GISdevelopment.net --> Application --> Miscellaneous
Thomas Jekel
GIScience Resaerch Unit
Austrian Academy of Sciences
Salzburg, Austria
Email: Thomas.jekel@sbg.ac.at
Children Mapping Global Change. Participatory GI-Based Learning
Thomas Jekel
GIScience Resaerch Unit
Austrian Academy of Sciences
Salzburg, Austria
Email: Thomas.jekel@sbg.ac.at
Current GI – based learning mainly works with given data and geometries. This approach has several drawbacks, namely the impossibility to alter and adjust data to the needs of a specific project or learning environments. The missing adaptability to individual learners perspectives contributes to difficulties within groups. It is suggested that participatory approaches to learning with GI are sought after that enable learners to transfer their knowledge into real world problems individually and collaboratively. The paper presented explores possibilities of collaborative mapping of global change. It will specifically refer to the project Schools on Ice, where several Austrian schools collaboratively track and map changes in the cryosphere. Learning with GI here is centred on a thematic approach, while software skills take a back seat.
1.Current GI-Use in Schools
When analyzing current use of GI in secondary education, there are various possibilities to include GIS. First we have those (few) instances where GIS is really used in the sense of Geographic information Systems, including acquisition, analysis and visualisation of data. Usually, this includes the use of an expert from either industry or academia to manage the complexities of the systems. Therefore, the experts’ availability is central to GI-use in schools, which is not realistic on a broader scale. The second strain includes web-based information systems with given data and geometries. These systems tend to support a method of teaching that is oriented at retrieving existing information and therefore, a behaviourist approach to learning. In a few cases – if accompanied by concepts of questioning geo-data – this may contribute to an understanding of spatial distributions and patterns, but less so to the understanding of spatial analysis. A third idea is centered on the idea of mapping with the help of digital globes, both in the neighbourhood as well as in far away places. All three models have in common that there is little in the way of explicit pedagogical concepts and almost no evaluation.
Real world use of GI in schools is different from recent discussions on within both pedagogics and GIScience. GIScience arguments are now centred on the idea of spatial thinking (National Research Council, 2006). Here, considerable effort has been laid on evaluating the worth of GI in learning situations. It is argued that GIS fosters the competence of spatial thinking, a competence needed across a range of subjects and everyday problems. While the general argument is splendid, it fails to include both students interests and learners conceptions which may differ from absolute space (Jekel 2007). In 2006, the volume ‘Learning to think spatially’ argued for a strong inclusion of GIS into curricula. This argument was mainly based on the assumption that spatial thinking (in terms of absolute space) could enhance the quality of decision making in both science and everyday life. However, the book is deliberately less concerned with the social production of space, but with a specific, scientific representation of space, namely absolute space (A. Johnson, personal communication). The argument therefore is mainly directed at learning within the science domain.
From the point of pedagogical debate, these discussions are missing out on a few issues. These have very much to do with the learning process as such, i.e. the prerequisites of successful learning. In common with pedagogical debate, it may be argued that the success of learning is dependent on preconcepts, interests and the social setting of the learning process (Lave & Wenger 1991; Jekel 2007). If learning with GI is to be successful, these determinants have to be included in learning environments. So far however, most learning environments have been technology driven. Little respect is given to the competences fostered by GI based learning. These competences may range from orientation to scientific enquiry and active political participation supported by own representations of spatial phenomena and visions. If thinking of the necessity to change everyday habits in the context of global change, the participation in decision making and competences to communicate complex spatial visions have to be included.
2 Mapping (Global) Change
Although global change currently is broadly presented in the media, it may be considered less tangible than other day to day problems. The attempts to communicate complex scientific insights as well as the urgent need to tackle the problem have been unsatisfactory in many ways. The resulting lack of public understanding calls for new forms of learning about global change. This contribution focuses on an alternative educational approach for communicating global change that includes learners as participants and consequently as leaders of change processes. Geoinformation (GI) is used both for contextualisation of content as well as basis of collaborative learning.
Mapping Global Change may start at a very local scale. For example, a time series of urban development in pupils’ vicinity (see fig. 1) makes a useful starting point. This leads to a concept of spatio-temporal changes in the physical environment. However another step is needed to explain change, namely, the political and economical situation. The images below show two different situations of the outskirts of the German city of Osnabrück, with an area built up within a few years that has formerly been thought of as a protected area. While the physical changes can be easily detected and mapped using Google earth, the political and economic reasoning behind these images has to be elaborated in further teaching, drawing on written documents and spatial planning policies (see Moeller, forthcoming).
Fig. 1: Landuse change in Osnabrück 1999 (left) - 2003 (right). Images integrated on Google Earth. From: Möller (forthcoming)
Basically, this mapping can be done individually. Given the complexity of problems of global change as well as the little time available for teaching on the theme however it is useful to distribute mapping agendas and collaborate to integrate the individual contributions. In the end this means to introduce collaborative learning into GI – based learning environments. The concept of collaborative learning was originally developed by Lave & Wenger (1991). It again is closely linked to the concept of participation in the learning process. Participation in turn means the social construction of meaning of both specific tracts of land and to specific strategies dealing with global change. Learning here has an explicit constructivist perspective. The end of the process, the attribution of meaning as well as the collaborative solution of complex real world problems usually allows for range of different outcomes. The concept has been widely discussed in pedagogical psychology, though it is seldom implemented in secondary education so far.
The Project Schools on Ice, funded by the Austrian ministry of science and led by GIScience research unit of the Austrian Academy of Sciences heavily draws on this concept. Within Schools on Ice, the concept of collaborative/participative learning is combined with digital globes, e.g. collaborative mapping, simulation and visualisation of strategies by pupils.
Fig. 2. General Concept of learner based learning within “Schools on Ice” project.
“Schools on Ice” strongly advocates the inclusion of learners’ perspectives in the conceptualisation of learning materials. Based on these foundations, the project first collects and analyses data on learners’ preconceptions and interests by various methods, e.g. qualitative interviews, commented newspaper portfolios, moderated discussions. Preconceptions are put in relation to scientific perspectives on global change to generate a pedagogical concept as guideline for specific learning objects and learning environments. Pupils are then asked to develop their research and communication designs with guidance from researchers of Technological University, Vienna and GIScience research unit, Salzburg. In both classroom and field teaching projects, various data collecting techniques are employed, combining mobile devices, online mapping from remotely sensed data and interview based analysis of local coping with climate change. Subsequent collaborative mapping is realised on digital globes.
The aim is to develop and distribute geoinformation based learning environments such as:
Fig. 3: Learning objects of the International Polar Year. Developed by IPY Education Iniative.
The project therefore fosters active cooperation between science and education sectors. As an added bonus, it is a useful PR platform for scientists as they are compelled to discuss scientific problems in a language open to all.
3.Envisioning Change?
The proposals discussed so far mainly have mapped things existing. This is only one way of conceiving change, looking at a historical perspective. Another way to map change may be the idea geo-visualise visions of local and global change. This is mainly grounded in theory of learning as well as spatial planning, that both argue for higher participation (Jekel, 2007). It is further grounded in the concept of situated learning. Do we forgive ourselves anything if learning with geo-information includes learning about spatial visions of children and young people? In experimental settings, planning of change on digital globes has been this has proven to be interesting to participants. This may be seen from a participation much higher than anticipated between pupils and across all gourps in three different courses (19 groups). In different case studies, pupils have been asked to map possibilities for sustainable development in the future as well as the planning of a ‘youth city’ within the old city of Salzburg. A similar approach has been taken with students from Jagellonian University, Krakow, Poland. In all these cases, both interest and motivation of learners and output has been more than sufficient, and collaborative mapping led to useful and creative strategies (see, for example, fig. 4).
Fig. 4, Students mapping local visions of change in Salzburg city on Google Earth (German).
In addition, while planning tracts of land together, real world spatial conflicts are to be solved, interests of individuals have to be brought together. Learners get a feeling of the political dimension when confronting global change. The development of spatially explicit arguments has helped to organize debate, visualise conflict and integrate data and experiences from outside both teaching and the existing data. It can be argued that the use of digital globes here fostered creativity. Moreover, technical entry levels and cost are either low or nonexistent, enabling more schools to participate in GI-based learning.
4 Summary
Within all the projects, GIS is not central aim of the learning process, but is embedded in real world problems. This is a considerable difference to recent attempts to ‘learn GIS at school’, i.e. a type of hardware and software training. Geoinformation here is used to a thematic end. First, GI is used as part of actively researching and analysing data, as in the project analyzing the development of housing and commercial building at the outskirts of Osnabrück. The second possibility is to use digital globes as tool to integrate and communicate pupils’ research into various themes, as in Schools on Ice project. Third, GI can be put to use as a graphic backdrop stimulating and structuring pupils’ discussions in local decision making processes on change. In all three approaches collaborative and participative mapping comes to the fore. All approaches however put a high emphasis on visualization rather than analysis. The technical knowledge needed to use Geoinformation this way is minimal and compatible with teachers’ competences, which is one of the main question marks over the use of Geoinformatics in school. As an added bonus, the techniques used in the learning process are compatible with learning theory and pedagogic thinking on learning processes.
References
1.Current GI-Use in Schools
When analyzing current use of GI in secondary education, there are various possibilities to include GIS. First we have those (few) instances where GIS is really used in the sense of Geographic information Systems, including acquisition, analysis and visualisation of data. Usually, this includes the use of an expert from either industry or academia to manage the complexities of the systems. Therefore, the experts’ availability is central to GI-use in schools, which is not realistic on a broader scale. The second strain includes web-based information systems with given data and geometries. These systems tend to support a method of teaching that is oriented at retrieving existing information and therefore, a behaviourist approach to learning. In a few cases – if accompanied by concepts of questioning geo-data – this may contribute to an understanding of spatial distributions and patterns, but less so to the understanding of spatial analysis. A third idea is centered on the idea of mapping with the help of digital globes, both in the neighbourhood as well as in far away places. All three models have in common that there is little in the way of explicit pedagogical concepts and almost no evaluation.
Real world use of GI in schools is different from recent discussions on within both pedagogics and GIScience. GIScience arguments are now centred on the idea of spatial thinking (National Research Council, 2006). Here, considerable effort has been laid on evaluating the worth of GI in learning situations. It is argued that GIS fosters the competence of spatial thinking, a competence needed across a range of subjects and everyday problems. While the general argument is splendid, it fails to include both students interests and learners conceptions which may differ from absolute space (Jekel 2007). In 2006, the volume ‘Learning to think spatially’ argued for a strong inclusion of GIS into curricula. This argument was mainly based on the assumption that spatial thinking (in terms of absolute space) could enhance the quality of decision making in both science and everyday life. However, the book is deliberately less concerned with the social production of space, but with a specific, scientific representation of space, namely absolute space (A. Johnson, personal communication). The argument therefore is mainly directed at learning within the science domain.
From the point of pedagogical debate, these discussions are missing out on a few issues. These have very much to do with the learning process as such, i.e. the prerequisites of successful learning. In common with pedagogical debate, it may be argued that the success of learning is dependent on preconcepts, interests and the social setting of the learning process (Lave & Wenger 1991; Jekel 2007). If learning with GI is to be successful, these determinants have to be included in learning environments. So far however, most learning environments have been technology driven. Little respect is given to the competences fostered by GI based learning. These competences may range from orientation to scientific enquiry and active political participation supported by own representations of spatial phenomena and visions. If thinking of the necessity to change everyday habits in the context of global change, the participation in decision making and competences to communicate complex spatial visions have to be included.
2 Mapping (Global) Change
Although global change currently is broadly presented in the media, it may be considered less tangible than other day to day problems. The attempts to communicate complex scientific insights as well as the urgent need to tackle the problem have been unsatisfactory in many ways. The resulting lack of public understanding calls for new forms of learning about global change. This contribution focuses on an alternative educational approach for communicating global change that includes learners as participants and consequently as leaders of change processes. Geoinformation (GI) is used both for contextualisation of content as well as basis of collaborative learning.
Mapping Global Change may start at a very local scale. For example, a time series of urban development in pupils’ vicinity (see fig. 1) makes a useful starting point. This leads to a concept of spatio-temporal changes in the physical environment. However another step is needed to explain change, namely, the political and economical situation. The images below show two different situations of the outskirts of the German city of Osnabrück, with an area built up within a few years that has formerly been thought of as a protected area. While the physical changes can be easily detected and mapped using Google earth, the political and economic reasoning behind these images has to be elaborated in further teaching, drawing on written documents and spatial planning policies (see Moeller, forthcoming).
Fig. 1: Landuse change in Osnabrück 1999 (left) - 2003 (right). Images integrated on Google Earth. From: Möller (forthcoming)
Basically, this mapping can be done individually. Given the complexity of problems of global change as well as the little time available for teaching on the theme however it is useful to distribute mapping agendas and collaborate to integrate the individual contributions. In the end this means to introduce collaborative learning into GI – based learning environments. The concept of collaborative learning was originally developed by Lave & Wenger (1991). It again is closely linked to the concept of participation in the learning process. Participation in turn means the social construction of meaning of both specific tracts of land and to specific strategies dealing with global change. Learning here has an explicit constructivist perspective. The end of the process, the attribution of meaning as well as the collaborative solution of complex real world problems usually allows for range of different outcomes. The concept has been widely discussed in pedagogical psychology, though it is seldom implemented in secondary education so far.
The Project Schools on Ice, funded by the Austrian ministry of science and led by GIScience research unit of the Austrian Academy of Sciences heavily draws on this concept. Within Schools on Ice, the concept of collaborative/participative learning is combined with digital globes, e.g. collaborative mapping, simulation and visualisation of strategies by pupils.
Fig. 2. General Concept of learner based learning within “Schools on Ice” project.
“Schools on Ice” strongly advocates the inclusion of learners’ perspectives in the conceptualisation of learning materials. Based on these foundations, the project first collects and analyses data on learners’ preconceptions and interests by various methods, e.g. qualitative interviews, commented newspaper portfolios, moderated discussions. Preconceptions are put in relation to scientific perspectives on global change to generate a pedagogical concept as guideline for specific learning objects and learning environments. Pupils are then asked to develop their research and communication designs with guidance from researchers of Technological University, Vienna and GIScience research unit, Salzburg. In both classroom and field teaching projects, various data collecting techniques are employed, combining mobile devices, online mapping from remotely sensed data and interview based analysis of local coping with climate change. Subsequent collaborative mapping is realised on digital globes.
The aim is to develop and distribute geoinformation based learning environments such as:
- A pupil-led monitoring program of change in the cryosphere: This includes GPS-based mapping in the field preparing case studies of the Austrian Alps.
- An age specific platform for communicating problems of global change: starting from pre-concepts, a glossary is developed that should fit language and knowledge of children; based on digital globes various flexible learning objects re developed by children for children. This includes virtual nature trails geo-blogs of historic and recent arctic expeditions, and geo-caching rules for the field.
- Strategies for coping with global change from a youth perspective. Here, pupils envision new strategies
- Free online learning objects on global and alpine change with specific reference to the cryosphere. The resulting learning objects are distributed via education servers and made available to German-language teachers.
Fig. 3: Learning objects of the International Polar Year. Developed by IPY Education Iniative.
The project therefore fosters active cooperation between science and education sectors. As an added bonus, it is a useful PR platform for scientists as they are compelled to discuss scientific problems in a language open to all.
3.Envisioning Change?
The proposals discussed so far mainly have mapped things existing. This is only one way of conceiving change, looking at a historical perspective. Another way to map change may be the idea geo-visualise visions of local and global change. This is mainly grounded in theory of learning as well as spatial planning, that both argue for higher participation (Jekel, 2007). It is further grounded in the concept of situated learning. Do we forgive ourselves anything if learning with geo-information includes learning about spatial visions of children and young people? In experimental settings, planning of change on digital globes has been this has proven to be interesting to participants. This may be seen from a participation much higher than anticipated between pupils and across all gourps in three different courses (19 groups). In different case studies, pupils have been asked to map possibilities for sustainable development in the future as well as the planning of a ‘youth city’ within the old city of Salzburg. A similar approach has been taken with students from Jagellonian University, Krakow, Poland. In all these cases, both interest and motivation of learners and output has been more than sufficient, and collaborative mapping led to useful and creative strategies (see, for example, fig. 4).
Fig. 4, Students mapping local visions of change in Salzburg city on Google Earth (German).
In addition, while planning tracts of land together, real world spatial conflicts are to be solved, interests of individuals have to be brought together. Learners get a feeling of the political dimension when confronting global change. The development of spatially explicit arguments has helped to organize debate, visualise conflict and integrate data and experiences from outside both teaching and the existing data. It can be argued that the use of digital globes here fostered creativity. Moreover, technical entry levels and cost are either low or nonexistent, enabling more schools to participate in GI-based learning.
4 Summary
Within all the projects, GIS is not central aim of the learning process, but is embedded in real world problems. This is a considerable difference to recent attempts to ‘learn GIS at school’, i.e. a type of hardware and software training. Geoinformation here is used to a thematic end. First, GI is used as part of actively researching and analysing data, as in the project analyzing the development of housing and commercial building at the outskirts of Osnabrück. The second possibility is to use digital globes as tool to integrate and communicate pupils’ research into various themes, as in Schools on Ice project. Third, GI can be put to use as a graphic backdrop stimulating and structuring pupils’ discussions in local decision making processes on change. In all three approaches collaborative and participative mapping comes to the fore. All approaches however put a high emphasis on visualization rather than analysis. The technical knowledge needed to use Geoinformation this way is minimal and compatible with teachers’ competences, which is one of the main question marks over the use of Geoinformatics in school. As an added bonus, the techniques used in the learning process are compatible with learning theory and pedagogic thinking on learning processes.
References
- Jekel, T. (2007), "What you all want is GIS 2.0!" - Collaborative GI based learning environments for spatial planning and education. In: Car, A., Griesebner G. & Strobl, J., GI-Crossroads@GI-Forum. Heidelberg: Wichmann, pp. 84 – 89.
- Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991), Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Moeller, M. (2008, forthcoming), Geobrowser - Katalysatoren für Geoinformationen im Unterricht. – In: Jekel, T, Koller A. & Donert, K., Learning with Geoinformation. Heidelberg: Wichmann.
- Strobl, J. (2007 in print), Geographic Learning in Social Web Environments. – In: Donert, K. GIS in Geography in Higher Education, Teaching Geography in Higher Education, San Diego, ESRI Publications.
- National Research Council (2006), Learning to think spatially. GIS as a Support System in the K-12 curriculum. – Washington DC.