solutions to problems. I use a series of online "labs" that require students to solve a problem using GIS served remotely via online Citrix Client. They examine crime patterns and predict the location of criminals. They examine popular culture questions, business site location questions, gerrymandering, and other things depending on the specific class. Students in one class that has a lot of pre-service teachers use Google Earth to make predictions about the relationship between rainfall, elevation, etc. and crop patterns. They also construction virtual field trips for a hypothetical 4th grade class using Google Earth. The survey revealed a number of instructional uses of geospatial technologies that have the potential to be engaging, student-centered, and inquiry-driven.

Conclusion This survey provides a portrait of a diverse teacher education community employing geospatial tools at a variety of levels and contexts. Beyond the expected categories of teacher education in science and social studies, we observed other content areas as well, such as mathematics and English/Language Arts. Faculty outside of Education tended to use commercial tools, such as Esri’s ArcGIS. All participants reported advanced goals for their students: not merely awareness of geospatial tools, but hands-on use in a variety of contexts. While mobile tools are an emerging interest for faculty, their use is more limited than desktop or web-based tools, and the tasks to which they are applied are more rudimentary. Given the small number of respondents, our survey cannot be viewed as representative of the geospatial teacher education community as a whole. We are also limited geographically; while we know that tools such as GIS are used widely around the world (e.g., Milson, Demirci, & Kerski, 2012), we only had two participants from outside the United States. Furthermore, given the fluid nature of GIT development and technology integration practices, our data can only hope to represent a snapshot in time; given another few years (or even few months!), our participants may be engaged in a very different pattern of activities.

References Alibrandi, M., Beal, C., Thompson, A., & Wilson, A. (2000). Reconstructing a school’s past using oral histories and GIS mapping. Social Education, 64, 134-140. Alibrandi, M., & Sarnoff, H.M. (2006). Using GIS to answer the ‘whys’ of ‘where’ in social studies. Social Education, 70, 138-143. Baker, T.R. and Bednarz, S. (2003). Lessons learned from reviewing research in GIS education. Journal of Geography, 102(6) 6, 231-233. Baker, T. R., Kerski, J.J., Huynh, N.T., Viehrig, K., & Bednarz, S.W. (2012). A call for an agenda and center for GIS education research. Research in Geographic Education Online (RIGEO) 2(3), 254-288. Baker, T.R. and White, S. (2003).The effects of geographic information system (GIS) technologies on students’ attitudes, self-efficacy, and achievement in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Geography, 102(6), 243–254. Barnett, M., Houle, M., Mark, S., Strauss, E., & Hoffman, E. (2010). Learning about urban ecology through the use of visualization and geospatial technologies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18, 285313. Bednarz, S.W., Acheson, G., Bednarz, R.S. (2006). Maps and map learning in social studies. Social Education, 70, 398-404, 432. Chen, C.-M. (2012). Taiwan: The seed of GIS falls onto good ground. In A. J. Milson, A. Demirci, & J. J. Kerski (Eds.), International perspectives on teaching and learning with GIS in secondary schools (pp. 263–270). Dordrecht: Springer. Doering, A.D., & Veletsianos, G., (2007). An investigation of the use of real-time, authentic geospatial data in the K-12 classroom. Journal of Geography, 106, 217-225. Donaldson, D.P. (2001). With a little help from our friends: Implementing geographic information systems (GIS) in K-12 schools. Social Education, 65, 147-150. Edelson, D.C., Smith, D.A., & Brown, M. (2008). Bringing data analysis with GIS into the social studies classroom. In A. Milson & M. Alibrandi (Eds.), Digital Geography: Geospatial Technologies in the Social Studies Classroom (pp. 77-98). Charlotte, NC: IAP. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Makinster, J., Troutmann, N., & Barnett, M. (2014). Teaching Science and Investigating Environmental Issues with Geospatial Technology: Designing Effective Professional Development for Teachers. New York, NY: Springer.

Meyer, J.W., Butterick, J., Olkin, M., & Zack, G. (2003). GIS in the K-12 curriculum: A cautionary note. Professional Geographer, 51, 571-578. Milson, A. and Alibrandi, M. (2008). Digital Geography: Geospatial Tools for the Social Studies Classroom. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Milson, A.J., & Curtis, M.D. (2009). Where and why there? Spatial thinking with geographic information systems. Social Education, 73, 113-118. Milson, A.J., Demirci, A., & Kerski, J.J. (2012). International perspectives on teaching and learning with GIS in secondary schools. New York: Springer. Milson, A.J., Gilbert, K.M., Earle, B.D. (2007). Discovering Africa through Internet-based geographic information systems: A pan-African summit simulation. Social Education, 71, 141-145. Palmer, R.T. & baker, T.R. (2013). Tech-Enabled Field Studies. Carte Diem Press: Dallas, TX. Rod, J. K., Andersland, S., & Knudsen (2012). Norway: National curriculum mandates and the promise of Web-based GIS applications. In A. J. Milson, A. Demirci, & J. J. Kerski (Eds.), International perspectives on teaching and learning with GIS in secondary schools (pp. 191–199). Dordrecht: Springer. Schultz, R., Kerski, J. and Patterson, T. (2008). The use of virtual globes as a spatial teaching tool with suggestions for metadata standards. Journal of Geography, 107(1), 27–34. Shin, E. (2006). Using geographic information system (GIS) to improve fourth graders’ geographic content knowledge and map skills. Journal of Geography, 105, 109-120. West, B.A. (2003). Student attitudes and the impact of GIS on thinking skills and motivation. Journal of Geography, 102, 267-274.