Beyond Mapping III Topic 4: Where Is GIS Education?

Map Analysis book with companion CD-ROM for hands-on exercises and further reading

Where Is GIS Education — describes the broadening appeal of GIS and its impact on academic organization and infrastructure
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

Author’s Notes: The figures in this topic use MapCalc^TM software. An educational CD with online text, exercises and databases for “hands-on” experience in these and other grid-based analysis procedures is available for US$21.95 plus shipping and handling (www.farmgis.com/products/software/mapcalc/ ).

<Click here> right-click to download a printer-friendly version of this topic (.pdf).

(Back to the Table of Contents)
______________________________

Where Is GIS Education

(GeoWorld, June 1997, pg. 30-31)

(return to top of Topic)

GIS means different things to different people. To some, it is a tool that extends mapping to the masses. It allows the construction of custom maps from any desktop. It enables the spatially challenged to electronically locate themselves on a map, request the optimal path to their next destination, as well as checking the prices of motels along the way. When coupled with a cell phone, they can call for help and their rescuers will triangulate on the signal and deliver a gallon of gas and an extra large pizza within the hour. Whether you are a lost explorer near the edge of the earth or soul-searching on your Harley, finding yourself has never been easier—the revolution of the digital map is firmly in place. 

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 GPS-linked handy-cam movie, take a drive around the neighborhood. A quick geo-query of the spatially-linked database, locates neighboring shopping centers, churches, schools and parks. The city’s zoning map, land use plan and proposed developments can be superimposed for a glimpse of future impacts. Demographic summaries by census tracts can be generated and financial information for “comparables” can be plotted and cross-linked for a better understanding market dynamics. Armed with this information narrowing the housing choices, a prospective buyer can “hit the ground running” right off the airplane—the revolution of spatial database management is here. 

However, the “intellectual glue” supporting such Orwellian mapping and management applications of GIS technology is still being fought in series of small skirmishes on campuses throughout the world. In part, the battles reflect the distribution of costs and benefits of the new discipline. From one perspective, GIS is viewed as a money pit draining the life-blood of traditional programs. It appears as an insatiable beast (like the plant’s constant cry of “MORE!” in the Little Shop of Horrors) devouring whole computer labs with its gigabyte appetite and top-end taste in peripherals. The previous assault on “real computing” by the demeaning distractions of word processing, spreadsheets, and graphics packages pales by comparison. The insertion of yet another “techno-science” addition to the already burgeoning curricula appears to be the last straw. GIS’s insidious tentacles are tugging at every department.

The classical administrator’s response is to stifle the profusion of autonomous GIS labs and centralize them into a single “center of excellence.” On the surface, this idea is not without merit. Its obvious economies of scale and orderly confines, however, often are met head-on by the savage realities of academic ownership. A GIS oversight committee composed of faculty from across campus often is an organizational oddity in a sea of established departments and colleges. Strong leadership within the committee is viewed as a “power-play” by the activist for his or her department and is quickly countered with the sub-committee kiss of death. Keep in mind the old adage that “the fighting at universities is so fierce, because the stakes are so small.” Acquisition of space and equipment are viewed less as a communal good, as they are viewed as one department’s evil triumph over the others. My nine years as an associate dean hasn’t embittered me, as much as it has ingrained organizational realities. Bruises and scar tissue suggest that the efficiencies and cost savings of a centralized approach to GIS (be it academic or corporate) are largely lost to organizational entropy, user detachment and a lack of perceived ownership. 

As with other aspects of campus life, GIS technology might benefit more from its diversity than from its oneness, with a single academic expression sized to fit all. If GIS is to become a fabric of society and spatial reasoning a matter of fact, its tangible expression as a divorced edifice on the other side of campus is dysfunctional. To be embraced and incorporated into existing courses, it needs to be as close to its users’ hearts and minds as the door across the hall. An intellectual osmosis easily flows through the semi-permeable walls of a small departmental GIS lab. A well-endowed GIS center makes great publicity photos, but its practical access by faculty and students often rivals an assault on Bastille, guarded by unfamiliar and intimidating GIS-perts.  

Assuming a balance can be met between efficiency and effectiveness of its logistical trappings, the issue of what GIS is (and isn’t) still remains. Some of the earlier responses defined it as a mapping science, therefore it became the domain of the geography/cartography unit on campus. Other responses emphasized its computer and database underpinnings and placed it in the computer science department. More current definitions, however, spring from a multitude of applications in diverse departments, such as natural resources, land planning, engineering, business and health sciences. The result is a patchwork of GIS definitions aligning with the separate discipline perceptions of its varied applications. This situation is both good and bad. It provides a context and case studies which resonate among selected sets of students. Unlike those introductory courses in statistics addressing the probability of selecting “a white or a black ball from an urn” (get real), application-specific GIS grabs a student’s attention by directly relating it to his or her field of interest.

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 GIS,” the eclectic set of courses on campus becomes its tangible, de facto definition. It’s at this level that a center of excellence in GIS is warranted—operating as a forum for exchange of ideas and expertise, not as a room full of hard and software items. Constructive discourse on what GIS is (and isn’t) can be focused on the paradigms, procedures and people involved, rather than the trappings of the technology and whether “dis’course is better than dat’course” for the typical student.


Varied Applications Drive GIS Perspectives

(GeoWorld, August 1997, pg. 28)

(return to top of Topic)

Our struggles in defining GIS revolve less around its mapping and management concerns, than its application contexts and expressions. Although there are variations in data structures, a myriad of geo-referencing possibilities, and a host of methods to derive thematic mapping intervals, it is GIS’s modeling component that causes most of the confusion and heated debates of what GIS is (and isn’t).

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 GIS technology certainly has expedited this process and has saved considerable shoe leather… but come to think of it, it hasn’t fundamentally changed the process. GIS’s mapping and management components are a result of a technological evolution, whereas its modeling component is a revolution in our perception of geographic space and spatial relationships.

This new perspective of spatial data is destined to change our paradigm of map analysis, as much as it changes our procedures. GIS modeling can be defined as the representation of relationships within and among mapped data (see figure 1). A geo-query, such as “all counties with a population over 1,000,000 and a median income greater than $25,000” is not a GIS model. It simply repackages and plots existing data that describe independent map entities. Modeling, on the other hand, derives entirely new information based on spatial relationships, such as coincidence statistics, proximity, connectivity and the arrangement of map features. As depicted in the accompanying figure, GIS modeling can take several forms. The two basic approaches concern cartographic and spatial models. Whereas cartographic modeling involves the automation of manual map analysis techniques, spatial modeling involves the expression of numerical relationships of mapped data. The former treats numbers comprising a digital map as simply surrogates for traditional analog map representations of inked lines, colors, patterns and symbols. The latter anoints digital maps with all of the rights, privileges and responsibilities of quantitative data, thereby forming a new map-ematical discipline.

Figure 1. Various approaches used in GIS modeling.

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 GIS modeling are not dichotomous, but identify the range of possibilities along a continuum of approaches. In addition, most applications utilize a combination of mapping, management and various types of modeling approaches in their solution. 

In all cases, GIS applications involve spatial reasoning of complex systems, be they geo-business, ecological, or other processes. The GIS toolbox remains the same, however the applications dramatically change. These similarities and differences drive our varied perspectives of GIS technology and provide a framework for discussion of the paradigms, procedures and people GIS education needs to address… but discussion of the mix needs to be postponed to next time.


Diverse Student Needs Must Drive GIS Education

(GeoWorld, September 1997, pg. 30-31)

(return to top of Topic)

GIS technology is “as different as it is similar” to traditional mapping and data analysis. Likewise, GIS education needs to incorporate unconventional concepts and approaches, as well as extending conventional ones—“business as usual” is out of the question. The diverse set perspectives of GIS technology provides a useful framework for discussion of GIS education, as it relates to paradigms, procedures and people. 

Fundamental to understanding GIS is the recognition that a computer map is a set numbers first, a picture later. How the data is encoded and stored is important, as well as an appreciation of geographic principles, such as coordinate systems and map projections, particularly for students emphasizing database development and production mapping. A basic understanding of computer environments and operating as well as database management skills, such as indexing, selection ladders, and macro language proficiency, are important, particularly for students emphasizing management and modeling of spatial data. These, and similar topics, represent extensions of exiting concepts of space and data analysis, adjusted for the digital mapping environment. 

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 GIS. Map scale reports the “ratio of map distance to ground distance,” assuming a specific map output product. In a GIS you can zoom in and out on a particular area, changing its “scale” at will—map scale isn’t part of the GIS, but an artifact of the screen or paper display. However, the related concept of map resolution is fundamental to GIS as it identifies the level of detail (spatial, thematic, temporal and mapping) captured in a digital map. Just as it is a violation to superimpose paper maps of differing map scales, it is a violation to superimpose digital maps of varying resolutions—both cases result in pure, dense (but colorful) gibberish.

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 GIS education fully embraces the quantitative aspects of maps and instills an understanding of its implications beyond the inked line and paper map paradigm. 

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 GIS, distance (shortest straight line between two points) can be extended to proximity (by relaxing “between two points” to “among sets of points”), then to movement respecting relative and absolute barriers to travel (by relaxing “straight line” to “not-necessarily-straight route”).

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 GIS procedures emerged. Procedures, such as travel-time surfaces, n-th optimal path density, and data-surface modeling, are challenging old, limiting assumptions about spatial data and their relationships. 

These new procedures and the paradigm shift are challenging GIS users and their educational needs. Potential users first can be grouped by their interaction with the technology, then by their situation. Three broad types of users can be identified: Application-centric (routine user, casual user and interactive user), Data-centric (data entry specialist, database manager, and system manager), Procedure-centric (software programmer and application developer). In turn, these user groups can be further refined by their disciplinary focus (natural resource, business, engineering, etc.). The diversity of users, however, often is ignored in a quest for a “standard, core curriculum.” In so doing, a casual user interested in geo-business applications is overwhelmed with data-centric minutia; while the database manager receives to little. Although a standard curriculum insures common exposure, its like forcing a caramel-chewy enthusiast to eat a whole box of assorted chocolates. The didactic, two-step educational approach (intro then next) is out-of-step with today’s over-crowded schedules and the diversity GIS users. A case study approach with extensive hands-on experience provides better focus, but it puts a greater burden on individual instructors and facilities. 

A potential user’s situation has a bearing on GIS education. In the broadest sense there are two situations: traditional and non-traditional. The former group includes conventional students flowing through the K-12, undergraduate and graduate programs. In the long run, GIS exposure will appear throughout this pipeline. However, in the short run most students are frantically attempting to retrofit themselves. Traditional courses tuned to a methodical progression rarely fit their backgrounds and schedules (interests aside). 

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 GIS education—“how to” replaces “what and why.” The two estranged student groups, however, pose an interesting opportunity for partnering between industry and academia. The need for targeted short courses by both student groups suggests intensive offerings over weekends and vacation periods. The extended network of in-place instructional facilities provides the logistical setting, while collaboration between vendor and academic instructors provides the intellectual material. A mixed audience of traditional and non-traditional students provides an engaging mixture of experiences. So what’s wrong with this picture? What’s missing? Not money as you might guess, but an end run around institutional inertia and rigid barriers. Adoption of GIS technology can’t wait a generation for the normal flow through the educational pipeline. A “steady-she-goes” approach of the institutionalized education tanker needs turning… or have we missed the boat entirely?
________________________________
Author’s Note: the first three sections of this series on GIS education is based on a plenary presentation made to the Sixth Annual MAGINE Forum, May 1 and 2, 1997, Lancing, Michigan.


Turning GIS Education on Its Head

(GeoWorld, May 2003, pg. 20-21)

(return to top of Topic)

Now that GIS is in it’s forth decade, some of the early mystery has been diminished. Simply displaying a map on a computer a few years ago was Herculean feat. Automatically hot-linking your vacation pictures to their exact location on map and having Aunt Julie in Winnemucca view them over the Internet wasn’t even on the radar screen.

As much as its technological underpinnings have changed, GIS’s learning environment and academic approaches seems to have evolved even more. In the 1970s, the mainframe computer kept students at least one glass window away from the machine and simply getting the proper “job control” sequence of punch-cards was a challenge. The 1980s ushered in interactive computing but the intellectual exchange has severely burdened by the din of competing systems, procedures, concepts and ideologies. GIS was maturing but still very much in its adolescence stage.

In the 1990s several factors converged—sort of a perfect storm for GIS education. Cantankerous workstations morphed into user-friendly PCs with power, GPS technology put direct access of “where” information literally in users’ hands, data became ubiquitous via the Internet, and most importantly, GIS software emerged from its specialist’s cocoon.

Figure 1. The GIS community encompasses a rapidly growing number of disciplines and diverse perspectives of what spatial technology is and isn’t.

The early environments kept GIS in a backroom “down the hall and to the right.” Its modern expression, however, enables users with increasingly diverse backgrounds to take the wheel. The splash of digital maps on the screens in the front offices are radically changing what spatial technology is (and isn’t), who constitutes the GIS community and how educational curricula address this evolution.

Figure 1 characterizes the GIS community as a tree with branches representing different activists. The left side membership is primarily focused on system design and development, while the right side emphasizes applications. To be fully effective, GIS curricula must recognize the increasingly diffuse character of the student pool and offer courses tailored to a variety of interests.

For example, the perspectives, skill sets and GIS goals of General Users are fundamentally different from those of General Programmers. In addition, the student pools likely reside in different subcultures on campus that rarely share a classroom. Spatial technology can serve as a common thread but the course work requires recognition of diverse backgrounds, interests and objectives.

Figure 2. GIS education traditionally proceeds from basic spatial concepts and routine use through advanced applications and system design/development (after Marble, 1987).

Professor Marble with Ohio State University is a leading GIS educator who sees the situation from a slightly different angle (see Figure 2 and Author’s Note). He identifies a pyramid with progressive levels of spatial skills and is concerned about the “…the great majority of persons who are ‘educated’ in GIS attaining competence only at the very lowest operational level.” In addition, he sees minimal attention “…being paid in most programs to the education of individuals who desire to reach the higher levels of the pyramid.”

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 GIS and that also makes extensive use of GIS technology in its presentation.” At the same time he recognizes that “…if we tell people that they cannot ‘do’ GIS without first taking several courses then I suspect they will simply ignore us.”

So how can GIS education raise awareness and stimulate interest while instilling a sound foundation in the underlying concepts, procedures and considerations? It’s at this point that my thoughts slightly diverge from Marble’s. Whereas he is concerned with the “dilution of GIS education,” I am just as concerned about generating awareness and stimulating new applications by casting the broadest net possible.

The right-side of figure 2 turns the early phases of GIS education on its head by suggesting that the "Basic Spatial" principles (e.g., geode, datum, projections, data/exchange, etc.) be presented after students are introduced to spatial reasoning concepts. This would mean that students are not initially confronted with mechanics, technical details and data principles but work with hands-on exercises that clearly illustrate and instill “thinking with maps.”

Such experience wouldn't be a rice-cake flurry of "dog-and-pony show" applications (e.g., frog habitat modeling in Belize for geo-business students) but contain real-meat exercises using (and this is important) perfect data and procedures that demonstrate spatial concepts within student’s own area of interest and expertise. While designing such materials is a piece-of-cake from a technical perspective, it means that the contextual structuring of the materials requires expertise outside of GIS.

That means that the next piece of the GIS education puzzle needs to come from a dispersed set of departments/colleges throughout campus— a sociologist here, a real estate professor there, an IT instructor around the corner (and the eye of newt if needed). The bottom line is that GIS-perts need to recognize that the field has grown beyond its original disciplinary boundaries.

The "up-side-down" approach suggests that the growing pool of potential new users are first introduced to what GIS can do for them and how it’s different from traditional ways of doing things, then progress to the mechanics required for solo flights. GIS has grown-up and is rapidly becoming part of the fabric of society. Where and how far it is taken in the next decade will be determined, in large part, by an effective educational setting.
_________________

Author's Note: See Marble, Duane F. 1997. Rebuilding the Top of the Pyramid: Structuring GIS Education to Effectively Support GIS Development and Geographic Research. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on GIS and Higher Education [Online] Available at: http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/conf/gishe97/program_files/papers/marble/marble.html.

(return to top of Topic)

(Back to the Table of Contents)