Make it real: Designing authentic online GIS learning for a K12 audience

Aaron Doering, PhD, Learning Technologies, University of Minnesota, USAemail: adoering@umn.edu

Jeni Henrickson, PhD, Learning Technologies, University of Minnesota, USAemail: henr0027@umn.edu

Abstract: Geographic knowledge and spatial thinking skills are key in today’s globally interdependent world. New tools and models are needed, however, to guide teachers and learners alike through the process of geographic inquiry using new technologies such as geographic information systems (GIS). EarthXplorers is a new online learning environment that integrates a GIS platform and takes an inquiry- and project-based approach to learning GIS. This environment uses U.S. historical sites of significance tied to contemporary issues to advance spatial thinking and geographic inquiry skills. Our study explores teacher and student engagement with EarthXplorers as it examines how geographic inquiry, spatial thinking, and creative problem-solving skills are impacted by engagement with an online learning environment centered on GIS learning using real-world examples.

Objectives and Purpose“Never before in human history has it been more important for a person to be

geographically literate.” —Schell, Roth, & Mohan, 2013Geographic knowledge and inquiry skills are key in today’s globally interdependent

world (Edelson, 2009; Heffron & Downs, 2012; Kuhn, 2012; Schell, Roth, & Mohan, 2013). We are facing a plethora of challenges that demand an understanding of geographic concepts such as location, place, movement, human and environment interaction, and region. These challenges include issues with worldwide impact such as climate change, migration, political unrest, and food security, along with more localized challenges such as freshwater access, deforestation, and land use.

Geography is identified as a core academic subject in K-12 schools under both the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 as well as in the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act. However, it has yet to receive the federal funding and attention that the other identified core subjects have. And although geography decidedly fits within the much-in-demand STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) learning arena, it is often overlooked as such (Baker, 2012; Hayes-Bohanan, 2011).

New tools and models are thus needed to guide teachers and learners alike through the process of geographic inquiry. As geographic inquiry has rapidly embraced new technologies such as geographic informational systems (GIS), opportunities for teachers and students to engage with these technologies is also critical. The geospatial industry is a burgeoning field, feeding an average $73 billion per year into our national economy (Boston Consulting Group, 2012). According to the U.S. Department of Labor (2013), the geospatial industry is one of the fastest growing technology fields, with geospatial jobs increasing at an annual rate of 30 percent globally and impacting multiple career paths (Oxera, 2013).

Geographic learning offers a broad swath of transdisciplinary skills, spatial understanding, and technology training. It presents, too, an understanding of culture and the changing nature and relationship of human and environmental systems around the globe.

To address these challenges, the Learning Technologies Media Lab at the University of Minnesota designed and developed a new online learning environment, EarthXplorers (see figure 1). EarthXplorers offers an inquiry- and project-based approach to learning GIS. Its mission is to scaffold middle and high school students and teachers through the process of geographic inquiry using ArcGIS in conjunction with field-based activities, data collection, analysis, spatial visualization, and storytelling.

Figure 1: The EarthXplorers online learning environment.

EarthXplorers is a unique innovation on several fronts. (1) It seamlessly integrates ArcGIS within its environment, scaffolding teachers and learners alike in the real-world use of GIS to problem solve contemporary issues. (2) It focuses on authentic geography learning and uses the national geography standards to undergird the learning process. (3) It uses spatial

thinking and user-driven design to help us understand how people learn. (4) It encourages learners to be storytellers as well as scientists, with a goal of fostering deeper engagement with and understanding of content. (5) It allows teachers new formative assessment opportunities as they follow students’ critical thinking process as students identify guiding questions and communicate findings.

This study is employing a design-based research approach (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003) as thirty-one middle and high school teachers engaged with the EarthXplorers environment across two weeklong professional development workshops focused on geotechnologies in June and July 2016. These teachers will then pilot EarthXplorers in their classrooms during the 2016-2017 academic year. During that time, the researchers will track student engagement levels, content knowledge changes, and ArcGIS and spatial thinking skills, as they also gather usability and design feedback from the students. This current study examined teacher technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) across the PD workshops, while gathering usability and design feedback from the teachers.

Analysis is still underway. Findings from the teacher workshops to date indicate that using geospatial technologies in K-12 classrooms in pedagogically relevant ways is important because these tools provide students with the necessary authentic and interactive elements needed for making sense of our physical and social world. Scaffolding teachers in the use of GIS using lessons grounded in authentic, real-world issues is critical to the effective integration of GIS in the classroom. The EarthXplorers modules, for example, are centered on U.S. sites of great historical significance that tie to contemporary issues such as migration, natural resource extraction, and urban development. The LT Media Lab worked closely with the National Trust for Historic Preservation to identify the historical sites included in the environment, which are: the Manhattan Project, the Mississippi Delta, Theodore Roosevelt’s Elkhorn Ranch, Hinchliffe Stadium, and the James River. There is one additional module centered on the History of Cartography.

Spatial ThinkingSpatial thinking is a key piece of geographic inquiry (Heffron & Downs, 2012; Jo &

Bednarz, 2014; Kuhn, 2012; National Research Council, 2006); in fact, one might say it is what differentiates geographic inquiry from other forms of inquiry. In geographic inquiry, we examine phenomena across space and time, exploring how location, for example, might influence the characteristics of a phenomenon or its relationship to another phenomenon (ESRI, 2003). In their 2006 landmark study, Learning to Think Spatially, the National Research Council defines spatial thinking as “a collection of cognitive skills comprised of knowing concepts of space, using tools of representation, and reasoning processes” (p. 12). Recent studies have found spatial understanding to be linked to creative ability (Gardner, 2011; Kell, Lubinski, Benbow, & Steiger, 2013), STEM talent (Lubinski, 2010; Uttal, Miller, & Newcombe, 2013), and even one’s potential to generate technical innovation (Kell, Lubinski, Benbow, & Steiger, 2013). The question becomes, how might we introduce spatial thinking into the learning process within middle and high school classrooms, how might we teach it in a way that builds capacity to foster transdisciplinary application, and how do we assess it? There is currently, for example, no widely applied standardized test available to assess spatial thinking among K-12 students, though work has been done by Lee and Bednarz (2012) on a Spatial Thinking Ability Test that shows promise for use with junior high, high school, and university students.

Jo and Bednarz (2014) examine the role that teacher disposition and behavior plays in

teaching spatial thinking through geography. They note, “Given that spatial thinking has not been recognized and appreciated until recently, it is unlikely that teachers incorporate spatial thinking into their instructional practices” (p. 4). Given the relatively new introduction of this concept of spatial thinking into the national geography standards and into K-12 education as a whole, and the need for teachers as well as students to foster an understanding of it, EarthXplorers includes scaffolds within its environment that speak to teachers as well as students. As such, there is a separate “Teacher” area embedded within the EarthXplorers environment that is accessible only to educators and that walks them through the pedagogy, content, and technology employed within the environment. Previous research on GeoThentic, an existing online environment used for geospatial learning, has shown that embedding this type of complementary teacher environment within the larger learning environment not only strengthens teacher’s understanding of and confidence with the learning environment and its educational affordances, but also enhances teachers’ technological, pedagogical, content knowledge (TPACK Doering, Koseoglu, Scharber, Henrickson, & Lanegran, 2014; Doering & Veletsianos, 2007; Doering, Veletsianos, Scharber, & Miller, 2009).

Ironically, though geographic information systems (GIS) such as ArcGIS are sometimes used alone to teach geographic inquiry and spatial thinking, Goodchild (2011), a leading geospatial scholar, has written about the complexity and steep learning curve of the GIS user interface, and the lack of consistency or a coherent theoretical framework underpinning its design. Though GIS is itself a tool for spatial analysis, Goodchild suggests that spatial thinking has not been used to organize GIS functionality. Using geographic information systems such as ArcGIS in the classroom may be limited, therefore, in serving as a single source for informing spatial and geographic understanding.

User interface and user experience are key components to facilitating engagement with and understanding of content within technology-driven learning environments (Hokanson, Miller, & Hooper, 2008; Miller, 2011; Miller, Hokanson, Doering, & Brandt, 2010; Miller, Lecheler, Hosack, Doering, & Hooper, 2012). These components have been given close attention in the design of EarthXplorers, and iterative testing and feedback from teachers and students is playing a critical role in fashioning these components.

Methodology, Data Collection, and Data Analysis

EarthXplorer‘s development and research is grounded in a methodological approach called formative and design experiments (FDE) (Reinking & Bradley, 2008) that intimately merges research and practice, the theoretical and the practical. Also referred to by other terminology such as “design-based research” (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003) and “formative research” (Reigeluth & Frick, 1999), FDE’s defining characteristics are that it is 1) intervention-centered in authentic instructional contexts, 2) theoretical, 3) goal oriented, 4) adaptive and interactive, 5) transformative, 6) methodologically inclusive and flexible and 7) pragmatic (Reinking & Bradley, 2008).

Participating teachers and students are thus playing a large role in evaluating the effectiveness, user experience, and usability of the EarthXplorers innovation, and the design and development team is responding to collected user data and feedback to make continuous improvements to the EarthXplorers environment. Quantitative and qualitative data has been collected in summer 2016 and will continue being collected through summer 2017. Data include system-based captures, analysis of student-generated online content, interviews with participating teachers, focus groups with participating students, online surveys, field

observations, and evaluation of student scores on the standardized Spatial Thinking Ability Test (Lee & Bednarz, 2012).

The purpose of the research and evaluation is twofold: to provide information for the iterative refinement of EarthXplorers and to assess the long-term potential of the innovation. Student outcomes studied include students’ skills in collecting, exploring, visualizing, and analyzing data; spatial thinking skills; and understanding of the geography inquiry process and geography content. Tools used to measure student outcomes include participating-teacher-generated performance assessments and scoring rubrics, and the Spatial Thinking Ability Test. In addition, focus groups with students and online surveys will provide firsthand information from students on their academic engagement and learning outcomes during EarthXplorers, and system-captured data is providing supplemental information on learning outcomes.

Interviews with participating teachers will be used to capture information about changes in the value they place on transdisciplinary investigation and spatial thinking across content areas as well as changes in their students’ academic engagement and achievement when they are implementing EarthXplores to solve authentic geography issues. Finally, as part of the teacher workshops, teachers will develop authentic assessments with scoring rubrics to measure learning outcomes, including spatial thinking, geography understanding, and data communication skills. For example, an assessment task may measure students’ understanding of the process of geographic inquiry or the design process for structuring communications about research findings, or students’ ability to critique or collaborate.

Conclusion and SignificanceAs noted, there is a need for technology-enhanced environments that help advance spatial

thinking, data communication skills, and engagement with geographic inquiry. Recent studies also indicate a need for new models to engage students in STEM subjects and foster deeper understanding of content (Jewitt, 2009; Tytler, 2008; Yore & Hand, 2010). These studies suggest that technology-enhanced learning environments that employ multimodal and interactive opportunities for expression offer rich potential to meet that need. Hoban, Nielsen, & Shepherd (2013), for example, found that encouraging students to communicate scientific concepts using multimodal digital technologies increased student engagement with and understanding of content.

Striving for learning with understanding and the transferability of that understanding across domains is a hallmark of the learning sciences (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000) and constructivist worldview (Dewey, 1938; Jonassen, 2003). Jonassen, Myers, and McKillop (1996) note in looking at how people learn with multimedia that “people who learn the most from instructional materials are the designers” (p. 95). The concept of teachers and learners as co-designers in the learning process (Cviko, McKenney, & Voogt, 2014; Könings, van Zundert, Brand-Gruwel, & van Merriënboer, 2007; Noriega, Heppell, Bonet, & Heppell, 2013; Penuel, Roschelle, & Shechtman, 2007; Pieters, 2004; Stears & Malcolm, 2005) drive the EarthXplorers environment.

Data from this study is still being collected and analyzed, with the data collection projected to conclude in July 2017. We anticipate being able to answer the following questions upon conclusion of the study:

Can an online learning environment with an integrated GIS platform advance educator understanding of and skill in implementing transdisciplinary geographic investigation and spatial thinking across content area?

How are student geographic inquiry, spatial thinking, and creative problem-solving skills impacted by engagement with an online learning environment centered on GIS learning using real-world examples?

How effectively do learners engaging with the EarthXplorers online learning environment experience and understand geographic modes of inquiry while demonstrating, visualizing, and analyzing data using technologies to create compelling narratives and make informed solutions to contemporary issues

We are submitting this proposal now for consideration for the 2017 NCGE conference given the timeliness of the subject, the identified importance of finding effective models to integrate GIS learning and spatial thinking into K12 classrooms, and the current nationwide ConnectED initiative to integrate GIS learning into all K12 classrooms.

References

Baker, Tom. (2012). Advancing STEM education with GIS. Redlands, CA: ESRI.Boellstorff, T. 2008. Coming of Age in second life: An anthropologist explores the virtually

human. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Boston Consulting Group. (2012, December). Putting the U.S. geospatial services industry on the

map. Retrieved from http://www.ncge.org/files/documents/US-FullReport.pdf.Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,

experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Buettner, D. (1996). Maya quest: Interactive expedition. Onion Press.Buettner, D. (1997). Africatrek: A journey by bicycle through Africa. Minneapolis: Lerner

Publishing Group. Burman, D. (Co-Producer), Dubcovsky, D. (Co-Producer), & Salles, W. (Director). (2004). The

Motorcycle Diaries [Motion picture]. International co-production among production companies from Argentina, the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Chile, Peru, and France.

Cameron, E. (2012). New geographies of story and storytelling. Progress in Human Geography, 36(5), 573-592.

Crain, R. (2006). ARCUS Conference. Washington DC.Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Teachers as co-designers of technology-rich

learning activities for early literacy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 1-17. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1475939X.2014.953197.

Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Simon & Schuster.Doering, A., Koseoglu, S., Scharber, C., Henrickson, J., & Lanegran, D. (2014). Technology

integration in K-12 geography education using TPACK as a conceptual model. Journal of Geography 0(0), 1-15. 

Doering, A., & Veletsianos, G. (2007). An investigation of the use of real-time, authentic geospatial data in the K-12 classroom. Journal of Geography, Special Issue on Using Geospatial Data in Geographic Education, 106(6), 217-225.

Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework to design online learning environments

and professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319-346.

Eagleman, D. M. (2013). Why public dissemination of science matters: A manifesto. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(30), 12147-12149. 

Edelson, D. C. (2009). Geography and 'Generation G'. Education Week, 28(19), 24-25.ESRI. (2003). Geographic inquiry: Thinking geographically. ESRI Schools and Libraries

Program. Retrieved from http://www.esri.com/industries/k-12/education/~/media/Files/Pdfs/industries/k-12/pdfs/geoginquiry.pdf.

Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., and Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments. (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2011-No. 098). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

Gardner, H. (2011). Creating minds (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.Goodchild, M. (2011). Spatial thinking and the GIS user interface. Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 21, 3-9.Hart, P., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated

reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701-723.

Hayes-Bohanan, J. (2011, July 25). Geo-STEM. Wiley Hot Topics. Retrieved from http://wileygeohottopics.com/2011/07/25/geo-stem/.

Heffron , S. G., & Downs, R. M., Eds. (2012). Geography for life: National geography standards (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Council for Geographic Education.

Hoban, G., Nielsen, W., & Shepherd, A. (2013). Explaining and communicating science using student-created blended media. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 59(1), 32-35.

Hokanson, B., Miller, C., & Hooper, S. R. (2008). Role-Based Design: A Contemporary Perspective for Innovation in Instructional Design. Techtrends, 52(6), 36-43.

Horst, M. (2013). A field of expertise, the organization, or science itself? Scientists’ perception of representing research in public communication. Science Communication, 35(6), 758-779.

Jewitt C. (Ed). (2009). The handbook of multimodal learning. London: Routledge.Jo, I., & Bednarz, S. W. (2014). Dispositions toward teaching spatial thinking through

geography: Conceptualization and an exemplar assessment. Journal of Geography, 113(1), 1-10.

Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 362-381.

Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Jonassen, D. H., Myers, J. M., & McKillop, A. M. (1996). From constructivism to constructionism: Learning with hypermedia/multimedia rather than from it. In B. G.

Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Kell, H., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C., & Steiger, J. (2013). Creativity and technical innovation: Spatial ability’s unique role. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1831-1836.

Kerouac, J. (1957). On the road. New York: Viking Press.Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative

learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47-66.

Könings, K. D., van Zundert, M. J., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. G. (2007). Participatory design in secondary education: Is it a good idea? Students’ and teachers’ opinions on its desirability and feasibility. Educational Studies, 33(4), 445-465.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Kuhn, W. (2012). Core concepts of spatial information for transdisciplinary research. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26(12), 2267-2276.

Lee, J., & Bednarz, R. (2012). Components of spatial thinking: Evidence from a Spatial Thinking Ability Test. Journal of Geography, 111(1), 15-26.

Leshner, A. I. (2012, August 17). Capably communicating science. Science. p. 777.Lubinski, D. (2010). Spatial ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identification and

development. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 344-351.Lupia, A. (2013). Communicating science in politicized environments. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States Of America, 14048-14054.Miller, C. (2011). Aesthetics and e-assessment: The interplay of emotional design and learner

performance. Distance Education, 32(3), 307-337. Miller, C., Hokanson, B., Doering, A., & Brandt, T. (2010). Role-based design: Design

experiences, Educational Technology 50(6) 48-55.Miller, C., Lecheler, L., Hosack, B., Doering, A., & Hooper, S. (2012). Orchestrating data,

design, and narrative: Information visualization for sense- and decision-making in online learning. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 2(2), 1-15.

National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially: GIS as a support system in the K-12 curriculum. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Noriega, F. M., Heppell, S., Bonet, N. S., & Heppell, J. (2013). Building better learning and learning better building, with learners rather than for learners. On the Horizon, 21(2), 138-148.

Oxera. (2013, January). What is the economic impact of Geo services? Summary Report. Retrieved from http://www.oxera.com/Oxera/media/Oxera/downloads/reports/What-is-the-economic-impact-of-Geo-services---summary_2.pdf.

Penuel, W., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51-74.

Pieters, J. (2004). Designing artefacts for inquiry and collaboration when the learner takes the lead. European Educational Research Journal, 3(1), 77-100.

Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2004). A development research agenda for online collaborative learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 53-65.

Reigeluth, C. M., & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory: Vol. II (pp. 633-651). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2008). On formative and design experiments. New York: Teachers College Press.

Schell, E. M., Roth, K. J., & Mohan, A. (Eds.). (2013). A road map for 21st century geography education: Instructional materials and professional development (A report from the Instructional Materials and Professional Development Committee of the Road Map for 21st Century Geography Education Project). Washington, DC: National Council for Geographic Education.

Sobol, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms and communities. Great Barrington, MA: Orion Society.

Stears, M. and Malcolm, C. (2005). Learners and teachers as co-designers of relevant sciencecurricula. Perspectives in Education, 23(3), 21-30.

Tytler, R. (2008). Re-imagining science education. Melbourne: ACER.U.S. Department of Labor. (2013). High growth industry profile: Geospatial technology.

Retrieved from http://www.doleta.gov/BRG/Indprof/geospatial_profile.cfm.Uttal, D. H., Miller, D. I., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). Exploring and enhancing spatial thinking:

Links to achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5), 367-373. 

Weiner, E. (2008). The geography of bliss: One grump's search for the happiest places in the world. New York: Twelve.

Wilcox, C. (2012, April). It's time to e-volve: Taking responsibility for science communication in a digital age. Biological Bulletin, 85-87.

Wilson, B. G. & Parrish, P. E. (2011). Transformative learning experience: Aim higher, gain more. Educational Technology, 51(2), 10-15.

Wilson, B., Parrish, P., & Veletsianos, G. (2008). Raising the bar for instructional outcomes: Towards transformative learning experiences. Educational Technology, 48(3), 39-44.

Yore, L., & Hand, B. (2010). Epilogue: Plotting a research agenda for multiple representations, multiple modality, and multimodal representational competency. Research in Science Education, 40, 93-101.