Content uploaded by Thomas R. Baker
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas R. Baker on Apr 18, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Teaching Science
and Investigating
Environmental Issues
with Geospatial
Technology
James MaKinster
Nancy Trautmann
Michael Barnett Editors
Designing E ective Professional
Development for Teachers
Teaching Science and Investigating Environmental
Issues with Geospatial Technology
James MaKinster • Nancy Trautmann
Michael Barnett
Editors
Teaching Science and
Investigating Environmental
Issues with Geospatial
Technology
Designing Effective Professional
Development for Teachers
ISBN 978-90-481-3930-9 ISBN 978-90-481-3931-6 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3931-6
Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2013953496
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2014
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifi cally for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this
publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s
location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.
Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations
are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
Editors
James MaKinster
Hobart & William Smith Colleges
Geneva , NY , USA
Michael Barnett
Lynch School of Education
Boston College
Chestnut Hill , MA , USA
Nancy Trautmann
Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
Ithaca , NY , USA
v
Foreword
“ If we teach today’s students as we taught yesterday, we rob them of tomorrow.”
– John Dewey
For over two decades, researchers, trainers, and curriculum developers have
designed, conducted, and evaluated teacher professional development supporting
the use of geospatial technologies in education. These trailblazers pushed toward
better practice in science teaching, using methods and principles that extended
inquiry in personalized and authentic ways for students. That path, while sometimes
bumpy and always shifting, shows signs of success emerging in classrooms,
laboratories, the fi eld, and beyond. This volume celebrates the hard work of many
and the notable success of a few.
Science education is at a watershed moment, squarely in the public spotlight
with the recent release of The Next Generation Science Standards,
1 and calls for
increased STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) education from the
White House to learners. Over the past decade, STEM job growth has been three
times higher than non-STEM
2 and annual earnings are typically 11 % higher.
2 To
better prepare for twenty-fi rst-century careers and college, all students must better
leverage data analysis technologies to extend “science and engineering practices” as
envisioned by the new standards, while fostering critical thinking and great decision-
making. Effective professional development is the fi rst step in this process.
In this landscape, geospatial technologies – geographic information systems
(GIS), global positioning systems (GPS), remote sensing (RS), and digital globes –
provide limitless STEM-rich opportunities; they allow students to analyze climate
change, design cities, inventory geologic samples, plan ecological models, catalog
contents of an archaeological site, and endless choices. They affect all sectors of
society and every arena of employment, from local to global and across all aspects
of business and government. The geospatial technology sector is expanding, with
estimates of global revenue as high as $270 billion annually
3 and nearly 10 %
growth in the identifi ed US geospatial workforce through 2020.
4 The future is
vi
bright! Students educated using geospatial technologies are now estimated to have
at least a 3 % higher starting salary on average.
3 Students, as future geospatial
professionals or as spatially literate citizens, must be able to effectively understand
and analyze location-based information to succeed in the world today, but especially
tomorrow.
Across society, technology is evolving at a blistering and accelerating pace, and
this evolution is changing education. Mobile devices, cloud computing, and broad-
band Internet access are changing the way we teach and learn. Today, 75 % of teens
in the USA carry a mobile phone.
5 The move to cloud computing means fewer
software installation issues, more personalized interfaces, and expanded collabora-
tion for students. Cloud computing is the architecture that supports the current
vision of “Geography as a platform” with over 50 % of Europeans using cloud
computing to access geospatial and location analytics services .
3 These consumer
technologies are blending with and reshaping geospatial technology, creating
entirely new technical niches and knowledge in education and across society.
Despite our rapidly changing world, we still contend with some of the same core
professional development challenges faced years ago. The grand challenge might be
summarized as, “How do we design and implement effective professional develop-
ment that leads to a lasting, positive change in tomorrow’s spatially enabled science
teacher practice?” There are no easy answers, but there is promise.
This collection is part of that promise. It describes some practices and approaches
in science education that have worked, and some that have not, yielding critical
recommendations for sighting our way forward. While some conditions have
changed and technologies have evolved even since these studies took place, their
lessons retain valuable meaning. For those who design or implement professional
development with advanced technology, this volume will greatly inform your
professional practice – a critical fi rst step toward enhancing teaching and learning.
1. Achieve Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved from: http://
www.nextgenscience.org/ .
2. Thomasian, J. (2011). Building a science, technology, engineering, and math
education agenda. National Governor’s Association. Retrieved from: http://
www.nga.org/fi les/live/sites/NGA/fi les/pdf/1112STEMGUIDE.PDF .
3. Oxera Consulting. (2013). What is the economic impact of geo services?
Retrieved from: http://www.oxera.com/Publications/Reports/2013/What-is-the-
economic-impact-of-Geo-services-.aspx .
4. O*Net Online. (2013). Summary report for geospatial information scientists and tech-
nologists. Retrieved from: http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1199.04 .
5. Madden, M. (2011). Teens, social network sites & mobile phones: What the
research is telling us. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.
Retrieved from: http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Presentations/2011/Dec/
Teens%20SNS%20and%20Mobile%20Phones%20presentation%20pdf%20-
%20COSN_120511.pdf .
Geneva, USA Thomas R. Baker
ESRI
Foreword
ix
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 1
James MaKinster, Nancy Trautmann, and Michael Barnett
Part I Designing Effective Professional Development Projects
2 Participatory Professional Development: Geospatially
Enhanced Urban Ecological Field Studies ............................................ 13
Michael Barnett, Meredith Houle, Sheron L. Mark, Daphne Minner,
Linda Hirsch, Eric Strauss, Lindsey Cotter-Hayes, and Beth Hufnagel
3 Field-Based Research Partnerships: Teachers, Students,
and Scientists Investigate the Geologic History
of Eastern Montana Using Geospatial Technologies ............................ 35
Heather Almquist, Lisa Blank, Jeffrey W. Crews,
George Stanley, and Marc Hendrix
4 Meeting Teachers Where They Are and Helping
Them Achieve Their Geospatial Goals .................................................. 51
Nancy Trautmann and James MaKinster
5 Spatial Sci: Forwarding Geospatial
Technology Innovations in the Classroom ............................................ 65
Lisa M. Blank, Jeffrey W. Crews, and Randy Knuth
6 Eyes in the Sky: Facilitating Classroom
Research Using Geospatial Technology ................................................ 83
Carla McAuliffe and Jeff Lockwood
7 CoastLines: Commitment, Comfort, Competence,
Empowerment, and Relevance in Professional Development ............. 99
Steven D. Moore , Don Haviland , Allison Whitmer ,
and Jenny Brady
x
8 The Inquiring with GIS (iGIS) Project: Helping Teachers
Create and Lead Local GIS-Based Investigations ............................... 119
Cathlyn D. Stylinski and Cassie Doty
9 Communities for Rural Education, Stewardship,
and Technology (CREST): A Rural Model
for Teacher Professional Development .................................................. 139
Shey Conover , Ruth Kermish-Allen , and Robert Snyder
10 Curriculum-Aligned Professional
Development for Geospatial Education ................................................ 153
Beth Kubitskey, Barry Fishman, Heather Johnson,
Kirsten Mawyer, and Daniel Edelson
11 Impact of Science Teacher Professional
Development Through Geospatial Technologies:
A 5-Step Program of Support ................................................................ 173
Rita A. Hagevik, Harriett S. Stubbs Emeritus, Christiane Gioppo,
and Diane C. Whitaker
Part II Designing and Implementing Innovative
and Effective Curricular Materials
12 The Data Sets and Inquiry in Geoscience Education
Project: Model Curricula for Teacher Capacity Building
in Scientifi c Inquiry Tasks with Geospatial Data ................................. 193
Daniel R. Zalles and Amy Pallant
13 Designing Google Earth Activities for Learning
Earth and Environmental Science ......................................................... 213
Alec M. Bodzin, David Anastasio, and Violet Kulo
14 Designing Geospatial Exploration Activities
to Build Hydrology Understanding in Middle
School Students ....................................................................................... 233
Louise Yarnall, Philip Vahey, and Karen Swan
15 Lonely Trailblazers: Examining the Early Implementation
of Geospatial Technologies in Science Classrooms .............................. 251
Thomas R. Baker and Joseph J. Kerski
16 Understanding the Use of Geospatial Technologies
to Teach Science: TPACK as a Lens for Effective Teaching ............... 269
James MaKinster and Nancy Trautmann
17 Moving Out of Flatland: Toward Effective
Practice in Geospatial Inquiry ............................................................... 287
Bob Coulter
Contents
xi
18 What Happens After the Professional Development:
Case Studies on Implementing GIS in the Classroom ......................... 303
Robert Kolvoord , Michael Charles , and Steve Purcell
Part III Final Chapters
19 The Nature and Design of Professional Development
for Using Geospatial Technologies to Teach Science ............................ 323
James MaKinster and Nancy Trautmann
20 The Nature of Teacher Knowledge Necessary
for the Effective Use of Geospatial Technologies
to Teach Science ...................................................................................... 333
James MaKinster and Nancy Trautmann
Contents
251
J. MaKinster et al. (eds.), Teaching Science and Investigating Environmental Issues with
Geospatial Technology: Designing Effective Professional Development for Teachers,
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3931-6_15, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2014
Keywords Innovators • Historical • Teacher independence • Success • Early adopters
15.1 Introduction
Teacher’s Log. 29 May 1994. Earthview High School, Missouri. “I’ve just made it
through my fi rst semester teaching science using GIS. This morning I led my stu-
dents through an investigation of global plate tectonics. I wish I had new 486 com-
puters, but I think I’ll hang onto these old 386 s running at 33 MHz with 180 MB
hard disks and 12-color monitors until these new “Pentium” machines arrive next
year. I heard that the State of Missouri has one of those new “home pages.” If I can
fi nd out what the URL is, perhaps it will list a contact at the state data center there
that I can call for some census data that I want to use this fall. I could place the GIS
data on my new Iomega Zip drive. Each cartridge holds 100 MB, but I need some-
one at the university to help me transfer the data from a nine-track tape to a Zip
cartridge, and once there, I can uncompress it and chop it. Perhaps the university
staff can place it on online and I could Telnet to their server or FTP it using the
modem to my school. I will need to transfer it at night when nobody else at school
is using the modem. I hope that the data will be in the format that I can use with my
GIS. I could try to go to the university to use the DOS zipping program and zip it
onto fl oppy disks, but last time I spanned ten fl oppies with one zip fi le, the tenth disk
went bad. Before I investigate, I need to go to my appointment with our lab manager
to see if my students can get into the lab for more than 2 weeks this fall.”
Chapter 15
Lonely Trailblazers: Examining the Early
Implementation of Geospatial Technologies
in Science Classrooms
Thomas R. Baker and Joseph J. Kerski
T . R . B a k e r ( *) • J. J. Kerski
Environmental Systems Research Institute , 8700 Stateline Road, Suite 315,
Leawood, 66206 Kansas
e-mail: tbaker@esri.com; jkerski@esri.com
252
This fi ctitious account refl ects a day in the life of a teacher using GIS during the
mid-1990s. This teacher was a part of a small group of trailblazers who spearheaded
the use of GIS in K-12 education. This chapter explores the increase in awareness and
adoption of GIS technology between 1992 and 1998 in the USA. The mid- 1990s pre-
dated most Internet-based mapping tools, as well as digital globes such as Google
Earth , NASA World Wind , and ArcGIS Explorer . It even predated or coincided with
the release of GIS software designed for the educational community, such as MyWorld ,
ArcVoyager , and ArcExplorer . During this period of time, several GIS software
packages were used in education, including MFTeach , SPANS , PC ArcInfo , ArcView
(1.0–3.0), and IDRISI . These were desktop GIS software packages, good at drawing
maps and rapidly improving at supporting geographic analytics. Classroom comput-
ers were often few and far between, running DOS, OS/2, Windows 3.1, or, later,
Windows 95. They seldom had enough RAM to support GIS. The educational system
was struggling with how to get computers in the classroom and then, near the end of
this period, how best to use them. Internet access in the classroom did not begin dra-
matically improving until after this period, with only 27 % of instructional rooms
having Internet access by 1997 (Wells & Lewis, 2006 ). Many science educators were
increasingly using inquiry-oriented instructional approaches, as suggested in the 1996
National Science Education Standards . It was hoped that computer technology,
including GIS, would help extend student inquiries and investigations into the world.
Those science educators who used GIS in the mid-1990s will be explored, how they
discovered and learned about GIS, and how it was used.
15.2 Literature Review
To better understand the educational and GIS environment these educators and their
students worked in, consider some of the following milestones.
1992 Classroom technology snapshot: DOS 5 on a 386 PC or Apple II with 8 MB RAM
1992 ArcView 1.0 released
1992 Tinker publishes article describing GIS, used in middle school as a part of KidNet
1993 ESRI hires fi rst education team members
1993 Beginning of NCGE-ESRI 2-day training events around the country (1993–1995)
1993 Early attempts at a “Secondary Education Project” by NCGIA (Palladino, 1994 )
1994 First EdGIS held (Barstow, Gerrard, Kapisovsky, Tinker, & Wojtkiewicz, 1994 )
1994 Classroom technology snapshot: Windows 3.x running ArcView 1.0, on a 486 with 16 MB
of RAM
1994 TERC launches “Mapping Our City” (McWilliams & Rooney, 1997 )
1994 Northwestern University begins “CoVIS – The Collaborative Visualization Project”
(Gordin, Edelson, & Gomez,
1996 )
1995 NatureMapping launched at the University of Wisconsin
1996 Classroom technology snapshot: Windows 95 running ArcView 2.1, on a 200 MHz
Intel Pentium
(continued)
T.R. Baker and J.J. Kerski
253
1996 The National Science Education Standards are published, emphasizing “science as
inquiry” (NRC)
1996 First research on GIS in science education emerges (Audet & Abegg)
1996 Second EdGIS conference held
1996 Geodesy created by Berkeley Research Group as an ArcView 2.1 extension
1997 The Kansas Collaborative Research Network launched
1998 University of Arizona’s SAGUARO Project began
1998 ESRI released the free ArcVoyager package, based on ArcView 3 technology
1998 First national GIS professional development hosted by ESRI and Texas State
University for 2 weeks, summer
While these events do not tell the whole story, they provide a backdrop of the
national events unfolding around science educators using GIS. For a more complete
chronology of GIS in education from 1988 to 2003, see Learning to Think Spatially
( 2006 ) (Appendix G).
Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations is often used to organize and describe
the events surrounding the movement of innovations throughout a social system
over time ( 2003 ). The primarily characteristics of innovation diffusion include:
1. The innovation
2. Communicated through certain channels
3. Over time
4. Among members of a social system ( 2003 )
Innovations in education and educational technology are often considered within
this framework to explain the proliferation of certain techniques and tools. GIS and
geospatial technologies are no exception (White 2005 , 2008 ). Much of Rogers’
work can provide a theoretical underpinning for the adoption and diffusion of geo-
spatial tools in education. His themes are interwoven into both the design and the
articulation of this study, depicting early GIS use by these educators.
In Diffusion of Innovations , Rogers identifi es the process of innovation adoption,
the characteristics, and types. Rogers recognizes adopter and organizational charac-
teristics for change and the consequences of adoption. Rogers’ adopter characteris-
tics and process of adoption are of the greatest interest to this chapter. Rogers’ work
is important because the depiction of the innovator (the earliest class of adopter) can
shed light on the technical and pedagogical commonalities, implementation pat-
terns, strategies of success, and habits of mind that early GIS-using teachers shared.
Moreover, his adoption process can lead us to better understand how and why these
technologies resonated with Innovators, but not with others such as Early Adopters
or those in the Early Majority. This has particular implications for those conducting
professional development today.
Rogers defi ned fi ve classes of adopters – Innovators, Early Adopters, Early
Majority, Late Majority, and Laggards . Each class is distinguished by its willing-
ness and ability to adopt a new tool or technique as it is discovered and judged to be
worthwhile. Collectively, these fi ve categories represent all members of a social
(continued)
15 Lonely Trailblazers: Examining the Early Implementation…
254
system, cast across a standard distribution. As an innovation is introduced, adoption
by Innovators through the continuum to Laggards may occur. Innovators represent
2.5 % of the social system, Early Adopters represent 13.5 %, and the Early Majority
is 34 %. The right side of the bell curve represents the slower adopters: Late Majority
comprises 34 %, and Laggards represent 16 % of the social system.
In Kerski’s national implementation survey of 1999, he suggested at that time
only about 2 % of public high schools in the USA were implementing any level of
GIS for instruction ( 2003 ). Based on chronology and simple percentages, individu-
als implementing GIS for instructional purposes between 1992 and 1997 would
clearly be “Innovators.” This does not suggest schools or educational organizations
drove GIS adoption. In fact, subsequent refl ection on Innovators interviews will
show the opposite. Perhaps more importantly, if the Innovators were and are already
using GIS in classrooms, professional development needs to target the 13.5 % of the
social system defi ned as Early Adopter.
Rogers argues that there are common characteristics of Innovators, including
tendencies to be venturesome and educated with multiple sources of information at
their disposal. They are risk-takers. Innovators appreciate technology for its own
sake but are also motivated by acting as a change agent. Perhaps most importantly,
Innovators can withstand the “pain of adoption.” They are willing to tolerate initial
technical problems and are willing to use “makeshift” solutions to complete a task.
While not everyone will be an Innovator in every classroom technology, these are
the educators who can generally make almost anything work and frequently work
well. Rogers notes that it is predominately the Early Adopters who are the social
leaders, whose trail must be blazed by the Innovators, before a technology can hope
to reach the majority.
Innovators are the smallest segment of the social system and are relatively rare.
Yet they are needed to “work the bugs out” for Early Adopters and the rest that
may follow. Moreover, Innovators tolerate more trouble and uncertainty than oth-
ers. Innovators’ motives are relatively unique to the category, suggesting Early
Adopter motivations should be closely examined. Indeed, many of the people
currently training educators or leading professional development are likely to be
Innovators. In short, what works for Innovators will likely produce diminishing
returns for the rest of the social system. Innovators and Early Adopters are simply
different.
In this study, science educators who used GIS in the mid-1990s were surveyed
and interviewed to determine how these Innovators became aware of GIS, learned
to use GIS and how to use it with students in the classroom. The study and this
chapter are guided by the following questions:
1. What did teaching with GIS in science classrooms look like in the mid-1990s?
2. How does Diffusion of Innovations theory inform our view of these early
educators?
3. What are the implications for professional development today, when viewed
through the lens of experience provided by these Innovators and Diffusion of
Innovations theory?
T.R. Baker and J.J. Kerski
255
15.3 Study Design, Methodology, and Sample
To adequately capture information from respondents required a survey and interviews,
more likely to ensure a high response rate and allow for a depth and breadth of
questions. Surveying the primary and secondary educators who used GIS in the
mid-1990s was challenging. Because these trailblazers were few and because they
were classroom teachers with little time to conduct or publish research (Stenhouse,
1985 ), the published literature of the period is understandably Spartan and tends to
be in conference proceedings and GIS trade magazines. Where it does exist, it is
largely comprised of the results of what educators were accomplishing with their
students in their own classrooms. While these anecdotal accounts neither were not
comprehensive surveys of educators nor were they experimental designs measuring
the effectiveness of GIS over traditional instructional media, they nevertheless pro-
vide insightful glimpses into the early years of GIS adoption in K-12 education in
the USA. Nearly all of the accounts were written by or about science teachers,
rather than teachers in other disciplines, and no accounts were written by primary
school teachers. Reasons why science teachers led the way over social studies,
mathematics, or geography teachers include better access to computer laboratories,
more confi dence with computer technology, and more experience with inquiry-
based instructional methods (Kerski, 2003 ). These anecdotal accounts were useful
as a basis for the names of the population to be surveyed.
The other source for the population to be surveyed came from K-12 teachers who
attended two key events in the early development of GIS – the fi rst educational GIS
conference held by TERC in 1994 (Barstow et al., 1994 ) and the fi rst national GIS
professional development event for educators held by ESRI in 1998 at Texas
State University (Bednarz, 1999 ). These events were chosen because they attracted
the most active educators during that time. The time period was selected because the
earliest known accounts of GIS use in secondary school describe the use of GIS at
junior and senior high schools from 1987 to 1995 (Friebertshauser, 1997 ; Ramirez
& Althouse, 1995 ; Robison, 1996 ).
The literature review and conference attendance list was used to select the
sample to be surveyed. An online survey was created and e-mail addresses were
obtained. Due to the wide geographic distribution of respondents and the ease of
electronic tools, we felt that an online survey would net the highest response rate.
Because respondents were given only 7 days to respond to the survey, we limited the
number of questions to ten, including the fi rst question that determined whether the
respondent was a valid part of the desired population: “Did you teach middle school
or high school science for at least 1 year between 1992 and 1998, and did you use
GIS with students in an instructional setting for at least one multi-day project during
this time period?”
If the respondents did not answer yes to the fi rst question, they could skip to the
end of the survey and exit. Those who did meet the criteria of the survey were pro-
vided with this statement: “The following questions were designed to accomplish
our goals in discovering commonalities among these educators, and how they could
15 Lonely Trailblazers: Examining the Early Implementation…
256
overcome challenges in the days before widespread professional development
opportunities existed.”
Questions for those who met the criteria were as follows. We asked for names
only to ensure that there was no double counting and to link the survey with the
responses from the telephone interviews:
1. What is your name? Where did you teach [city and state]? What subjects did you
teach between 1992 and 1998?
2. How many years were you teaching when you started using GIS?
3. Name three things your students did with GIS.
4. What stands out as a barrier or challenge to your use of GIS during that time?
5. What stands out as a success in your use of GIS during that time?
6. How did you learn to use GIS?
7. What GIS software did they use fi rst and eventually use most frequently?
8. What professional communities and organizations were you involved in during
1992–1998?
9. Did you feel like you had a GIS mentor? If so, what organization were they
attached to and how did they help you?
A selected set of respondents who were available over a 1-week time frame were
chosen for interviews. These interviews were designed to be completed in 25 min.
The questions were chosen with the goal of providing deeper insight in what moti-
vated the educators and what changes have they experienced between their trailblaz-
ing work and today:
1. Describe the PD GIS experience you had if you had one.
2. How did you fi rst hear about GIS?
3. What administrative support did you have for GIS? How did you obtain the hard-
ware and software?
4. What three things made you stay with GIS?
5. What has changed in the way you think of GIS now versus then?
6. What do you do differently now with GIS versus then?
7. What is your advice on PD for GIS?
8. Name three of your core teaching philosophies.
Once the surveys and interviews were complete, the authors reviewed the data,
identifying trends and commonalities in responses. As the data were relatively mod-
est, manual methods for sorting, organizing, and describing data were employed.
15.4 Results and Discussion
Out of the 30 surveys sent, two were returned due to invalid e-mail addresses.
Fifteen respondents either did not return the survey or indicated that they did not
meet the criteria. Thirteen educators completed the online survey, and eight educa-
tors were interviewed.
T.R. Baker and J.J. Kerski
257
Chemistry was the number one subject taught by the respondents, mentioned
seven times, followed by biology (six times), and environmental science (four times).
However, 19 other sciences were also mentioned, as well as six other subjects rang-
ing from reading to languages to social studies. This illustrates how versatile the
topics were in which GIS was applied but also how diverse the trailblazers were.
Curiously, despite some prior anecdotes at the time about CAD teachers sometimes
being the initial GIS teachers on a campus, CAD was taught by only one teacher
responding to the survey.
The trailblazers did not come from a single local conference or university, but
rather arose from a variety of experiences occurring internally, within the school, or
externally, at a national event. The educators taught in schools from Oregon to
Maryland, from North Dakota to Colorado, with no two educators teaching in the
same state. The trailblazers were geographically lonely on a national level, isolated
by hundreds of miles from the nearest GIS-using educator.
To better frame the discussion of results, the fi ve phases of innovation adoption
(knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confi rmation) are used
(Rogers, 2003 ). These phases can serve as a model of GIS adoption for current
educators. Professional development specialists will note the progression of devel-
opment in these Innovators. While educators in Early Adopter and Early Motivator
will vary, the responses by the Innovators can provide a solid guidepost.
15.4.1 Knowledge: The Individual Is Aware of an Innovation
Five out of eight responding educators found out about GIS through a national
event. Most frequently cited was the National Science Teachers Association
conference, and secondly, state technology and education conferences. Before
geotechnology- based professional development opportunities existed, meeting a
GIS in education staff person at an exhibit booth run by private GIS companies was
remembered as a “watershed moment” by several educators. In fact, one commented
that “three minutes at the exhibit was enough to get me hooked!” One respondent
found out about GIS through an early article about computer mapping in education
(Tinker, 1992 ).
15.4.2 Persuasion: The Individual Develops Interest
in an Innovation and Gathers Knowledge About It
How did educators in the 1990s learn to use GIS given the lack of professional devel-
opment? Eight responses indicated that they were self-taught. These educators were
Innovators, willing to spend the time to experiment and willing to complicate their
lives by working closely with community leaders, GIS professionals, their own IT
staff, and administrators because they saw, early on, the value in the inquiry- based
15 Lonely Trailblazers: Examining the Early Implementation…
258
methods that GIS could support. Four respondents mentioned ESRI’s materials or
training for GIS professionals. Three mentioned a teacher workshop sponsored by a
regional university. Only one respondent mentioned having attended a professional
development opportunity that was specifi cally geared to the needs of K-12 educators
that was offered by the Center for Image Processing in Education (CIPE).
Interestingly, none of the GIS professional societies (such as the Urban and
Regional Information Systems Association (URISA), the Geospatial Information
Technology Association (GITA), the American Society for Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing (ASPRS), and the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping
(ACSM)) nor educational professional societies (such as the National Science
Teachers Association (NSTA), the International Society for Technology in Education
(ISTE), and the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST))
appeared to be a force hastening the diffusion of GIS into education. The only pro-
gram that attempted to bring together university and secondary educators during the
time was the Secondary Education Project through the National Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis at the University of California, Santa Barbara
(Palladino & Goodchild, 1993 ), but it was not targeted to science teachers. The fi rst
national conference on GIS in education ( 1994 ) was noted by four respondents, but
one respondent felt like “we were being lectured to by universities that “knew” how
GIS should be taught.” While hundreds of universities started GIS programs during
the 1980s and 1990s (Goodchild, 2006 ), their emphasis was to teach about GIS
(after Sui, 1995 ). It is our judgment based on analyzing the history of this period
that far from being on the sidelines, these secondary education trailblazers actually
became the leaders in teaching with GIS.
15.4.3 Decision: The Individual Makes a Value Judgment
About the Innovation
Educators were asked “what stands out as a success in your use of GIS during that
time?” Responses indicated that educators were motivated in part because stu-
dents were motivated, because students were seeing interconnections, because
GIS allowed students to present to a public audience, and because of career oppor-
tunities with their city government and local nonprofi t organizations. Two
responses indicated that the teachers grew in their own professional development
through its use, one by contributing to research concerning the teaching with GIS
versus teaching about GIS and another through producing the fi rst geologic map
for the state of Maryland (“that is still in use today”). Thus, these educators per-
ceived GIS to be educationally valuable for reasons that transcended content
knowledge or skills acquisition. Indeed, not one educator mentioned that they
were motivated to use GIS for these reasons, and one mentioned that she was
thankful to be able to have the freedom to use GIS before the era of national stan-
dardized high-stakes testing that would have made it more diffi cult for her to use
inquiry-based methods.
T.R. Baker and J.J. Kerski
259
According to Rogers, three types of innovation decisions can be made in the
diffusion model. These include optional innovation decisions, collective innovation
decisions, and authority innovation decisions. The diffusion of GIS in education is
characterized by optional innovation decisions, made by individuals who are in
some way distinguished from others in a social system. Collective innovation
decisions – made collectively by all individuals of a social system – did not happen.
A large body of educators did not embrace GIS use at this time. Authority innova-
tion decisions – made for the social system by powerful, infl uential individuals – did
not apply to GIS in education during this period or in the decade to follow. While
national standards created during this time embraced inquiry-based methods and the
use of real data to solve real problems, no authoritative body such as the US
Department of Education or state or local education authorities mandated the use of
GIS in education. One wonders what the impact that GIS would have had during the
1990s if top-down authority innovation decisions rather than optional innovation
decisions would have dominated.
15.4.4 Implementation: The Individual Uses the Innovation
to Various Degrees
Educators were asked to name three things that their students did with GIS. The
projects that the students of the respondents worked on illustrate the applicability of
GIS to a wide variety of settings, scales, and topics. These include local projects,
such as making a trail map of an area next to the school and mapping fi re hydrants
for the city. Nearly all of the local projects included fi eldwork. The use of GIS to
support fi eld studies at the local level was mentioned by 12 out of 12 respondents,
with examples ranging from mapping log piles deposited by tidal fl ow, mapping the
local watershed, to creating a living history of the neighborhood of the historically
African American high school. Teachers also taught regional topics such as map-
ping radio telemetry positions, impervious versus permeable surfaces using land use
and land cover data, and a study of the Colorado River drainage basin. Interestingly,
global topics were grappled with less frequently. Aside from a mention of locating
environmental hot spots, global studies were not featured as one of the “three things
your students did with GIS.” This is curious, as some global data sets were available
during the mid-1990s, from CIESIN at Columbia University and the Digital Chart
of the World. It is clear that one of the most appealing aspects of GIS to these inno-
vators was its potential to incorporate meaningful fi eld experiences, to understand
local processes and phenomena, and to connect students with their own communi-
ty’s decision-making system and potential employers. GIS was used by the innova-
tors to do something new, rather than repeating something that they were already
doing in the curriculum using traditional means.
Challenges in the use of GIS in education in its early years were many. While
some educators found it challenging to use educational software in an environment
when computers were still new to classrooms, GIS education trailblazers were
15 Lonely Trailblazers: Examining the Early Implementation…
260
attempting to incorporate industry-standard software into education. Not only were
classroom computers far different from those in industry, but in addition, these
educators had the additional burden of not only learning the software but teaching
with the software. Teaching with software is far different from learning software
(Schrum & Glassett, 2006 ). Challenges listed tended to fi t into these topics: (1) The
lack of computer memory and slow speeds when working with spatial data
(seven mentions), (2) the diffi culty in learning the software (fi ve mentions), and
(3) the cost for equipment and software (three mentions). Interestingly, only two
teachers mentioned the lack of a mentor in their area, even though the comment
from one respondent that “There was only one person in my community that knew
anything about GIS at that time” may have been true of others. Throughout the
1990s, the number of GIS users in community planning, in public works, in asses-
sors, and in other fi elds greatly expanded, but the number of educators using GIS
was largely confi ned to universities. University professors using GIS by and large
were teaching about GIS in a GIScience program, rather than with GIS in a content
area such as geography or environmental studies. One teacher cut to the heart of
the matter with this comment: “The overarching challenge has always been and
still is getting new things into the curriculum. This one is about “running the race”
at all, while the hardware, software, data, training, and lessons are just the indi-
vidual hurdles within the race. Despite the explosion of GIS use in science, busi-
ness, & government, it remains diffi cult to get teachers & administration not only
to get over the individual hurdles, but to decide to run this race. The fast pace of
technological changes emphasizes the glacial pace of revising education standards,
so education falls behind the real world.”
What constitutes professional development for educators who seek to use GIS in
their curriculum? We would argue that training in GIS software only meets a frac-
tion of the type of professional development needed by Early Adopters. Just as
important is discussion about pedagogical strategies for implementing spatial anal-
ysis and fostering spatial thinking, how GIS can support fi eldwork and inquiry, and
much more. GIS training was received by two of the Innovators, but, according to
these respondents, was inadequate, not tailored to educators but rather to GIS ana-
lysts, focused on running the software but using parcel data and edit tools that would
seldom be used in the classroom. Commented one educator, “I was the only HS
teacher there [at the professional development experience, a 2-week class run by the
university]. The fi rst 2 h was a lecture on topology, which [left] people wondering
“what did we sign up for?” The instructor largely left them [the students] on their
own, sometimes leaving the room for long periods. One student left in tears at the
end of the fi rst week.” Indeed, after reading about some of the terrible experiences
of some of the respondents, perhaps more of this type of professional development
would have stymied, rather than encouraged, the use of GIS in education!
Teachers were asked “what is your advice on professional development for
GIS?” Responses focused on using GIS in a hands-on, inquiry-based mode that is
tailored for different audiences. One advised to “play to the natural curiosity of
learners – don’t stifl e it. Give them the tools to explore their questions.” Most were
adamant about using GIS for analysis, rather than “zooming in and changing
T.R. Baker and J.J. Kerski
261
colors,” and several mentioned not using technology as an end in itself, but as a
means to an end. One respondent recommended to focus on people who “get it
when they see it” because GIS is “not for everyone.” One even went so far as to say
that professional development is “a waste of time. We keep providing tool use. Two
percent will self-teach and use it with kids. The other 98 % will forget it.” Several
mentioned that the professional development is too focused on geography, and
should be focused on environmental studies instead, for example. Several men-
tioned a project- based approach for professional development, so that learning
becomes about the investigation, not the tool.
The initial set of educators using GIS created their own lessons and curricula,
which for the most part were not shared. There was little incentive to go to the extra
work of sharing these instructional resources, given the lack of places to store them
online and given the physical size of the data sets at a time when most computers
and networks could not handle them, much less transfer them, particularly in
schools. Conversely, a notable subgroup in the survey indicated not making formal
lessons or curriculum at all – directing the students to “fi gure it out,” primarily
using the software manuals. Each of these cases potentially hindered the spread of
GIS in education. The diffi culties of sharing lessons and data led to the develop-
ment of ArcLessons ( http://edcommunity.esri.com/arclessons ) near the end of the
decade, which subsequently had an impact on the education community for several
reasons. First, it was built by teachers and for teachers, not by and for GIS profes-
sionals. Therefore, the language and goals meshed with what educators wanted to
do with GIS, which is in many ways fundamentally different to what GIS profes-
sionals want to do with GIS. Second, ArcLessons provided an easy way to upload
and store not only the lessons themselves, but also the spatial data sets that accom-
panied the lessons, and provided server space that was suffi cient to handle both
components.
15.4.5 Confi rmation: Use of an Innovation That Is Fully
Integrated with Daily Tasks
One educator’s comments were indicative of the importance that educators and stu-
dents alike sensed that their innovations went beyond the school to the community:
“We were able to produce a variety of reports for our city that showed on GIS map
layers where a lot of estuarine things were happening that they didn’t know about
like drainage pipes that dumped water into the estuary and where sampled bird
populations were occurring.” However, what Rogers refers to as diffusion within
organizations did not occur, either within the educator’s own school or in his or her
own school district. One educator stated that the stiff competition from Advanced
Placement (AP) courses tends to take students away from GIS, because GIS is not
associated with a specifi c AP exam. Another shared that after years of conducting
GIS workshops for teachers in her district, to her knowledge, nobody in that district
was using GIS for instruction by the end of the period of study.
15 Lonely Trailblazers: Examining the Early Implementation…
262
As Rogers explains, both positive and negative outcomes occur when an individual
chooses to adopt a particular innovation. Rogers lists three categories for conse-
quences: desirable/undesirable, direct/indirect, and anticipated/unanticipated. Negative
outcomes from GIS ranged from trying to obtain free or low-cost spatial data, “doing
battle with IT” [the information technology staff] as one respondent described it, to
computer crashes due to lack of RAM. Innovators are aware of negative outcomes
but persist nonetheless. Despite these and other frustrations of teaching inquiry with
computers, not one of the educators responding to the survey or in the telephone
interviews said that they wished they had never touched GIS. Although one must take
into account the biased positive attitude that is associated with the adoption of a new
innovation, that Rogers himself recognized, the best evidence that the respondents
viewed GIS as a valuable addition to their teaching careers is that all of them were
still using GIS two decades later.
15.5 Conclusions and Recommendations for Research
The innovation of using GIS in education is a complex story but one in which the
educators shared a remarkably common vision. The Innovators did not implement
GIS in the same manner, but they all used GIS because they believed GIS could
help them accomplish projects, investigations, and goals where other tools could
not. GIS meshed well with their core teaching philosophies. These included
respecting student interests, fostering discovery, keeping the goal in mind, con-
structivism, experiential and outdoor education, caring, rigor, problem-solving,
and encouraging students to think. More research is needed to better identify
whether GIS can drive inquiry-oriented approaches or if GIS is best introduced in
the context of an instructional model with which the Early Adopter or Early
Majority is already familiar.
Innovators used the communication channels available to them at the time, pri-
marily local contacts via the telephone, and through professional conferences, to
build loosely coupled relationships. However, these relationships were not estab-
lished well enough to be termed “networks” and therefore the description “lonely
trailblazers” fi ts. The relationships framing the use of GIS in classrooms began with
science educators but often included representatives from GIS companies, higher
education, and in local, state, and federal government agencies. Moreover, the educa-
tors were geographically lonely, separated from other educators by long distances.
They may also be characterized as being disciplinarily lonely – the only educator in
their school using GIS. Fortunately, the Innovators were in place at a critical time;
their stories became not only the blueprint but the inspiration, used and cited by oth-
ers who continued the diffusion of GIS in education in the fi rst decade of the twenty-
fi rst century. The GIS education community has grown substantially between 1998
and 2009. Research to document the effects of community, niche networks, and
online social networks to support GIS in education would be valuable.
T.R. Baker and J.J. Kerski
263
Respondents reported that they had been teaching anywhere from 2 to 26 years
before they started using GIS in education, with a mean of 13.5 years in the classroom.
It may be surprising to some that it was primarily veteran teachers who recognized the
utility of GIS for classroom instruction. This group had been around education long
enough to know what works and what does not. It is commonly believed that younger
teachers are more familiar with and more adept at using technology, yet this idea does
not appear to be supported in this study. More research should be considered that
identifi es characteristics of educators and their environment necessary for successfully
using geospatial tools.
Are these educators still trailblazing GIS in education? The employment status
of two respondents was unknown, but 10 of the remaining 11 respondents were
still using GIS at the secondary or university level in 2009. Two had gone so far as
to be full-time GIS education consultants. The overwhelming majority responded
to the question, “What has changed in the way you think of GIS now versus then?”
that “nothing” had changed. That their original vision had not changed is a testa-
ment to enduring value of GIS to education. While several indicated that they are
more realistic about how far and how fast GIS can change the face of education,
they are still enthusiastic about the power of GIS to integrate disciplines, foster
deep inquiry, support fi eldwork, and provide career pathways. This was evident in
that some respondents sent additional data that would not fi t in the online survey
form, and many of the telephone interviews that were scheduled to last 20 min
lasted over 90 min.
The surveys and interviews made it clear that each respondent had a clear sense
that they were trailblazers during the initial decade of GIS in education, matching
Rogers’ suggestion that Innovators are motivated by the idea of being change
agents. These educators were determined that despite frustrations, they would keep
the end goals in sight. These end goals included their own personal and professional
growth (making a positive difference in the lives of the students) and goals for the
students as well (fostering scientifi c thinking, problem-solving, and spatial think-
ing; grappling with issues relevant to the twenty-fi rst century). GIS technology and
methods meshed well with the inquiry-based focus of these educators. The excite-
ment for GIS and science is apparent in these Innovators (even over several years),
but what about their students? More research into the effects on student learning,
attitude, and self-effi cacy is needed. Longitudinally, does the integration of GIS into
science increase student interest in science, grades, choice of academic majors, or
even choice of careers?
The individual support given by GIS vendors was cited by 11 out of 13 respon-
dents, and in six cases, respondents identifi ed this as the key ingredient that made
them “stick with” GIS despite the challenges. Did this refl ect the authors’ bias in
selecting educators to survey who were using ArcView software more often than
other GIS software? Clark Labs, makers of IDRISI GIS software, staffed a K-12
education coordinator position until 1997. The literature of the most active GIS-
using educators from 1992 to 1998 features users of ESRI software. The responses
indicated that the ESRI education team made an impact because the team was
comprised of educators, not salespersons, who understood the unique needs of
15 Lonely Trailblazers: Examining the Early Implementation…
264
educators, and they were accessible for consultation about far more than the
software functionality. Nine respondents indicated that they started with ESRI’s
ArcView , and 13 respondents indicated that this was the software they most
frequently used. Of the other software sets indicated ( IDRISI , Image Display ,
Alice , Jedi , Spans , PC ArcInfo , and ArcCad ), only IDRISI , PC ArcInfo , and
ArcCad were listed as being frequently used. The others were used for a fi nite
period to be replaced with ArcView . Educational research evaluating the role of
vendor support would be valuable to the proliferation of GIS and preparation of
published materials. In terms of adoption, what are the implications for open-
source GIS or community-supported GIS?
Has GIS in education moved from the Innovators to the Early Adopters?
Innovators are the smallest segment of the social system and are relatively rare. Yet,
they are needed to “work the bugs out” for Early Adopters and the rest that may
follow. Innovators tolerate more “pain” and uncertainty with an innovation than oth-
ers. Innovators’ characteristics are different from Early Adopter and Early Majority
characteristics and should be closely examined in the future. As evidenced by this
study, many Innovators seem to be highly motivated to use desktop GIS to support
original investigations with students. Innovators view the technology as another
powerful tool to visualize data. Early Adopters may not readily fi t this profi le.
Innovation complexity and the resulting decrease in relative advantage will, among
other variables, stymie innovation diffusion as we move toward the majorities
(Rogers, 2003 ). The complexity of multiple systems (pedagogical, school environ-
ment, technical, etc.) might also create a barrier for those in the Early Adopter or
Early Majority categories. Identifying the impact of complexities for various adopter
categories will help, in part, focus professional development efforts to archive
greater effectiveness. Additional research needs to be conducted, evaluating Rogers’
categories, innovation complexity, instructional and curricular needs, and interests
of those educators.
What are the key factors that need to be embedded into professional development
so that GIS will move beyond the Innovators and be used by the Early Adopters?
Are Innovators only generating additional Innovators? It seems to the authors based
on the interviews that teacher training by Innovators was largely focused on inquiry
and problem-based learning. These inquiry-oriented uses of GIS in the classroom
seemed to resonate only to a small percentage of educators. The GIS innovations
were instructional, rather than technical. Early Adopters will need to clearly view
GIS in fi ve ways that Rogers’ identifi es: They will need to see that it provides rela-
tive advantage over their existing instructional methods, that it is compatible with
their existing values and practices, that it is easy to use, that it can be “tinkered with”
or “has trialability,” and that teachers will be able to observe results from its use.
One of the advantages of today’s GIS is also one of its challenges. Teachers in the
1990s could teach using GIS on a desktop computer. Teachers today can teach desk-
top GIS, combine desktop with web-based GIS services, or use GIS entirely online.
The multiple pathways, tools, and choices today keep the innovators motivated but
may be confusing for the Early Adopter. A suitable analogy for diffusion might be
T.R. Baker and J.J. Kerski
265
Project Learning Tree and Project Wet. These projects packaged a set of curricula
with a standard professional development model, diffusing widely during the 1980s
and 1990s, becoming some of the most widely used methods and curricula in envi-
ronmental education. Similarly, curricular materials such as the Our World GIS
Education and a standard professional development model might be the best way to
impact educators seeking to use GIS. If Early Adopters require these types of grade-
specifi c instructional materials, then one might argue that Early Adopters may per-
ceive GIS to have value if it can help them teach core content better than traditional
approaches. Can GIS help students learn core content more quickly or in a richer
way? These are the studies that must be done to convince Early Adopters and their
administrators who support them. Another question that must be answered is, “Are
new 3-D tools such as ArcGIS Explorer and Google Earth reaching the Early
Adopters?” How do these virtual globes affect the geotechnology adoption rate?
Because these are largely visualization tools rather than analysis tools, does that
mean that the geographic and scientifi c inquiry pieces have to be removed in order
for the Early Adopters to make them their own?
Rogers notes that it is predominately the Early Adopters who are the social
leaders, whose trail must typically be blazed by the Innovators before a technol-
ogy can hope to reach the majority. Many of the people currently training teachers
or leading professional development are likely to be Innovators. It is unclear as to
whether, as we train more and more educators, we are working with Innovators
and Early Adopters or working across the entire social system. Professional devel-
opment (particularly with preservice programs) needs to touch all categories of
the social system. As long as the educators using desktop GIS are primarily the
innovators, they are likely to be looked upon as using “niche” technologies that
the majority but won’t touch. By 2009, the majority of educators may even be at
the point where enough geospatial technology is all around them in their cell
phones, vehicles, and on hikes that they may want to make their students aware of
it, but they won’t spend time using it in the classroom. Early Adopters and Early
Majority have thus far considered the costs to outweigh the benefi ts of using desk-
top GIS. Does the arrival and use of vetted curriculum series such as the Our
World GIS Education series mean that Early Adoption of GIS has begun? GIS
tools do not equate to teaching core content as Project Learning Tree, Project
WET, and Project WILD have been viewed for environmental science. One
instructional methodology, curriculum, or tool will not ensure success across all
categories of innovation adoption. Yet, could it be desktop GIS’ versatility in
many content areas that fosters this diffi culty?
What works for Innovators will likely produce diminishing returns for the rest of
the social system. For professional development specialists to be successful, identi-
fying the nuances of educators in each adopter category must be identifi ed and
addressed. Moreover, it is expected that as educators from different adoption cate-
gories move through the adoption stages, the activities and results will look differ-
ent. Innovators in GIS education may be more accurately described as “scouts” or
“explorers” whose instructionally innovative pathway is complex and diffi cult for
15 Lonely Trailblazers: Examining the Early Implementation…
266
the majority of educators to follow. Rather, the true trailblazing will be done by the
Early Adopters who create the pathway or model that others can follow. Perhaps
these Early Adopters should be the focus of future professional development activi-
ties, leading to the most widespread diffusion of GIS in education.
References
Barstow, D., Gerrard, M. D., Kapisovsky, P. M., Tinker, R. F., & Wojtkiewicz, V. (Eds). (1994).
First national conference on the Educational Applications of Geographic Information Systems
(EdGIS) conference report . January 27–29, 1994. Conference held in Washington, DC/
Cambridge, MA: TERC Communications.
Bednarz, S. W. (1999). Evaluating a GIS training institute . Proceedings of the 1999 ESRI user
conference . http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc99/proceed/papers/pap895/p895.
htm . Accessed 1 May 2009.
Friebertshauser, R. (1997). Higher learning: GIS in nontraditional curriculums. Geo Info Systems,
7 (4), 18–26.
Goodchild, M. (2006). The fourth R? Rethinking GIS education. ArcNews. Fall. Redlands:
ESRI, Inc.
Gordin, D. N., Edelson, D. C., & Gomez, L. M. (1996). Scientifi c visualization as an interpretive
and expressive medium. In D. C. Edelson & E. A. Domeshek (Eds.), Proceedings of the inter-
national conference on the learning sciences , July 1996, Evanston (pp. 409–414). Charlottesville:
AACE.
Kerski, J. J. (2003). The implementation and effectiveness of geographic information systems
technology and methods in secondary education. Journal of Geography, 102 , 128–137.
McWilliams, H. & Rooney, P. (1997). Mapping our city. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association. March 1997, Chicago, IL.
National Research Council (NRC). (2006). Learning to think spatially: GIS as a support system in
the K-12 curriculum . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Palladino, S. D. (1994). A role for geographic information systems in the secondary schools: An
assessment of the current status and future possibilities . Master’s thesis, University of
California, Santa Barbara.
Palladino, S., & Goodchild, M. F. (1993). A place for GIS in the secondary schools? Lessons from
the NCGIA secondary education project. Geo Info Systems, 3 (4), 45–49.
Ramirez, M., & Althouse, P. (1995). Fresh thinking: GIS in environmental education. T.H.E
Journal, 23 (2), 87–90.
Robison, L. (1996). Plotting an island’s future. Geo Info Systems, 6 (5), 22–27.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Schrum, L., & Glassett, K. (2006). Research on educational technology: Challenges to implemen-
tation and impact of scientifi cally based research . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Stenhouse, L. (1985). Research as a basis for teaching. In J. Rudduck & D. Hopkins (Eds.),
Research as a basis for teaching: Readings from the work of Lawrence Stenhouse (pp. 124–126).
London: Heinemann.
Sui, D. (1995). A pedagogic framework to link GIS to the intellectual core of geography. Journal
of Geography, 94 (6), 578–591.
Tinker, R. F. (1992). Mapware: Educational applications of geographic information systems.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1 (1), 35–48.
T.R. Baker and J.J. Kerski
267
Wells, J., & Lewis, L. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2005
(NCES 2007–020) . U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
White, S. H. (2005). Geographic information systems (GIS) and instructional technology (IT)
diffusion: K-12 student and educator conceptualizations . Unpublished dissertation, North
Carolina State University.
White, S. H. (2008). Diffusion of innovations theory: Framing IT and GIS adoption. In A. J. Milson
& M. Alibrandi (Eds.), Digital geography: Geospatial technologies in the social studies class-
room . Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
15 Lonely Trailblazers: Examining the Early Implementation…