Beyond Mapping III
|
Map
Analysis book with companion CD-ROM for hands-on exercises and further reading |
Where Is GIS
Education — describes the
broadening appeal of
Varied Applications Drive GIS Perspectives — discusses how
map analysis is enlarging the traditional view of mapping
Diverse Student Needs Must Drive GIS Education — identifies
new demands and students that are molding the future of GIS education
Turning
GIS Education on Its Head — describes the
numerous GIS career pathways and the need to engage prospective students from a
variety of fields
A Quick Peek Outside GIS’s Disciplinary
Cave — discusses future directions of geotechnology with particular
emphasis on career outlook and GIS education
GIS
Education’s Need for “Hitchhikers” — establishes the need for engaging
“domain experts” in moving geotechnology to the next level
Fitting Square Pegs into Round GIS Educational Holes
— discusses
the need to engage non-GIS students in developing spatially distributed
solutions
<Click here> right-click
to download a printer-friendly version of this topic (.pdf).
***For more on GIS Education, see Education,
Vocation and GIS Enlightenment, 6th Annual
(Back to the Table of Contents)
______________________________
(GeoWorld, June 1997, pg. 30-31)
A new-age real estate agent can search the local multiple listing for suitable
houses, then electronically “post” them to a map of the city. A few more mouse-clicks allows a prospective
buyer to take a video tour of the homes and, through a
However, the “intellectual glue” supporting such Orwellian mapping and
management applications of
The classical administrator’s response is to stifle the profusion of autonomous
As with other aspects of campus life,
Assuming a balance can be met between efficiency and effectiveness of its
logistical trappings, the issue of what
The underlying theory and broader scope of the technology, however, can be lost
in the practical translation. While
geodetic datum and map projections might dominate one course (map-centric),
sequential query language and operating system procedures may dominate another
(data-centric). A third, application-oriented course likely skims both
theoretical bases (the sponge cake framework), then quickly moves to its
directed applications (the icing). While
academicians argue their relative positions in seeking the “universal truth in
(GeoWorld, August 1997, pg. 28)
Our struggles in defining
We have been mapping and managing spatial data for a long time. The earliest systems involved file cabinets
of information which were linked to maps on the wall through shoe leather. An early “database-entry, geo-search” of
these data required a user to sort through the folders, identify the ones of
interest, then locate their corresponding features on the map on the wall. If a map of the parcels were needed, a clear
transparency and tracing skills were called into play. A “map-entry, geo-search” reversed the
process, requiring the user to identify the parcels of interest on the map,
then walk to the cabinets to locate the corresponding folders and type-up a
summary report. The mapping and data
management capabilities of
This new perspective of spatial data is destined to change our paradigm of map
analysis, as much as it changes our procedures.
Figure 1. Various
approaches used in
The numerical treatment of maps, in turn, takes two basic
forms—spatial statistics and spatial analysis.
Broadly defined, spatial statistics involves statistical
relationships characterizing geographic space in both descriptive and
predictive terms. A familiar example is
spatial interpolation of point data into map surfaces, such as weather station
readings into maps of temperature and barometric pressure. Less familiar applications might use data
clustering techniques to delineate areas of similar vegetative cover, soil
conditions and terrain configuration characteristics for ecological
modeling. Or, in a similar fashion,
clusters of comparable demographics, housing prices and proximity to roads
might be used in retail siting models.
Spatial analysis, on the other hand, involves characterizing spatial
relationships based on relative positioning within geographic space. Buffering and topological overlay are
familiar examples. Effective distance,
optimal path(s), visual connectivity and landscape variability analyses are
less familiar examples. As with spatial
statistics, spatial analysis can be based on relationships within a single map
(univariate), or among sets of maps (multivariate). As with all new disciplines, the various
types of
In all cases,
(GeoWorld, September 1997, pg. 30-31)
Fundamental to understanding
Several concepts, however, represent radical shifts in the spatial
paradigm. Take the concept of map
scale. It’s a cornerstone to traditional
mapping, but it doesn’t even exist in a
Similarly, combining maps with different data types, such as multiplying the
ordinal numbers on one map times the interval numbers on another, is map-ematical
suicide. Or evaluating a linear
regression model using mapped variables expressed as logarithmic values, such
as a PH for soil acidity. Or consider
overlaying five fairly accurate maps (good data in) whose uncertainty and error
propagation results in large areas of erroneous combinations (garbage
out). It is imperative that
The practicalities of implementing procedures often overshadow their
realities. For instance, it’s easy to
use a ruler to measure distances, but its measurements are practically useless.
The assumption that everything moves in a straight line does not square with
real-world—“as the crow flies,” in reality, rarely follows a straightedge. Within a
In practice, a 100 foot buffer around all streams is simple to establish (as
well as conceptualize), but has minimal bearing on actual sediment and
pollutant transport. It’s common sense
that locations along a stream that are steep, bare and highly erodeable should
have a larger setback. A variable-width buffer respecting intervening
conditions is more realistic. Similarly,
landscape fragmentation has been ignored in resource management. It’s not that fragmentation is unimportant,
but too difficult to assess until new
These new procedures and the paradigm shift are challenging
A potential user’s situation has a bearing on
Although non-traditional students tend to be older and even less patient, they
have a lot in common with the current wave of “out-of-step” traditional
students. They have even less time and
interest in semester-long “intro/next” course sequences. By default, vocational
training sessions are substituted for their
________________________________
Author’s Note: the first three sections of this series on
Turning
(GeoWorld, May 2003, pg. 20-21)
Now that
As much as its technological underpinnings have changed,
In the 1990s several factors converged—sort of a perfect storm for
Figure 1. The
The early environments kept
Figure 1 characterizes the
For example, the perspectives, skill sets and
Figure 2.
Professor Marble with
These points are very well taken and reflect the evolution of most disciplines
crossing the chasm from start-up science to a popular technology. Marble suggests the solution “…appears to be
to devise a rigorous yet useful first course that will provide a sound initial
foundation for individuals who want to learn
So how can
The right-side of figure 2 turns the early phases of
Such experience wouldn't be a rice-cake flurry of "dog-and-pony show"
applications (e.g., frog habitat modeling in
That means that the next piece of the
The "up-side-down" approach suggests that the growing pool of
potential new users are first introduced to what
_________________
Author's Note:
See Marble, Duane F. 1997. Rebuilding the Top of the Pyramid:
Structuring
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/conf/gishe97/program_files/papers/marble/marble.html.
Author’s
Update: (9/09)
Duane Marble in a more recent thoughtful article entitled “Defining the Components of the Geospatial
Workforce—Who Are We?” published in ArcNews, Winter 2005/2006, suggests
that—
“Presently,
far too many academic programs concentrate on imparting only basic skills in
the manipulation of existing GIS software to the near exclusion of problem
identification and solving; mastery of analytic geospatial tools; and critical
topics in the fields of computer science, mathematics and statistics, and
information technology.”
(http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/winter0506articles/defining1of2.html)
This
dichotomy of “tools” versus “science” is reminisce of the “-ists and -ologists”
differing perspectives of geotechnology in the 1990’s. For a discussion of this issue see Beyond
Mapping III, Epilog, “Melding the Minds of the “-ists” and
“-ologists.” available at:
http://www.innovativegis.com/basis/MapAnalysis/MA_Epilog/MA_Epilog.htm#Melding_Minds.
Other related
postings are at:
-
http://www.innovativegis.com/basis/present/GIS_Rockies09/GISTR09_Panel.pdf, handout for
the panel on “GIS Career Opportunities,” GIS in the
Rockies, Loveland, Colorado; September 16-18, 2009.
-
http://www.innovativegis.com/basis/present/LocationIntelligence09/LocationIntelligence09.pdf
, handout
for the panel on “Geospatial Jobs and the 2009 Economy,”
Location Intelligence Conference,
Denver, Colorado, October 5-7, 2009.
-
http://www.innovativegis.com/basis/present/imagine97/, a keynote address on
“Education,
Vocation and Enlightenment,” IMAGINE Forum, Lansing, Michigan, May 1997.
A Quick Peek
Outside GIS’s Disciplinary Cave
(GeoWorld, January 2010)
Over the past few months I have had the opportunity to participate in several panels discussing the future directions of geotechnology, with particular emphasis on career outlook and GIS education (see Author’s Notes). One particularly intriguing “broad-brush” question setting the stage was “What are the most radical changes that we have seen in geotechnology’s evolution and that we will likely see in its future?”
In contemplating the question I realized that it wasn’t until the late
1990s that I fully realized the impact of the “perfect geotechnology storm”
brought on by the convergence of four critical enabling technologies; 1) the
personal computers’ dramatic increase in computing power, 2) the maturation of
GPS and RS (remote sensing) technologies, 3) a ubiquitous Internet and 4) the
general availability of digital mapped data.
If any one of these elements were missing, the current state of
geotechnology would be radically different and most certainly not as robust or
generally accepted. Much of our
advancement, particularly of late, has come from external forces. And now that we are “in the limelight,” more
and more of our evolution will be influenced by non-specialists’ (vis., the GIS
unwashed) and their perspectives on what maps are and how they might be
used.
In the early years, GIS was “down the hall and to the right,”
sequestered in a relatively small room populated by specialists. Users would rap on the door and say “Joe sent
me for some maps.” Today, geotechnology
is on everyone’s desk and in nearly everyone’s pocket. Contrary to most GIS perspectives, our
contributions have been as much a reaction to enabling technologies and outside
influences as it has been proactive in the wild ride to mass adoption.
Keep in mind that geotechnology is in its fourth decade—
-
the 1970s saw Computer Mapping automate the
drafting process through the introduction of the digital map;
-
the 80s saw Spatial Database Management link
digital maps to descriptive records;
-
the 90s saw the maturation of Map Analysis and
Modeling capabilities that moved mapped data to effective information by
investigating spatial relationships; and finally,
-
our current decade focuses on Multimedia Mapping
emphasizing data delivery through Internet proliferation of data portals and
advanced display mechanisms involving 3D visualization and virtual reality
environments, such as in Google and Virtual Earths.
The future of our status as a “mega-technology” alongside the giants of
biotechnology and nanotechnology will be in large part self-determined …that
is, if we step out of the specialist’s closet and fully engage other
disciplines and domain experts. The “era
of maps as data” (Where is What?) is rapidly giving way to the “age of
spatial information” where mapped data and analytical tools directly
support decision-making (Why, So What and What If?). The direct relevance of geotechnology isn’t
just a wall hanging, it’s an active part of the consideration of geographic
space; whether it’s a personal “what
should we do and where should we go?” decision on a vacation, or a professional
one for locating a pipeline, identifying wildlife management units or
establishing a marketing plan for a new territory.
The key for developing successful solutions beyond data delivery lies
in domain expertise as much, if not more, than mapping know-how. The geometrical increase in awareness and use
of geotechnology by the masses will lead to entirely new and innovative
applications that we haven’t even dreamed of (nor can we dream of them
in a geotechnology silo). The only way
we could drop the ball is to retreat further into our disciplinary cave.
On a technical front, I see a radical change in geo-referencing from
our 400 year reliance on Cartesian “squares” in 2-D and “cubes” in 3-D to
hexagons (2-D) and dodecahedrals (3-D) that will lead to entirely new analytic
capabilities and modeling applications (see Author’s Notes). To conceptualize the difference, imagine a
regular square grid morphing into a grid of hexagons like a tray in a bee hive. The sharp corners of the squares are
knocked-off resulting the same distance from the centroid to each of the sides
defining the cell …a single consistent step instead of two different types of
steps (diagonal and orthogonal) when moving to an adjacent location. Now consider a three-dimensional world with
12-sided volume (dodecahedral) replacing a cube …a single consistent step
instead of a series of differing steps to all of the surrounding locations.
This seemingly slight shift in spatial theory, however, will
revolutionize our concept of geographic space.
At a minimum, it finally will dispel the false assumption that the earth
is flat …at least in our traditional map world that stacks two-dimensional map
layers like pancakes. At a maximum, it
will enable us to conceptualize, analyze and actualize spatial conditions
within a fully three-dimensional representation of the real world. Then all that we will need to do is to figure
out a way to fully account for time, as well as space, in our maps for a
temporally dynamic representation of geography—but that’s another story to be
written by tomorrow’s geotechnologists.
Another important trend reshaping geotechnology is its move toward
commoditization. Commoditization implies
the transformation of goods and services into a commodity thus becoming an undifferentiated
product characterized solely by its price, rather than its quality and features. The product is perceived as
the same no matter who produces it, such as petroleum, notebook paper, or wheat. Non-commodity products, such as televisions,
on the other hand, have many levels of quality.
And, the better a TV is perceived to be, the higher its value and the
more it will cost.
So where is geotechnology along this commoditization continuum? Like the other two mega-technologies (bio-
and nano-) it has a split personality with both commodity and
non-commodity characteristics. In our
beginning, research dominated and the mere drafting of a map by a plotter was
perceived as a near miracle in the 1970s.
Fast forward to today and digital maps are as commonplace as they are
ubiquitous—a transformation from “knock-your-socks-off” to commodity status
(and maybe “old dirty socks” that ought to be avoided in a decade or so of 3D
GIS technical advancements).
But we shouldn’t confuse mass adoption of a map product or service with
commoditization of an entire technology.
It is like the product life cycle in pharmaceuticals from trials, to
unique flagship drug, to generic forms and finally to commodity status. While the products might cycle to commodity,
industries don’t as long as innovation keeps adding value and new product
lines.
What is rapidly becoming a commodity in our field is generic mapped
data and Internet delivery. However,
contemporary value-added products and services are extremely differentiated;
such as a propensity map for product sales, a map of wildfire risk, and a
real-time helicopter routing map that avoids enemy detection. The transition is a reflection of a paradigm
shift from mapped data to spatial information—less of a focus on automating
traditional mapping roles and procedures, to an emphasis on new ways of
integrating spatial relationships into decision-making ...thinking with maps.
The bottom line is that commoditization of geotechnology is neither good nor bad, nor an advantage or disadvantage. It just is a natural progression of product
life cycles and renewed advancements in value-added features and services
through continued innovation. If we fail
to innovate, the entire industry will become commoditized and GIS specialists
will hawk their gigabytes of graphics in the geotechnology commodity market
next to the wheat exchange in Chicago.
The career take-home is that an individual can’t assume one brush with
a four-year smart pill in education is sufficient. An individual’s ability to go beyond
traditional mapping is the key— from a focus on management, access, display and
geo-query of spatial data (Descriptive Mapping that is more
“data-centric”) to an enlarged focus on integration of enterprise data,
value-added processing and applications of spatial information (Prescriptive
Mapping that is more “application-centric”). The discussion in the next section
investigates some of the pitfalls along the geotechnology career path and
education alleyways.
_____________________________
Author’s Notes: Summaries of the career/education panels are posted at www.innovativegis.com/basis/basis/cv_berry.htm#KeyNote. See the online book Beyond Mapping III
at www.innovativegis.com/basis/MapAnalysis/,
Introduction, “Referencing the Future” and Topic 27, “GIS Evolution and Future
Trends.”
GIS Education’s Need for “Hitchhikers”
(GeoWorld, February 2010)
Last month’s column addressed a “broad-brush” panel question on “What are the most radical changes that we have seen in geotechnology’s evolution, and that we will likely see in the future?” The discussion invoked an assessment of the four-decade trajectory of GIS, both in terms of its driving forces and incremental capabilities and utilities.
Another very basic question that seems to be making the circuit is “Where
do we go from here? …and how do we make it happen?” As
background, one needs to realize that we have established the basic means of
encoding, analyzing, visualizing and storing geographic information, and have
the prerequisite compute power to digest it all. In addition, we have maturing standards and a
huge quantity of mapped data content in terms of vector and image data—lock and
load, but what is the target?
To many, the future target is a giant leap beyond mapping and spatial
record-keeping to full integration of geotechnology into real world
decision-making processes— from land management to building design to retail
marketing to environmental protection and a myriad of other applications. While I am sure there are technical
waypoints along the path we take from here, the human element likely will be
the most critical factor of forward progress, with a revamping of the
education component leading the way.
It’s interesting to note that our earliest tinkering with GIS had a
huge tent with zealots from all disciplines tossing something into the stone
soup of an emerging technology—foresters, engineers, geographers,
epidemiologists, hydrologists, farmers, geologists to mention but a few. As the field matured the big tent’s diversity
contracted considerably as “specialists” emerged and formal programs of study
and certification surfaced.
There are many positive aspects in this maturation, but there also are
some drawbacks. In many universities, a
GIS Center of Excellence emerged and lodged in a disciplinary stovepipe of a
single college or department. In
addition, the maturation of the field resulted in a “one shoe fits all”
curriculum with focus on training tomorrow’s GIS’ers.
But this educational footing is far too limited for a leap from mapping
to modeling. The breadth of potential
applications suggests that geotechnology is ill served as the special domain of
any discipline, or even a coalesce into a discipline unto itself. A continuum of diverse activists have and are
shaping geotechnology’s future— from those “of the computer,” such as Computer
Programmers, Solutions Developers, and Systems Managers, to
those more “of the application,” such as Data Providers, GIS
Specialists, and General Users (figure 1).
Historically, digital mapping tilted toward right side of the continuum
as GIS specialists established and nurtured vast databases that automated
existing business practices. Then map analysis
and modeling shifted focus toward the left side with Solution Developers doing
the heavy lifting by providing new capabilities, models and turnkey
solutions.
Figure 1.
The continuum of the GIS community reaches from computer science
development to a mosaic of general user applications.
However, the “bookends” of this continuum are the current drivers. Increasingly, computer science and
technological advancements in visualization and access are at the
frontier. With the full embrace of RS,
GPS and GIS by Google, Oracle and other “big-hitters” in the computer industry,
geotechnology’s applications are becoming ubiquitous.
It is hard to pick up a magazine, watch TV or attend a conference that
new and powerful ways of accessing and interacting with mapped data aren’t
being ballyhooed—my grandmother would be proud.
For first time society comprehends a paperless map and marvels at its
uses, from saving lives with OnStar to finding a store across town to zooming
in to a beach in Belize. While
geotechnology is at the foundation, it has been applied computer industries
that hit the ball out of the park.
It is widely purported that eighty percent of all data has a spatial
component but simply “mapping to visualize” these data is rarely sufficient in
many decision-making arenas.
Geotechnology’s next leap forward will be lead by the other bookend
group—involving the active participation of domain experts in development of
entirely new applications addressing complex spatial relationships. The old adage that “those with the problems
have the solutions” apply applies.
As long as the questions involved “how do I map that?” or “where is
what?” GIS’ers at the core of the continuum could take the lead. But as questions progress to “why and so
what?” and “do what where?” the solutions move well beyond mapping—to spatial
reasoning and problem solving.
Within a modeling context, disciplinary knowledge of underlying
concepts, assumptions, state variables, driving variables, processes, rates and
limits becomes paramount. In most
fields, understanding of these relationships has been developed through years
of non-spatial science. The idea that
spatial considerations could be “addressed spatially” is foreign—“shouldn’t all
that data be collapsed to a mean and standard deviation?” The notion that there are tools for
characterizing geographic distributions and relationships within and among
mapped data has been outside their experience base, and all too often outside
their comfort zone.
But domain expertise is the key ingredient for innovative solutions of
complex spatial problems. The direct
engagement of bright minds with a practical understanding of the dimensions and
complexities of a potential application has been the “missing link.” In large part, a “campus chasm” too onerous
for most students to cross has proven to be the barrier.
Contributing to the divide is that the preponderance of geotechnology
education focuses on “discrete spatial objects” as a set map features
composed of Points, Lines and Polygons (Vector perspective). However, most spatial models focus on “continuous
spatial distributions” of geo-registered map variables expressed as
gradient Surfaces (Raster perspective) with all of the rights,
privileges and responsibilities of a true “map-ematics.”
This requires a paradigm shift from our current thinking of what GIS is
and isn’t— from a mapping focus (warehousing, accessing and visualizing mapped
data) to an application focus (solving spatial problems). This involves a conceptual shift, not just a
structural change. For many GIS’ers the
thought is a bit outside their experience but for non-GIS’ers it is a totally
foreign and “off-the-wall” perspective of a map.
In a column several years ago (“Turning GIS on Its Head,” GeoWorld, May
2003; see Author’s Note) discussion suggested that the traditional
didactic approach of “fundamentals first, then applications” severely limits
the breadth of exposure of geotechnology across campus. While a “data-centric mindset” that
geotechnology education starts with geographic/cartographic principles and
proceeds through software mechanics works for the inner core players along the
GIS continuum, it effectively excludes the bulk of the bookend players.
An alternative is an introductory experience where students interact
with the mapping and modeling capabilities at the onset without knowledge of
mapping “details,” such as geodes, datum and projections. Within this context, the early focus is
shifted to a grasp of the problem solving capabilities of geotechnology— an “application-centric
education.” Toward the end of the
experience the mapping details can be introduced within the context of accuracy
and precision assessment, rather than establishing a set of working skills
required in the mechanics of database development and maintenance.
Ideally, this experience aligns with students disciplinary
interests. As with other aspects of
campus life, geotechnology can benefit more from its diversity than from its
oneness. It’s often perceived condition
as a divorced discipline for specialists on the other side of campus has
dramatically hindered geotechnology from reaching its full potential as a
fabric of society, and spatial reasoning as a matter of fact.
To accomplish this transition we need to engage applied “domain
expertise” in GIS offerings. This means
that outreach across campus as important (and quite possibly more important)
than honing courses for training core professionals. This perspective suggests less
flagship/toolbox software systems and more custom/tailored packages
solving well-defined spatial problems that stimulate “thinking with maps.” Next month’s column will investigate
approaches and procedures that can be used to move beyond the perception that
_____________________________
Author’s Notes: A more detailed discussion of
the need to infuse spatial reasoning into non-GIS curricula is posted online at
http://www.innovativegis.com/basis/MapAnalysis/Topic4/Topic4.htm#Turning_GIS_education,
“Turning
Fitting Square Pegs into Round GIS Educational
Holes
(GeoWorld, March 2010)
Last section suggested that geotechnology needs “hitchhikers” to reach
beyond mapping. The technology’s first
three decades capitalized on the development of the digital map, first simply
for Computer Mapping, then for Spatial Database Management and
then for Map Analysis by exploiting entirely new encoding, storage,
processing and display tool sets that were radically different from our paper
map legacy (figure 1).
Figure 1.
The bookends of the continuum of the GIS community are the current
drivers of Geotechnology.
Through the 1990’s, the new kid on the block, Geographic Information
Systems and Science, was in the driver seat and in control of the emerging
technology. However with the new
millennium, geotechnology matured into a mega-technology that captured the full
attention of the computer industry and its reading of the huge potential market
for Multimedia Mapping and Visualization. The result was near commoditization of many
traditional digital mapping capabilities—tremendous mass acceptance and use occurred,
but innovation shifted from the GIS community core toward the computer science
bookend.
Looking forward into the next decade two dominant thrusts seem to be surfacing. While the bulk of the GIS community will
continue to develop and expand the digital map repository, a small group of
innovators will work with computer scientists to radically revolutionize our current
data and processing structures. A
somewhat larger contingency will engage general and innovative users in developing
Spatial Models that integrate domain expertise, spatial reasoning and map
analysis tools in support of solutions and decision-making.
Figure 2 depicts the major components involved in spatial modeling. Historically, maps focused on precise
placement of physical features (material/tangible) primarily for navigation. As mapping evolved more non-physical
information (logical/cognitive) found its way into map form. In the past few decades both types of
descriptive characterizations of spatial phenomena have been incorporated into huge
digital mapped data repositories identifying “Where is What” with sophisticated
tools for interacting with the data.
Figure 2. Map analysis and modeling extend mapped
data to spatial solutions.
The step from digital map data to spatially distributed solutions
involves a paradigm shift from descriptive “Where is What” mapping to prescriptive
“Why, So What and What If” modeling. This
transition in emphasis involves the other bookend (users) as much, or more,
than it involves the core GIS community.
It suggests that spatial reasoning needed for the transition lies
outside the usual knowledge, skill sets and experience of GIS’ers. However, most GIS curricula are designed to
service the core community with minimal attention to reaching other disciplines—they
can take our established courses, but targeted courses for non-GIS’ers focusing
on spatial problem identification and solving are rare indeed.
Yet the development of curricula and courses for the “unwashed” likely will
determine geotechnology’s future. If we
are to reclaim a share of driver’s seat we need to instill closer and active
relationships with the bookends of the GIS community. The small group of technology innovators seems
well along the way through research initiatives and industry investments.
The knurly problem lies in engaging a dispersed set of applied
disciplines to develop awareness and skills in spatial reasoning. The old adage “they don’t know what they
don’t know” applies and over-stuffed disciplinary curricula keeps most students
at bay. What elective “holes” are
available are usually tied-up by concentration tracks that delve even deeper
into their discipline. This, coupled with
a university administrative structure that struggles with inter-disciplinary
efforts, effectively limits exposure of most students to spatial reasoning and
problem solving.
Two potential remedies to this disciplinary stovepipe “standoff” seem viable—both
requiring the initiative of the geotechnology academic community. First, a concerted “outreach” program needs
to be developed where GIS students are encouraged to develop a secondary
disciplinary thrust that focuses on spatial problem solving instead of the
usual database compilation concentration.
In addition, faculty needs to develop secondary ties across campus that
actively contribute to teaching and research involving spatial reasoning within
applied disciplines.
An important step in this outreach is recognizing that the GIS tool
isn’t the focus and “training” outside students/faculty in the nuances and fine
distinctions of database construction and GIS software isn’t relevant. The objective becomes developing an awareness
of the capabilities of GIS through instructive case studies coupled with simple
hands-on exercises.
Hands-on experience is critical but it can’t be the same as for traditional
GIS students. Flowcharts provide a
mechanism for interacting with a spatial model’s logic and its processing
expression (e.g., ArcGIS’s Model Builder).
The link between step-by-step logic of a model and the sequencing of the
commands becomes the objective. For
example, figure 3 uses MapCalc Learner (see Author’s Note) to decipher a
region-wide overlay summary that derives the average slope within three
watersheds. Note that the command forms a
complete grammatically correct sentence that resonates with less-technical students
and that the contextual help provides information on additional summary options
providing fodder for further discussion.
Figure 3. Effective education for non-GIS
students shifts the focuses from mapped data to interacting with model logic
and its spatial reasoning foundation.
As GIS education moves beyond mapping the emphasis lies in full
engagement of cross-campus entities.
Like remora and the shark, a symbiotic relationship with applied
disciplines is what will take us there.
_____________________________
Author’s Note: A listing of several MapCalc
Learner “application exercises” used in special presentations for various
applied disciplines are at www.innovativegis.com/basis/Senarios/Default.html#Application_examples. The educational software system can be
downloaded for free.