Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

1877–0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Yasushi Asamidoi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.07.022

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 21 (2011) 294–299

International Conference: Spatial Thinking and Geographic Information Sciences 2011

Spatial Literacy and the Postgraduate GIS Curriculum Claire H. Jarvisa*

aDepartment of Geography, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK

Abstract

The practice of GIScience is fundamentally spatial, yet many taught postgraduate students training in GIScience do not have a formal academic background that has developed their spatial thinking. This paper conceptualizes the process by which spatial literacy develops through spatial thinking as a function of spatial abilities, strategies and knowledge, and outlines a framework for spatial thinking that can be mapped against a formal curriculum for GIS such as the Body of Knowledge. In the future, this mapping activity will allow the scaffolding of both subject knowledge and the building of spatial thinking skills together in a more explicit way than has been previously considered. © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Yasushi Asami Keywords: Spatial literacy; Body of Knowledge; Curricula; Teaching & Learning;

1. Spatial literacy

The focus of this paper lies with considerations of spatial literacy when training postgraduate students at Masters level in GIScience. A high proportion of students attracted to the area of GIScience first attend the subject at Masters level, following a wide range of first degree studies and cultural backgrounds.

1.1. The nature of spatial literacy

The term spatial literacy is rarely defined explicitly; rather it is more often discussed with reference to spatial abilities [1,2,3] and spatial thinking [4,5]. This paper concurs with the NRC that spatial literacy is a state reached through the practice of spatial thinking. Further, we see the concept of spatial literacy is itself a continuum, in which expertise develops as part of a process (Fig. 1).

In Fig. 1, the process of becoming spatially literate is illustrated as a cycle, in which strategies are learned and knowledge is acquired over time. This viewpoint acknowledges that spatial abilities may be innate, but can also be developed and encouraged. This model has strong links with the notion of experiential learning, one of the most popular theories of exponents of which is that of Kolb [6], in which ‘understanding is not a fixed or unchangeable element of thought but is formed and re-formed through

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44(0)-116-252-3808; fax: +440-116-252-3853. E-mail address: chj2@le.ac.uk.

Claire H. Jarvis / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 21 (2011) 294–299 295

‘experience’’ [7:14]. Spatial ability, spatial strategy (explicitly and implicitly learned) and spatial knowledge all contribute to the process of spatial thinking (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. The process of, and constituent parts of, spatial literacy.

Related factors: Successful integration of linguistic sources & numeric data, external Influences such

as quality of data & understanding of context

Through increasing and encouraged Spatial Thinking so our Spatial Literacy develops

Spatial Strategies – Strategies

used, orders of processing,

taught or cultural methodologies

Spatial Abilities – Individual

mental ability in spatially

demanding tasks

Spatial Knowledge –Previous

knowledge acquired through

using spatial skills. Developed

over time

Spatial Thinking - the links between space, representation and reasoning

296 Claire H. Jarvis / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 21 (2011) 294–299

1.2. Why does spatial literacy matter?

Spatial literacy matters in GIScience, for a range of reasons. Firstly and most importantly, the practice of GIScience is fundamentally spatial. To become more than an uncritical and rather robotic user of a GIS, spatial reasoning is required to unpack the process required to solve a problem in a particular domain and convert this to a sequence of functional steps in a GIS. At one level this is a rather self-evident statement; at another, it is quite profound. For example, certainly at a postgraduate level and by dint of a lack of formal exposure, many newcomers to GIS may in fact lack the critical spatial knowledge and strategies that we might take for granted in (say) our more advanced Undergraduate Geography, Geology or Archaeology cohorts.

In educational terms, the fact that spatial literacy is so integral to Geography in particular may result in the outcome that ‘we sometimes neglect to make it explicit’ [8:26], especially when teaching GIS in the context of a Geography Department. As a result, otherwise capable postgraduate students with insufficient spatial background may struggle badly in some aspects of a GIS course. This can be in regard to specific terms (or spatial knowledge) that are relatively simply filled once the gap has been identified, as in the following case:

Student A: “… there were a lot of new words to learn…the obvious thing that jumps out at me is the language…having not done geography before…and not having and undergraduate in it maybe some of these terms were used there; things like ‘Euclidean space’ – I’ve also never come across this word, ‘fractal dimensions’. At that point during the term, I had no any idea what any of these words meant…”

Difficulties may also run considerably deeper. In the following account, the student appears lacking in basic pattern and colour identification facilities (spatial strategies) to a degree that would not have been expected at MSc level or indeed in our early Undergraduate cohorts:

Student B: “Remote sensing was a bit challenging for me, I’ll admit that. The concepts behind remote sensing were very easy to grasp… it was the practical use of the software that I found incredibly difficult. Because confronting with all these satellite images, and having to process them without really understanding what do they meant, and the structure of the practical meant that you find out as you go along, but I would rather have been told ‘this is what I am looking for’, at least, for the first practical to be shown, ‘this is what this means’, ‘that’s what that means’. Then you go away and analyze something else, put in the theories that you learnt, you’re being taught, because I never looked at remote sensing images before.”

Such anecdotes, particularly in regard to spatial strategies which are more difficult to scaffold [9] well in a diverse student body, emerge in different ways from year to year despite considered reflections on teaching approach. They are the norm, rather than the exception.

2. Curricula for GIScience

Bodies of Knowledge (BoK) encompassing national or international perspectives on a subject domain are widespread, and are commonly used to express the extent of subject curricula. The principal focus for a Body of Knowledge is usually one seeking to define the core knowledge expected of the “professional” and encompasses notions of standardisation (e.g. Project Management Body of Knowledge PMBOK - IEEE Std 1490-2003). Extensions to this rationale for a documented BoK also encompass a desire for an applied or younger sub-discipline to have a more recognized status [10], to reflect on intellectual tradition [10] or to document a discipline as a resource for teaching more generally quite apart from notions of professionalism [11]. The development of the Geographical Information Science Body of Knowledge [12], the subject of this particular paper, adopts aspects of both the professional and teaching resource. The Body of Knowledge [12] presents an overview of topics potentially valuable in undergraduate teaching of GIScience, taking a view on the curriculum from a “top-down” perspective with a strong

Claire H. Jarvis / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 21 (2011) 294–299 297

Table 1. Meta-framework for spatial literacy as it pertains to current, predominantly visuo-spatial, conceptualisations of GIScience

Source: This framework is based on concepts taken from [8] and includes additional aspects drawn from [15], [16], [17], and [4]. Spatial thinking is the active process by which the elements regarding how we think about and act in space are tied together. Elements deemed necessary to this, used in multiple contexts, are included in the table below. Our combined framework offers a snapshot of current research into spatial thinking.

Spatial thinking rests on the interplay between mental representations (that capture spatial features of the world) and the transformations (that can be applied to those representations) [5: 41].

Types of representations, transformations and complex thinking

Encoding processes

I. Representations: The Properties of Entities

Identifying distinct and simple entities (& shapes) against a background [5: 41]; Recognizing patterns; both outline shapes and internal configurations, at multiple scales [5: 42]; The ability to identify size [5: 42]; The ability to identify texture [5: 42]; The ability to comprehend colour [5: 42]; Knowledge regarding basic terminology used in connection with space; The ability to recognise vivid mental spatial categories from verbal reports, writing or other sensory input [16: 156]; Description of size or volume of spatial features through use of mathematical reasoning; Recognise vertical and horizontal frames of reference [4: 185].

IIA. Comparisons: The Relations Between Static Entities

‘Often spatial judgements, such as size, shape, distance, or direction comparisons, are not evaluations of properties of entities but rather evaluations that depend on relating an entity to a reference frame’ [5:42]

Recalling previously observed objects/spatial configurations [15: 16], [4: 186]; Determining orientation [5: 42]; Determining location [5: 42]; Assessing distance [5: 42]; Recording of spatial data e.g. shapes and structures in mapped or sketched form [17: 73]; Comparing size [5: 42]; Comparing colour [5: 42]; Comparing shape [5: 42]; Comparing texture [5: 42]; Comparing location [5: 42]; Comparing direction [5: 42]; Comparing other attributes [5: 42]; The ability to understand network structures [16: 156]; Organize spatial material hierarchically [16: 156]; The ability to remember different locations, or different aspects of the same location, presented simultaneously [15: 16]; The ability to organise incomplete, not perfectly visible fragmented patterns [15: 16]; Interpret mathematical formulae expressing spatial relations; Make associations between overlaid map data.

IIB. Comparisons: The Relations Between Dynamic Entities

The ability to relate changes in attribute at the same or different locations at different times, or at different scales; Direction of movement [5: 43]; Manner of motion [5: 43]; Speed or acceleration [5: 43]; Intersection or collision [5: 43].

III. Transformations of Representations of Entities

The ability to perform transformations of space, or temporal variation over the same spatial frame [16: 156]; Changing perspective (reference frame) [5: 44]; Changing orientation (mental rotation) [5: 44]; Transforming shapes [5: 44]; Changing size [5: 44]; Moving wholes [5: 44]; Reconfiguring parts/partial removal of features [17: 73], [5: 44]; Knowledge regarding process related techniques (& their terminologies) used to transform spatial data; The ability to select and use appropriate spatial models or apply spatial algorithms to transform single data sets; Enacting [5: 44].

IV. Complex spatial reasoning –Combining components to solve questions? Spatial reasoning often uses several representations, several comparisons and multiple transformations.

Complex spatial reasoning involves increasing levels of the above processes, in combinations involving multiple data sets and potentially multiple approaches. In general, these complex tasks will also be evaluative.

Critical engagement using spatial thinking processes is also a mark of complex spatial reasoning.

Complex spatial reasoning might, for example, involve [17]:

Making interpretations about why the objects, properties, or processes have those particular shapes, structures, orientations, and positions [17: 73]; Making predictions about the consequences or implications of the observed shapes, structures, orientations and positions [17: 74], potentially over both space & time together; Using spatial thinking as a shortcut or metaphor to think about the distribution of processes or properties across some dimension other than length-space [17: 74]; The ability to uncover spatial associations within and between regions or cultures [16: 156].

298 Claire H. Jarvis / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 21 (2011) 294–299

focus on learning objectives. The authors themselves view the paper as a work in progress, and a 2nd Edition of the document is expected shortly.

However, as highlighted above, “doing” GIS (whether via Google Earth or a mainstream package) does not necessarily confer learning in spatial thinking, particularly at deeper levels. It has the potential to do so [13][14], but the point here is that we need to consider which skills – GIS, technology or spatial thinking - we are intending to develop in our students at any one time and together as a whole in a more explicit manner. Too often, spatial thinking is left as an unintended casualty of the curriculum design process. Conceptually, a dual spatial thinking-technical training model is required such that learning of both elements occurs in an intertwined and considered manner.

3. Spatial literacy and the GIScience curriculum

As shown in Fig. 1, fostering an ability to make the links between space, representation and reasoning (or to think spatially) is key to spatial literacy. We need to build up these spatial ‘muscles’ within our students taking Postgraduate GIScience courses, as well as the subject knowledge framed within formal curricula. In order to achieve this, we must consider in more detail what the term ‘spatial thinking’ encompasses.

Bearing in mind that definition the term spatial thinking is a very broad subject, and acknowledging the growing importance of mobile GIS and location-based services in GIScience, the initial focus of this research is a heavily visual and non-mobile context for spatial thinking in order to bring order to the task. In Table 1, a general framework for spatial thinking taken from NRC [8] is focused to this end, drawing in additional aspects of spatial thinking pertinent to GIScience from Cornoldi & Vecchi [15], Golledge & Stimson [16], Kastens & Ishikawa [17], and Ishikawa & Kastens [14].

The paper presented will map the detailed aspects of spatial thinking relevant to postgraduate

GIScience, taken from Table 1 against the sub-topics of the GIScience Body of Knowledge, and reflect upon the suggested outcomes for our curricula.

References

[1] Lohman DF. Spatial Ability: A Review and Reanalysis of the Correlational Literature, in Aptitude Research Project, (Technical

Report No. 8). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, School of Education; 1979. [2] Eliot J, Smith IM. An International Directory of Spatial Tests. Windsor, Berkshire, NFER-Nelson; 2003. [3] Linn MC, Petersen AC. Emergence and characterisation of gender differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis. Child

Development 1985; 56: 1479-1498. [4] Ishikawa T., Kastens KA. Why Some Students Have Trouble with Maps and Other Spatial Representations. Journal of

Geoscience Education 2005; 53: 184-197. [5] NRC. Learning to Think Spatially. Washington, The National Academes Press; 2006. [6] Kolb DA. Experiential Learning. In Englewood Cliffs, NJ editor. The Organizational Behavior Reader. 6th ed. Prentice-Hall;

1984. [7] Fry H, Ketteridge S. Understanding student learning. A Handbook for Teaching & Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing

Academic Practice. In Fry H, Ketteridge S, Marshall S. London editors. Kogan-Page; 2003, p. 9-25. [8] King H. Understanding spatial literacy: Cognitive and curriculum perspectives. Planet 2006; 17: 26-28. [9] Rosenshine B, Meister C. The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership 1992; 49:

26-3. [10] Livari J, Hirschheim R, Klein HK. Towards a distinctive body of knowledge for Information Systems experts: coding ISD

process knowledge in two IS journals. Information Systems Journal 2004; 14: 313-342. [11] Bourque P, Dupuis R.. The Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge. IEEE Software 1999; 16: 35-44. [12] DiBiase D, DeMers M, Johnson A, Kemp K, Luck AT, Plewe, B et al. Geographic Information Science and Technology Body

of Knowledge, Association of American Geographers; 2006.

Claire H. Jarvis / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 21 (2011) 294–299 299

[13] Kali Y, Orion N. Software for assisting high school students in the spatial perception of geological structures. Journal of Geoscience Education 1997; 45: 10-21.

[14] Bednarz SW. Thinking Spatially: Incorporating Geographic Information Science In: Pre and Post Secondary Education. From www.geography.org.uk/download/EVbednarzthink.doc ; 2001.

[15] Cornoldi C, Vecchi T. Visuo-Spatial Working Memory and Individual Differences. Hove, East Sussex, Psychology Press; 2003. [16] Golledge RG, Stimson RJ. Spatial Behavior: A Geographic Perspective. New York, Guildford Press; 1997. [17] Kastens K, Ishikawa T. Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences: a cross-disciplinary look at the intersection

of the two fields. In: Manduca CA., Mogk DW, Stillings N editors. Earth & Mind: How Geologists Think & Learn About the Earth; 2006, p. 53-76.