May be freely distributed electronically in whole or in part, but please keep
this notice attached
and do not alter the text.
David DiBiase, Department of Geography, 302 Walker Building, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, dibiase@psu.edu
Cherri Pancake, Department of Computer Science and Northwest Alliance for Computational Science and Engineering, 218 CH2M-Hill Alumni Center, Oregon State University, Corvallis, ORB 97331, pancake@nacse.org
Richard Wright, Department of Geography, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-4493, wright@typhoon.sdsu.edu
Kenneth E. Foote, Department of Geography, Guggenheim Hall 102B, Campus Box 260, University of
Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309-0260, k.foote@colorado.edu
Abstract: This paper, the result of panel
discussions and working groups convened by the University Consortium for
Geographic Information Science, examines several key issues in distance
education with respect to the profound impact that they will have on training
and education in geographic information science in the U.S., and on the overall
effectiveness of colleges and universities with strong programs in the field.
While there is clearly a national demand for GIScience education and growing
evidence that distance education has the potential to deliver it rigorously,
many challenges remain. These are discussed in terms of gaps in educational
research that can be bridged by GIScience academics, such as the development of
distance education pedagogies specifically for GIScience, the interaction of
multiple (as opposed to single) technologies for effective learning at a
distance (e.g., GIS with remote sensing, digital image processing, location
based services, and the like), the general effectiveness of digital geospatial
libraries for supporting GIScience distance education, how best to support
faculty innovations in distance education using the latest technologies (such
as web GIS, virtual learning environments, etc.), and research into the best
cost and funding models for distance education in GIScience. In the end, the
primary issue may be not what GIScience can contribute to the improvement of
distance education, but what distance education may uniquely contribute to
GIScience
Introduction
"Distance
education" is now familiar terminology on university campuses nationwide
and is viewed by many not only as a revolution in increasing the access to
higher education, but in reforming it (e.g., Benyon et al. 1997, Browning and
Williams 1997, National Center for Education Statistics 1999). As the Institute
for Higher Education Policy (1999) and others point out, distance learning is
hardly a recent innovation. Colleges, universities, and commercial enterprises
have offered correspondence courses throughout the U.S. since the development
of the U.S. Postal Service and rural free delivery. The diffusion of
inter-networked computing and two-way interactive video, however, coinciding
with an increasingly competitive higher education market, has led to rapid
growth in distance learning in the 1990s.
Educators
are not of one mind about distance learning. Some celebrate the potential to
expand access to higher education to lifelong learners not well served by
traditional place-bound courses (e.g., Kellogg Commission 1999). Others welcome
the opportunity to enrich education for both on- and off-campus students by
leveraging computers and networks to create a new, more active more student-centered
pedagogy (e.g., Benyon et al. 1997, Browning and Williams 1997). Still others
view distance learning as evidence of a regressive trend toward the automation
of higher education and the commercialization of the academy (e.g., Noble 1998,
Gober 1998). Hopes and fears notwithstanding, distance learning appears to be
here to stay.
The potential benefits, costs,
and risks of distance education are certainly not lost on the geographic
information science (GIScience) community. As the demand for training in
geographic information system (GIS) software, as well as in GIScience education
(the fundamental science behind GIS) grows, so too does the demand for
effective modes of instructional delivery to students, regardless of time,
place, or, in some cases, educational background. The early success of
commercial distance learning programs such as UNIGIS in Europe and the Environmental Systems
Research Institute's (ESRI) Virtual Campus attests to this need (Phoenix,
2000). Since its founding in 1997, and based on ideas
gleaned from the very successful UNIGIS effort, the Virtual Campus
has emerged as a major portal to GIScience technical training and education in the U.S.
Virtual Campus courses are included as assignments in many U.S. university courses that
lead to formal certificates and degrees in GIS, geography, and related fields.
The
challenges faced by GIScience classroom educators are by now well known. The
technological orientation of the subject, the head-spinning rate at which that
technology is evolving, the need for collaboration - not only for creative
innovation in the classroom but merely to keep up - and the realization that
many institutions of higher education are not yet equipped to support these
instructional requirements in classroom settings, all conspire to confound the
efforts of even the most conscientious educators (Kemp et al. 1999, Wright
1999). But what about teaching GIScience at a distance? The University
Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS) has long been concerned
with the broader expansion and improvement of GIScience education (Kemp and
Wright, 1997) and is now focusing on issues specific to distance education. The UCGIS is a consortium primarily of 63 U.S. research
universities from 37 states whose mission is to serve as the academic voice of
geographic information science in both research and education (www.ucgis.org). It does this in
part by training and educating
students in GIS and GIScience in order to advance the discipline and to meet
new employment demands. Panel discussions and working groups on distance
education and GIScience convened at the 2000 and 2001 Summer Assemblies of the
UCGIS. This paper is the result of numerous informal discussions and
explorations of issues at these sessions, and from a white paper that was
written by the UCGIS Distance Education working group in response to an action
item proposed by the UCGIS national education committee. It seeks to frame a
discussion of the opportunities and challenges posed by distance education with
respect to the profound impact they will have on education in GIScience, as well
as on the overall effectiveness of colleges and universities with strong
programs in GIScience. It should be noted that this paper deals only with a
U.S. perspective and experience, and does not purport to review or provide an
inventory of programs, experiences, or advances in GIScience distance education
within the United Kingdom, Europe, or other parts of the world (including the
very successful International UniGIS Consortium).
Background
The
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) defines distance education as
"education or training courses delivered to remote (off-campus)
location(s) via audio, video (live or prerecorded), or computer technologies,
including both synchronous and asynchronous instruction" (NCES 2000a:2).
By definition, then, distance education is a set of transactions among students
and instructors who are located in different places - an arrangement that
should be of special interest to geographers. Distance education may also
differ from traditional education by being asynchronous, where students and
instructors are performing their roles at different times. Distance students
may work as individuals or in cohorts. Instructors may or may not be available
for consultation.
Existing
programs in GIScience vary significantly. For example, at the University of
Maine, lectures in some GIScience courses may be viewed either in real time at
the student's desktop via one-way web streaming or at any time later from a web
video archive. Students must enroll begin activities in the courses at the
beginning of the term when on-campus students are taking the exact same course.
In contrast, Penn State's on-line Certificate Program in GIS
(http://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/pub/gis/ index.shtml), is semi-asynchronous in
that there is a schedule of weekly deliverables, but students
may work
anytime they wish during the week, and they need not enroll at exactly the same
time as on-campus students. One course is available for independent study
credit all year round. Courses at Maine and
Penn State are instructor-led, and/or cohort-based, whereas ESRI's Virtual
Campus (http://campus.esri.com) is largely an asynchronous, non-instructor-led
learning environment in which students work independently. See Berdusco et al.,
(2001) and the GeoCommunity site at
http://spatialnews.geocomm.com/education/distance_edu for information on and
web links to similar offerings at institutions such as Carnegie Mellon
(Pennsylvania), Ferris State University (Michigan), Louisiana Tech, Oregon
State, the University of California-Riverside, University of Colorado at
Denver, the University of Denver, the University of Montana, the University of
Southern California, and Western Michigan, as well as programs in Canada (i.e.,
Simon Fraser), the UK, and other parts of the world. According to Mayadas
(1997) and NCES (2002) the instructor-led, cohort-based model (sometimes called
"asynchronous learning networks") still offers the greatest potential
for effective distance learning. A theoretical framework for such an assertion
is built upon five "pillars" of quality for effective asynchronous
learning as outlined by Mayadas (1998): (1) student satisfaction; (2) access to
all desired courses, degrees, programs and accompanying support services; (3)
learning effectiveness; (4) faculty satisfaction, and (5) cost effectiveness,
where the best educational value is provided to learners without compromising
the financial stability of the institution.
Distance
education is growing rapidly. NCES (2000a) reports that in the academic year
1997-'98, about one-third of 2- and 4-year postsecondary institutions in the
U.S. offered distance education courses, and one-fifth of institutions planned
to start within the next three years. The number of courses available online
increased from an estimated 25,730 in 1994-'95 to 54,470 in 1997-'98.
Enrollments in 1997-'98 were estimated at 1,661,100, more than twice the number
enrolled in 1994-'95 (NCES 2000a).
The
recent growth of distance education reflects not only the diffusion of Internet
usage, but also the changing demographics of higher education. Between 1976 and
1996, the proportion of U.S. college and university students aged 18-24
increased only 0.4% when adjusted for population growth, while the number of
students aged 25 or older increased 47.5% (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998).
The average age of the approximately 600 students who have enrolled in the
Certificate Program in GIS at Penn State is 40 years. As the Kellogg Commission
on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities observed:
With
a more diverse and older student population, we need a more diversified set of
educational offerings. As people mature and move through successive careers, we
need to be there to help them retool and retread, with special courses
available at their convenience. (Kellogg Commission 1999:8)
Distance
education clearly offers the potential to make higher education more accessible
to lifelong learners. However, many people also believe that distance education
poses a risk to the quality and integrity of higher education. Demonstrating
the effectiveness of distance learning is even more difficult than
demonstrating the effectiveness of traditional resident instruction, because
distance education (as defined above) is a relatively recent phenomenon. We are
still learning how best to foster learning at a distance. It is not surprising,
therefore, that the widely cited report What's the Difference? A Review of
Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher
Education (IHEP
1999) observes the "relative paucity" of reliable research on the
effectiveness of distance education.
One of
the first things distance educators learn is that they cannot hope for a
successful learning experience if they simply put existing courses designed for
resident instruction on-line. For instance, faculty members in the School of
Education at Oregon State University who have experience implementing distance
learning technologies, generally agree that simply replicating traditional
instructional models in a distance learning context may not be the most
effective strategy for teaching and learning in any discipline (Merickel 1997). The
recommendations of the NSF Geoscience Education Working Group (GEWG) include
the statement: "uncertainty exists regarding which practices work best in
the classroom [and at a distance] to promote better learning about the
geosciences. We do not have a sound pedagogical understanding of how students
learn about the geosciences effectively at any level. As a result, we rely
primarily on anecdotal information" (Geosciences Education Working Group
1997:1). As Moore (2000) points out, there is not even complete consensus that
the web is a more commodious medium than group-conferencing via two-way
interactive video.
Despite
the uncertainties associated with distance pedagogy, educators are approaching
consensus that "distance learning can be quality learning" (IHEP
2000:4). In a review of the current state of knowledge in distance education,
Hansen et al. (1997) conclude that:
·
with
regard to "learner outcomes" distance education is just as effective
as traditional education (NCES 2000b);
·
distance
learners generally have a more favorable attitude toward distance education
than traditional learners, and feel as though they are learning just as much in
a distance education mode as they would in a traditional classroom;
·
successful
distance education learners tend to be abstract learners who are intrinsically
motivated and possess "an internal locus of control"; and
·
each
form of distance education technology has its own advantages and disadvantages
in contributing to the overall quality of the learning experience.
In a
similar vein, a report of a year-long faculty seminar at the University of
Illinois, composed of both experienced distance educators and critics,
concludes that "online teaching and learning can be done with high quality
if new approaches are employed that compensate for the limitations of
technology, and if professors make the effort to create and maintain the human
touch of attentiveness to their students" (University of Illinois Faculty
Seminar 1999:2). In a recent report entitled Quality on the Line: Benchmarks
for Success in Internet-Based Distance Education, The Institute for Higher
Education Policy outlines 45 characteristics of successful distance education
programs, in such categories as institutional support, course development,
teaching/learning process, course structure, student support, faculty support,
and evaluation and assessment (IHEP 2000). A compelling case study of the
potential to achieve high quality in distance learning is The Open University,
which has served over two million off-site students since 1971, and was
recently ranked 11th of 98 U.K. higher education Institutions in quality of
teaching (Lyall 1999). The lessons learned by early adopters of distance
education can be applied in GIScience education. Further, the GIScience
community needs to be cognizant of and take advantage of the continually
increasing technological capabilities for facilitating the dissemination of
teaching and scholarly materials.
Issues
for GIScience
Capitalizing
on Current Successes
There is
growing evidence that distance education has the potential to deliver rigorous
GIScience education. One example is the achievements of students in the
distance education GIS certification program at Penn State since January, 1999.
Their courses include tutorials based upon a developmental approach. At the
outset, students receive problem scenarios, data sets, and detailed
instructions (workflows) on how to use GIS software to solve real-world
problems. Students use the GIS software that they have purchased through the
program to follow the instructions, then publish illustrated reports in their
on-line portfolios to demonstrate that they have completed the assignment. As
courses progress, tutorials include less and less detail. By the end of the
courses, assignments contain problem statements, data, and only a minimum of
instruction. Students are expected to develop and deliver their own workflows,
sometimes in collaboration with other students (via threaded discussion, chat,
or telephone). Instructors review and comment upon the student workflows.
Finally, students enact their own workflows, complete the assigned task, and
publish their results in their portfolios. In this way, students learn not just
how to operate software, but how to use GIS to solve problems. By requiring
students to take greater responsibility for their own learning, educators can
transform distance from a disadvantage into an advantage. Instructors at Penn
State are convinced that these students are learning more effectively than they
would in comparable on-campus courses.
A second
example is what can be gained by leveraging the new technological
infrastructure provided by Internet2. Internet2 has been created specifically
for the research and instructional needs of higher education, and at this point
is far less crowded than the commercial Internet. An immediate benefit is
reduced cost as instructors using Internet2 would not necessarily have to rely
on satellite transmission (at an estimated cost of $500 per hour) for some
courses. While not providing a complete replacement for the commercial
Internet, Internet2 does offer: (1) a means of expediting the development of
new technologies, such as virtual learning environments (VLEs), that allow for
collaborative course structuring, conferencing, chatting, grading, and even
course evaluation in near real time, as well as online tutoring and peer group
support; (2) a testbed for monitoring/measuring
end-to-end bandwidth needs; and (3) the infrastructure for
"pioneering" applications such as digital libraries, tele-immersion,
digital video, virtual laboratories, and all the "emerging
technologies" on the horizon for distance education (Wright et al. 1997).
In the Fall of 1999, Oregon State University, in collaboration with Kansas
State University and the University of Nebraska, held the first
fully-interactive distance education course using the high-speed Internet2
network known as Abilene (Stauth, 1999). Features
of the course included:
·
shared
lectures, responsibilities and course planning all done over Internet2 by
faculty at the three institutions;
·
distributed
classrooms connected by digital audio and video for two-way interactive lecture
sessions between all three institutions in real-time, and fiber optic cables
transmitting at 2.5 gigabits per second (a rate capable of transmitting the
entire contents of a library in one hour);
·
advantages
such as the greater ease of achieving a critical mass of students and the
leveraging of complimentary research skills, and
·
the
disadvantage of needing last-minute adjustments by network experts.
Although
the course was not about GIScience (it was an offering in Botany and Plant
Pathology), it is clear that such a course could be implemented using
Internet2, making use two-way compressed video, webstreaming technologies for
interactive audio and video, webcasting of live and delayed lecture videos and
accompanying course materials directly to students' desktops in their homes or
offices, wireless communication directly to students' personal desktop
assistants and/or cell phones, and the like (e.g., Community Media Center,
2002). And for GIScience, it will be important to incorporate the latest map server
technologies (such as ESRI's ArcIMS,), VLEs that allow students and faculty to
exchange remotely-sensed images and perform digital image processing techniques
on them. Or they may want to exchange algorithms and pieces of codes such as
Arc Macro Language or Avenue scripts, Java applets, Visual Basic programs,
etc., for collaborative testing in a GIS.
Perhaps
a suitable GIScience testbed for Internet2 would be to structure course
offerings based on the experiences of the UCGIS Virtual Seminars that were held
over the commercial Internet in 1996-'97 and 1998 (Wright 1999). These seminars
involved 10 UCGIS member institutions in 1996-'97 and 5 in 1998 in asynchronous
discussions and readings about the GIScience research agenda developed by the
UCGIS (http://www.ucgis.org/research98.html). An Internet2 GIScience seminar
might transform the information/data retrieved from databases and sites found
on the Web, as well as from textbooks and journal articles, into interactive
learning experiences for the students by way of a set of web-based interactive
interfaces that entice students to ask questions as they prepare or gather
data, as they perform GIS analyses, and as they interpret the results.
Opportunities
for Universities
A
National Demand
Most
will agree that distance education is growing rapidly, along with the
adoption
of GIS technology and the evolution of GIScience as a discipline.
Moreover,
the adoption of GIS technology continues to increase across
commercial,
academic and government sectors. It follows that an adequately
trained
and educated workforce is essential to the appropriate
implementation
and use of GIScience technologies. It is widely known, though
poorly
documented, that there is currently an unmet demand for education and
training
in GIS and GIScience. Phoenix (2000) reports the following:
·
the
annual demand by professionals for GIS course work is estimated at 75,000;
·
the
annual demand for GIS students enrolled in universities is estimated to be
50,000;
·
there
are more than 200 programs in the U.S. that offer a certificate in GIS, with an
annual graduation rate of 4,000;
·
the
shortfall in the U.S. in producing individuals with an advanced level of GIS
education is 3,000-4,000; and
·
the
shortfall outside the U.S. is even greater.
There is
the potential of distance education to contribute to the successful
implementation of a GIScience Model Curriculum, seems likely to demand a
breadth and depth of faculty expertise that few individual departments possess
(Marble 1999, 2002). Several departments from different universities, joined
together in credit-sharing consortia, might be much more effective in offering
students the courses needed to satisfy the curriculum. By definition, these
would be distance courses. Advanced GIScience courses offered synchronously
through two-way interactive video, or asynchronously on-line, offer the
potential to achieve economies of scale necessary to ensure their viability. A
distributed model curriculum also poses opportunities for collaboration in
GIScience education that until now have only been realized in GIScience
research projects. Ultimately, the act of formalizing and distributing the
content of the Model Curriculum sets the stage for peer review of GIScience
education, a tried and true method of quality assurance with which GIScience
researchers are so familiar, as explained in more detail by DiBiase (this
issue, 2002).
Gaps
in Research (Challenges) That Universities can Address
There
are several important issues regarding the effectiveness of distance learning
that require further investigation and validation. These include intellectual
property rights (e.g., does an instructor really own what he/she puts online?),
how best to retain online students (drop-out rates for some forms of distance education courses are often
higher than those in traditional classrooms; NCES, 2000a),
and assessing the benefits of various technologies (especially with regard to
how they may support the education process rather than dictate it). Moreover,
there are issues specific to GIScience that are currently not being addressed
at all in the literature, as discussed below.
Five
Specific Issues
Rigorous
research in the pedagogy of GIScience, specifically for education at a
distance, needs to be encouraged and pursued. Pedagogy is here defined simply
as the art and science of teaching. An active pedagogy, which is here advocated
for GIScience distance education, is further defined as a student-centered
approach that involves students actively in their own learning, assures their
involvement with the material (i.e., their world), and teaches skills for
problem-solving, rather than merely instilling information for occasional
regurgitation (Moser and Hanson 1996, Chalkley and Harwood 1998, Healey 1998).
A theoretical framework that provides criteria for effective, intuitive
instruction (Jenkins 1998, Shephard 1998, White and Weight 1999) must guide the
pedagogy. In particular, models employing constructivist theories and stressing
collaborative learning should be explored (Bruffee 1993, Hurley et al. 1999,
Palloff and Pratt 1999). And an analysis of what pedagogies work best with the
various distance education communication technologies that an instructor might
choose to use would be extremely helpful.
More
research attention should be devoted to the interaction of multiple
technologies (such as the interaction between GIS, remote sensing/image
processing, location based services, and other mobile technologies). Current
research centers on learning with technology that focuses mostly on the impact
of individual technologies. There are few studies that examine more than one
technology or the synergistic effects of certain technologies in addressing
specific education outcomes and student groups (Institute for Higher Education
Policy 1999).
More
research efforts need to address the general effectiveness of "digital
libraries," as well as the effectiveness of "digital geospatial libraries" for education.
Current literature provides guidelines for cataloging and distributing
materials (e.g., Lopez, 1999) but now how they are effecting the quality of
distance education in GIScience. While the brick-and-mortar library is an
integral part of the teaching/learning process on university campuses,
particularly for graduate students, do current digital libraries measure up to
the same objectives? Anecdotal evidence suggests that the potential of some
distance education courses has actually been impeded by the limited variety of
books and journals available from the digital library (Institute for Higher
Education Policy 1999), as well as the quality and ease-of-access of data from
geospatial clearinghouses.
Research
is needed to assess what training and support are most effective in encouraging
faculty to make use of new technologies (Foote 1999a and 1999b). Previous
research has focused on learner outcomes, but has not addressed the issue of
how to support faculty innovations in distance education, particularly with
regard to VLEs.
And
finally, research is needed into the best cost and funding models for distance
education in GIScience. More than many other distance courses, GIScience
requires students to use significant amounts of relatively sophisticated
technology (e.g., GIS and remote sensing software, GPS receivers, geospatial
data sets and imagery). Distance education materials are costly to produce and
for some GIScience materials, the data may be proprietary or purchased on a
single license that does not transfer to other parties (e.g., the costs and
licensing that Geographic Data Technology enforces for the use of its street
network and address data products that are used in many GIScience college level
labs throughout the U.S.). Given that materials are indeed costly to produce
and that not all institutions can afford to follow MIT's lead in making all of
their materials free (e.g., Heterick and Twigg 2001), the tension between
recouping costs and sharing education resources and intellectual property will
continue to grow. And what happens to distance education materials (and some
GIScience data) when a professor leaves one institution for another, but the
former institution is still making money off of the materials that remain under
its electronic purview? Formidable as well is the current challenge that
institutions face in sharing tuition revenues, credits, and curricula for
distance education courses.
Conclusion
This
paper has attempted to identify some of the issues in distance education unique
to GIScience that need special attention and leadership by the GIScience
academic community within the U.S. Indeed, the primary issue may be not what
GIScience can contribute to the development of distance
education,
but what distance education can uniquely contribute to GIScience. By realizing
the potential of distance education, the GIScience academic community may
strengthen education in GIScience within existing programs of higher education,
to provide U.S. students with more competitive technical skills for the
national and international marketplace. Distance education may help to promote
the development of new GIScience programs at two- and four-year colleges and
universities that do not already focus on the discipline, as well as within
K-12 education. There is the potential for fostering important cooperative
links between GIS software vendors, for-profit educational institutions and
academia, especially in terms of distance education programs currently operated
by commercial companies (such as the ESRI Virtual Campus) that may complement
or support university efforts. With distance education, educational
opportunities in GIScience can be extended to people who do not have ready
geographical access to institutions of higher education. And there is certainly
a national need for professional education in GIScience that can be partially met
by the continued development of specialized and customized programs at
universities for "just-in-time" or "course-on-demand"
instruction.
About
the Authors
Dawn
Wright is associate professor of Geosciences at Oregon State University and
director of the university's cross-disciplinary minor in Earth Information
Science and Technology.
David
Dibiase is senior lecturer of Geography and director of both the e-Education
Institute and the Peter R. Gould Center for Geography Outreach and Education at
Penn State University.
Cherri
Pancake is professor, interim chair, and Intel Faculty Fellow of Computer
Science at Oregon State University and director of the Northwest Alliance for
Computational Science and Engineering.
Richard
Wright is professor emeritus of Geography at San Diego State University.
Kenneth
E. Foote is professor of Geography at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are extended to five anonymous referees of the URISA Journal for careful and thoughtful reviews that greatly improved the manuscript. Remaining weaknesses are the authors' sole responsibility. Karen Kemp is thanked for helpful comments and insights during the earlier stages of this manuscript. And, finally, we thank panelists Art Getis of San Diego State University, Ann Johnson of ESRI, Lyna Wiggins of Rutgers, and all attendees of the session on distance education and GIScience at the 2001 UCGIS Summer Assembly in Buffalo, New York (http://www.geog. buffalo.edu/ucgis/distanceeducation.pdf) for helpful discussions.
References
Benyon,
D., Stone, D., Woodroffe, M., 1997, Experience with Developing Multimedia
Courseware for the World Wide Web: The Need for Better Tools and Clear
Pedagogy. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47(1), 197.
Berdusco,
B., Gearey, W., Jr., Moore, P., Parkinson, B., and Gibbens, D., 2000, GIS and
Distance Education. Internal report, UNIGIS, link.
Browning,
P. and Williams, J., 1997, Using the Internet in Teaching and Learning: A U.K.
Perspective, Computers and Geosciences, 23 (5), 549-557.
Bruffee,
K. A., 1993, Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence and
the Authority of Knowledge, (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press).
Chalkley,
B. and Harwood, J. 1998, Transferable Skills and Work-based Learning in
Geography,
(Gloucester, Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education: Geography
Discipline Network, Guides to Good Teaching, Learning and Assessment Practices
in Geography).
Community
Media Center, Digitize This! Building Community Bit by Bit, Grand Rapids, Michigan, April
11-13, 2002, link. Accessed 2 July 2002.
DiBiase,
D., in press, 2002, On Accreditation and the Peer Review of Education in
Geographic Information Systems and Science, URISA Journal.
Foote,
K. E. 1997, The Geographer's Craft: Teaching GIS on the Web. Transactions in
GIS, 2, 137-150.
Foote,
K. E., 1999a, Bringing Faculty Online: Inspiring and Sustaining Innovation in
Information and Computer Technologies. Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, 23:
5-7.
Foote,
K. E., 1999b, Building Disciplinary Collaborations in the World Wide Web:
Strategies and Barriers. Journal of Geography, 98: 108-117.
Geosciences
Education Working Group, 1997, Geoscience Education: A Recommended Strategy,
NSF 97-171,
(Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation),
link.
Gober,
P., 1998, Distance Learning and Geography's Soul, Association of American
Geographers Newsletter, 33(5), 1-2.
Hanson,
D., N. Maushak, C. Schlosser, M. Anderson, C. Sorensen, and M. Simonson, 1997, Distance
Education: Review of the Literature, 2nd edition, (Washington, D.C. and Ames, IA: Association for
Educational Communications and Technology and Research Institute for Studies in
Education).
Healey,
M., 1998, Resource-based Learning in Geography, (Gloucester, Cheltenham and
Gloucester College of Higher Education: Geography Discipline Network, Guides to
Good Teaching, Learning and Assessment Practices in Geography).
Heterick,
B., and Twigg, C., 2001, Is MIT Giving Away the Store? The Learning
MarketSpace, link. Accessed 13 July 2001.
Hurley,
J.M., Proctor, J. D., and Ford, R. E., 1999, Collaborative Inquiry at a
Distance: Using the Internet and Constructivist Strategies in Geography
Education, Journal of Geography 98(3), 128-140.
Institute
for Higher Education Policy, 1999, What's the Difference? A Review of
Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education.
pdf file. Accessed 29 November 2000.
Institute
for Higher Education Policy, 2000, Quality on the Line: Benchmarks for Success
in Internet-Based Distance Education. pdf file. Accessed
29 November 2000.
Jenkins,
A., 1998, Curriculum Design in Geography, (Gloucester, Cheltenham and Gloucester College of
Higher Education: Geography Discipline Network, Guides to Good Teaching,
Learning and Assessment Practices in Geography).
Kellogg
Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, 1999, Returning
to Our Roots: The Engaged Institution, (Washington, DC: National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges).
Kemp,
K., and R. Wright. 1997, UCGIS Identifies GIScience Education Priorities. Geo
Info Systems, 7(9),
16-18, 20.
Kemp, K.
K., Reeve, D. E., et al., 1999, Interoperability for GIScience Education. In
Vckovski, A., Brassel, K. E., and Schek, H.-J. (Eds.), Interoperating
Geographic Information Systems, (Berlin: Springer-Verlag), 101-114.
Lopez,
X. R., 1999, Interoperability Through Organization: Digital Libraries for
Distributed Geospatial Information, VLSI, Computer Architecture and Digital
Signal Processing,
495, 459.
Lyall,
S.,1999, The British are Coming: One of the U.K.'s Top Universities is a
Distance-learning School, and it's About to Test American Waters. Education
Life, supplement to The New York Helvetica, April 4,
29, 38.
Macey,
S., 1997, Supporting Infrastructure, University Consortium for Geographic Information Science
Education Priority White Paper.
link.
Accessed 6 October 2001.
Marble,
D., 1999, Developing a Model, Multipath Curriculum for GIScience, ArcNews, Spring 1999,
link
Marble,
D., 2002. A Model Curriculum for Geographic Information Science &
Technology, Abstracts of the 98th Annual Meeting of the Association of American
Geographers, Session 7121.
Mayadas,
F., 1997, Asynchronous Learning Networks: A Sloan Foundation Perspective, Journal
of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
link.
Mayadas,
F., 1998, Quality Framework for Online Education, In Panitz, B., Learning on
Demand, ASEE PRISM,
(Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education), 18-24, and
link.
Merickel,
M., 1997, Applying a University's Quality Standards for Electronically
Delivered Instruction to World Wide Web Based Teacher Education Courses.
link. Accessed 6 October 2001.
Moore,
M.G., 2000, Editorial: Is Distance Teaching More Work or Less?, The American
Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 4.
Moser,
S., and Hanson, S., 1996, Notes on Active Pedagogy, (Washington, D.C.: Association of
American Geographers),
link
National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2000a, Distance Education at
Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1997-98, NCES 2000-013, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Education), pdf file.
National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2000b, National Postsecondary
Student Aid Study,
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education),
pdf file.
National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2002, Distance Education Instruction
by Postsecondary Faculty and Staff: Fall 1998, NCES 2002-155, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Education), pdf file.
Noble, D. F., 1998, Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education, First Monday.
Palloff,
R.M. and Pratt, K., 1999, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace:
Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers).
Phoenix,
M., 2000, Geography and the Demand for GIS Education, Association of
American Geographers Newsletter, 35(6),13.
Shepherd,
I., 1998, Teaching and Learning Geography with Information and Communication
Technologies,
(Gloucester, Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education: Geography
Discipline Network, Guides to Good Teaching, Learning and Assessment Practices
in Geography).
Stauth,
D., 1999, Cutting-edge Internet Class Demonstrated at SC99, Oregon State
University Press Release. link.
Accessed 2 July 2002.
University
of Illinois Faculty Seminar,1999, Teaching at an Internet Distance: The
Pedagogy of Online Teaching and Learning.
link. Accessed 6 October 2001.
U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1998, Table A-6: Age Distribution of College Students 14
Years Old and Over, by Gender: October 1947 to 1996.
link, Accessed 29
November 2000.
White,
K. W. and Weight, R. H., 1999, The
Online Teaching Guide: A Handbook of Attitudes, Strategies, and Techniques for
the Virtual Classroom,
(Boston: Allyn & Bacon).
Wright,
D. J., 1999, "Virtual" Seminars in GIS: Academic Future or Flash in
the Pan?, Geo Info Systems, 9(3): 22, 24-26.
Wright,
D., G. Elmes, K. Foote, J. Chen, N. Faust, B. Savitsky, and J. Sewash, 1997,
Emerging Technologies for Delivering GIScience Education. University Consortium
for Geographic Information Science Education Priority White Paper.
link. Accessed 6 October 2001.
Further
Reading and Visitation on the Web
DiBiase, D., 2000. Is distance
education a Faustian bargain? Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24(1),130-135
- considers ethical implications of
distance learning in geography
DiBiase, D., 2000. Is distance
teaching more work or less work? American Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 6-20.
-
analyzes the results of a study during which the author and his teaching
assistants analyzed the time and tasks involved in teaching two similar courses:
one on-line, the other the classroom
Shariah Program Links to Distance Degrees
www.shariahprogram.ca/links/distancelearning.shtml
UCGIS Education Committee
www.ucgis.org/f2aeduca.html
UNIGIS program
www.unigis.org
University of California-Riverside, Online GIS Courses in Association with ESRI
Copyright
(c) 2002, University Consortium for Geographic Information Science
Comments/Questions: dawn@dusk.geo.orst.edu, dibiase@psu.edu