Accessibility
Access to computers at school has risen significantly. According to Skinner (2002),
“Nationally, in 2001, there were just over four students to every instructional school computer, and the number of students per Internet-connected computer in schools dropped from 7.9 in 2000 to 6.8 in 2001” (p. 53). This trend continues. In 2004, Fox (2005) reports that nationally, there were 3.8 students to every instructional computer and the number of students per Internet-connected computer in schools dropped to 4.1. Rumberger states that, newer and more powerful desktop comput- ers, along with the development of computer networks and the Internet, provide the opportunity for educational technology to transform teaching and learning in more fundamental ways across the curriculum and throughout the educational system (Rumberger, 2000).
The digital divide continues to exist between high (75% or more of the students eligible for the federal free and reduced lunch program) and low poverty schools.
While Internet access across all types of schools has shown steady improvement, the actual use of technology in high poverty, high minority, and academically-fail- ing schools lags behind technology use in more advantaged schools (Fox, 2005). In multiple measures of access, schools with a large number of poor students, receiving free or reduced price lunch, rated lower than schools with smaller numbers of poor students (Du, Havard, Olinzock, & Yang, 2004). Students who do not have access to high-quality computer experiences at home or school are not being provided with the opportunities they need to be successful in society. Furthermore, increased ac- cess to computers will only have positive results when the educator has a complete grasp of the role and use of computers, and an understanding of the student’s home environment and how their deficiencies must be met in order to realize their full potential, thus enhancing society instead of reducing the average achievement (Du et al., 2004).
Professional.Development
Another important factor for effective implementation is staff development. Provid- ing sufficient development and training to give staff skills and confidence in the use of technology is widely viewed as an ongoing challenge to schools (Schmitt, 2002). Trotter (1999) reports that nearly four out of every ten teachers who do not
use software for instruction say they do not have enough time to try out software, and almost as many say they do not have enough training on instructional soft- ware. Adelman et al. (2002) found that although most teachers had participated in multiple professional development opportunities, more than 80% indicated a need for training in how to integrate technology into the curriculum. Ironically, in 2003, 82% of public schools nationwide with Internet access indicated that their school or school district had offered professional development to teachers in their school on how to integrate the use of the Internet into the curriculum (Parsad &
Jones, 2005). Interestingly, students believe that professional development and technical assistance for teachers are crucial for effective integration of the Internet into curricula (Levin, Arafeh, Lenhart, & Rainie, 2002). Unfortunately, schools and school districts spend most technology money on hardware and software, and spend relatively little on training, which averages no more than 15% of all technol- ogy funds (Hanson & Carlson, 2005). In the technology context, teachers reported having limited time to practice technology skills, to develop new activities, and to conduct activities during a tightly scheduled school day. These were reportedly the most significant barriers to increased integration of educational technology in the classroom (Adelman et al., 2002).
Effective.Use
The third important factor to consider is effective use. Technology, it has been argued, helps change teacher-student relationships, encourages project-based learn- ing styles, and supports the acquisition of skills such as “higher order thinking,”
analysis, and problem solving (Schmitt, 2002). Thus, its integration and effective use is critical to increase student achievement. Although teachers now have the use of an unprecedented amount of technology for their classrooms and schools, there is little evidence to indicate that teachers systematically integrate instructional tech- nology into their classroom curriculum (Wetzel, 1999). Hedges, Konstantopoulos, and Thoreson (2000) found that even though teachers have had increasing access to computers for instruction, very few actually use them. Although 84% of all public school teachers said personal computers were available to them, approximately 60%
indicated that they actually used them (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998). While 75% of teachers say the Internet is an important tool for finding new resources to meet standards, two-thirds agree that the Internet is not well integrated in their class- rooms, and only 26% feel pressure to use it in learning activities (Ely, 2002). Thus even though computer technology may be widely available, in general, it is poorly integrated into the classroom curriculum and is under-used (Hedges et al., 2000).
Unfortunately, the manner in which technology is used in schools also depends on socioeconomic status. Disadvantaged children, even with access to new technolo- gies, are more likely to use them for rote learning activities rather than for intel-
lectually-demanding inquiries (Du et al., 2004). Equally disturbing is the evidence that teachers of students with different ability levels are also using the computer differently. Research indicates that technology use with low-achieving students is mostly skills-based, drill and practice, while more sophisticated programs are used with advanced students (Becker, 2000; Manzo, 2001). While all teachers use technology in multiple areas of their work and believe in technology’s potential to positively impact teaching and learning, instructional use (e.g., student projects, accommodations, lesson presentation) is one of the least frequent ways teachers employ technology (Hanson & Carlson, 2005). However, researchers have concluded that technical tools, when used appropriately as instructional supports, have the potential to enhance student learning and teacher instructional success (Bednarz, 2004). Williams believes that education will be affected by how educators and stu- dents use the technology to prepare for life-long learning in the face of unrelenting change (Williams, 2002).
The CEO Forum 2001 Report (CEO Forum, 2001) found that while students fre- quently use computers at school for research (96%) or to write papers (91%), their actual use for learning new concepts or practicing new skills learned in class was significantly lower (60% and 57% respectively). Quintana and Zhang (2004) report that online inquiry activities are important for all K-12 learners to explore substan- tive driving questions in different areas, especially science.
Geographic.Information.Systems
Geographic information science is an approach to measuring and understanding the spatial context of the human and physical environment. By combining theories and methods from many disciplines, and use of information technologies, its purpose is to provide geographic representations of our world that allow for visualization and spatial analysis through the use of geographic information system (GIS) technology.
For example, the earth’s climate, natural hazards, population, geology, vegetation, soils, land use, and other characteristics can be analyzed in a GIS using maps, aerial photographs, satellite images, databases, and graphs. GIS technology is used in many areas such as agriculture, business, earth and space sciences, education, energy, emergency management, health sciences, life sciences, logistics, physical sciences, telecommunications, and transportation.
In education, using GIS to analyze phenomena about the Earth and its inhabitants can help students to better understand patterns, linkages, and trends about our planet and its people (Gutierrez, Coulter, & Goodwin, 2002). Integrating GIS into the school curriculum answers the call for including critical thinking, integrated learning, and multiple intelligences in curriculum design (Joseph, 2004).
Students who are visual learners particularly benefit from the mapping process, as the presentation of the data is consistent with their cognitive strengths (Gutierrez
et al., 2002). Research has shown that educators must be attuned to the individual differences in students’ strategical information processing styles, and an awareness of the student’s style allows for the design of educational experiences that tap into the student’s cognitive resources (Farrell & Kotrlik, 2003). Teachers realize that technology enhances science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instruction by providing resources for individual students, as well as for the whole class, and serves as a means to address individual learning needs (Hanson & Carlson, 2005). Thus, GIS should be emphasized throughout K-12 education where it can be used to teach concepts and skills in earth science, geography, chemistry, biological science, history, and mathematics.
ScienceMaps
ScienceMaps was created to promote the integration of GIS technology into the science curriculum and to address the aforementioned issues of accessibility, professional development, and effective use. As a result, the ScienceMaps project seeks to:
• Develop standards-based instructional materials for use with an Internet-based GIS and allow for their immediate integration into science lessons (accessibil- ity and effective use)
• Reduce the necessary technical skills needed to effectively integrate technology into the science classroom and reduce the time needed to preview/evaluate instructional materials (professional development and effective use)
• Provide access to these resources through an online resource portal and in so doing reduce the need for schools to purchase expensive software/hardware for students and teachers to access the instructional materials and applications (accessibility and effective use)
Current science learning standards promote inquiry teaching as a means to help students develop a deeper conceptual understanding of science (Borgman et al., 2004). Drawing on the California State Science Standards, numerous science les- sons and GIS applications have been developed. California was selected for several reasons:
• California has the largest pre K-12 enrollment (6,356,348) as well the largest number of public school teachers (307,672).
• California ranks fourth in the country in capacity to use technology, that is, number of technology- related policies state has in use, but 30th in the country in use of technology.
• California ranks 47th in the country in access to technology and is one of only five states that have a plan to regularly update technology, but no funding mechanism to ensure that technology is updated (Fox, 2005).
• California was 1 of 7 states to receive an “A” rating on its science standards, receiving top honors for its standards. According to a study by the Thomas B.
Fordham Institute, “California has produced an exemplary set of standards for school science; there was no question among readers about the “A” grade”
(Gross, Goodenough, Haack, Lerner, Schwartz, & Schwartz, 2005, p. 30).
Until the emergence of GIS and related mapping technologies, constructing maps by hand was an elaborate, time-consuming task that often required good drawing skills. It is not necessary for users of ScienceMaps to “learn GIS” as the online applications are developed in such a manner that the necessary level of technical proficiency for both student and teacher is minimal. However, the spatial analysis performed using the applications is sophisticated and helps to develop students’
critical thinking skills through the practice of spatial thinking (Bednarz, 2004). In addition to supporting the visual display of spatial data, students can use the online GIS applications to perform various quantitative analyses. Students can also gain confidence in the use of advanced technologies, giving them additional technology skills for future employment. It has been noted that there is a serious shortfall in professionals and trained specialists who can utilize geospatial technologies in their jobs, which indicates the need for the education, training, and development of these individuals (Gaudet, Annulis, & Carr, 2001).
ScienceMaps.Online.Resource.Portal
Major science education standards call for K-12 students to engage in online, hands-on science activities where they can investigate personally meaningful scientific driving questions. When students learn science through inquiry, they are imitating practicing scientists (Borgman et al., 2004 ). The use of the Internet has led to a paradigm shift in education from traditional didacticism to technology-rich, constructivist learning where the learner is more active and independent, and the processes of teaching and learning are emphasized (Houtsonen, Kankaanrinta, & Rehunen, 2004).
One aspect of online inquiry involves information seeking. As a result, there is an increased focus on information seeking support for K-12 learners, such as new collections in larger projects like the National Science Digital Library (NSDL) (Quintana & Zhang, 2004). As educators increasingly look to technology to meet the challenges of teaching and learning in a rapidly-changing educational environ- ment, the field of interactive visualization, illustrating educational concepts through visual, interactive applications, and simulations, presents a promising and emerging paradigm for learning and content delivery (Marsh et al., 2005). Research on the
use of digital resources among STEM teachers found that digital resources had the added benefit of providing opportunities to supplement limited resources, such as labs (Hanson & Carlson, 2005).
The ScienceMaps Online Resource Portal was developed using the Collection Workflow Integration System (CWIS) a Web-based software application designed to allow groups with collections of information to share that information with others via the World Wide Web and integrate that information into the NSDL (University of Wisconsin - Madison, 2004). CWIS is a software application to assemble, organize, and share collections of data about resources, similar to the Yahoo and Google online directories, but conforming to international and academic standards for metadata.
CWIS was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and specifically cre- ated to help build collections of STEM resources and connect them into the NSF’s NSDL, but it can be (and is being) used for a wide variety of other purposes.
The ScienceMaps version of CWIS has all the features of the standard application including:
• Resource annotations and ratings
• Keyword searching
• Field searching
• Recommender system (similar to the “Amazon” recommender system)
• OAI 2.0 export (a method to allow a “harvester” such as the NSDL, to collect metadata regarding content from the resource portal)
• RSS feed support (a method to “push” a short description of resource portal content and a link to the full version of the content to other Web sites)
• Customizable user interface themes (e.g., large-text version)
Figure 1 is a screenshot of the ScienceMaps online resource portal home page.
Users may perform a keyword search to find lessons that pertain to a particular topic (e.g., earthquakes, water, hurricanes, invasive species, etc.) or by California Earth science, biological/life science, or investigation/experimentation standard (e.g., 9a, 6b, 1c, etc.). It is possible to view the entire lesson, including objectives, questions, and so forth, by clicking on “Full Record”. It is not necessary to login to access the lessons.
The ScienceMaps online resource portal contains two integrated resources, sci- ence lessons and GIS applications. Each science lesson is aligned to California science standards to promote inquiry-based learning as well as investigation and experimentation. Each GIS application is specifically designed and developed to meet the learning objectives contained in the science standards and lessons in such a way as to enhance learning.
To more effectively meet the requirements for the distribution of ScienceMaps les- sons and GIS applications, some of the features of the standard portal application have been customized, and others added, specifically:
•. Description: background information regarding the lesson topic
•. Objectives:.specific objectives of the lesson
•. Lesson.outline:.specific procedures to follow to complete the lesson
• Classification: specific content area (e.g., Earth Sciences)
•. Resource.type: type of online resource (e.g., Interactive GIS)
•. Audience:.appropriate grade level (e.g., Grades 10 – 12)
•. Coverage:.geographic region that the lesson covers (e.g., California, United States)
•. California.science.standards:.specific content standards that the lesson cov- ers
Figure 1. ScienceMaps online resource portal — home page
•. California.investigation.and.experimentation.standards: specific standards that the lesson covers
Figure 2 is a screenshot of “Seismic Hazard Map for the United States — Earth Science Lesson 16” illustrating the features described above and the content for this particular lesson. In this lesson, students are asked to analyze the relationship between the occurrences of seismic hazards and topography in California and the United States. This lesson begins with background on seismic hazards and how the dataset used in this lesson was derived. Details about the origins of the map as well as a glossary of terms are provided to the user via links. Information on the United States Geological Survey is also available. The objectives that each student is ex- pected to master upon completion of the lesson follow along with the procedures and questions. It is possible for teachers to print the instructions and questions for students if they prefer hard copies. Each lesson concludes with the coverage area, grade level, and content and investigation standards assessed in the lesson.
Figure 3 is a screenshot of the corresponding GIS application “Seismic Hazard Map for the United States — Earth Science Lesson 16” and illustrates basic user interface features such as a legend and layer control and basic GIS operations such as zoom in/out, pan, identify, and “zoom-to.” Advanced GIS operations such as query and a spatial analysis function (proximity analysis) are also illustrated. In this lesson, students begin by entering a state name, which allows them to focus on one state. Using the legend, they are able to draw inferences regarding the seismic hazard potential as measured by percent of gravity in the selected state. Students are then able to perform queries by comparing other areas that have similar seismic hazard characteristics in the United States by entering a specific percent of grav- ity. They may also enter a specific address along with search radius, to determine the type of seismic hazard in a particular area (e.g., their home, school, landmark, etc.). In either of these queries, detailed seismic hazard information appears in the box below the map. Many advanced spatial operations, such as routing, overlay analysis, and buffering, can be added to meet the operational requirements of any particular lesson.
ScienceMaps.Resource.Development.Methodology
The ScienceMaps Resource Development Methodology depicted in Figure 4 is being utilized to support the development of the two ScienceMaps resources — science lessons and GIS applications.
Starting with the Content Area Focus activity, the resource developer chooses one of the four major California standards-based science content areas for instructional materials development: biology/life sciences, chemistry, Earth sciences, and physics
Figure 2. ScienceMaps online resource portal — Earth science lesson 8
(the investigation and experimentation standards are applicable to all standards-based science content areas). This choice informs and influences both the science lesson development and the GIS application development activities.
Science lesson development involves the development of a lesson description includ- ing background information regarding the lesson topic; the development of “lesson objectives” including specific objectives of the lesson; and the development of a lesson outline including specific procedures to follow to complete the lesson. It also involves varying the level of questioning according to Bloom’s Taxonomy in order to promote higher order thinking skills (analysis, application, and synthesis) as well as providing all students with a level of success when utilizing the application.
GIS application development is further informed by the choice of the content area focus during lesson development. In general, the GIS application development activity involves four major tasks: data acquisition and manipulation, determina- tion of GIS functionality required (basic and advanced operations as well as pos- sibly advanced analysis functionality requiring special programming), application implementation and testing, and data and application maintenance (based on user requests and field-study feedback).
Figure 3. Earth science lesson 16 — GIS application