124
Barriers to GI(S) Use in Schools –
A Comparison of International Empirical Results
Steffen HÖHNLE, Jan Christoph SCHUBERT & Rainer UPHUES
Abstract
Given Germany’s low frequency of GI(S) use in its Secondary Schools and geography
classrooms, we surveyed 410 teachers on the main barriers to wider implementation of GIapplications in the framework of a larger study. In this article we present the results from
the survey and later offer an overview of similar studies undertaken in Australia, Singapore
and the US, followed by some concluding thoughts.
1
Presentation of the problem
In spite of great efforts, GI-applications are rarely used in Germany’s geography classrooms (see HÖHNLE et al. 2010 for more detailed results). Studies from other countries also
report low levels of implementation (see KERSKI 2009, ORDNANCE SURVEY 2004,
KOREVAAR & VAN DER SCHEE 2004, KANKAANRINTA 2004 and others). The low frequency
of GI(S) belies the potential that the tool offers for geographic education (see BAKER 2002,
FAVIER & VAN DER SCHEE 2009, VOGLER et al. 2010 and others). Implementation strategies
for GI(S) usage in schools have had little effect so far, meaning that impediments to GI(S)
usage have to be addressed. The subjective evaluation by teachers is a decisive factor in this
context considering the fact that teachers are the likely bottleneck which reveals the accuracy of implementation strategies.
This paper presents the first results of a study which deals with the barriers to GI(S) implementation from the viewpoint of German geography teachers and how these findings compare to the results of studies from other countries.
2
Study Approach
The survey is part of larger study on implementation strategies for GI(S) usage in geography education. It consists of several empirical partial studies (see figure 1):
Partial study I: The frequency of GI(S) usage in German secondary schools was surveyed
initially. As mentioned before, the results showed very unsatisfactory results in this respect
(see HÖHNLE et al. 2010).
Partial study II: The results of partial study I revealed the necessity for a follow-up study
which deals with concrete implementation strategies for GI(S) usage in schools in a threestep development approach.
Initially, the teachers were presented with a battery of 21 potential impediments to GI(S)
usage in schools which they had to rate individually on a five-level Likert-like scale ranging from 5 = ‘true’ to 1 = ‘not true’. The items were developed based on other empirical
Jekel, T, Koller, A., Donert, K. & Vogler, R. (Eds.) (2011): Learning with GI 2011.
© Herbert Wichmann Verlag, VDE VERLAG GMBH, Berlin/Offenbach. ISBN 978-3-87907-510-2.
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Barriers to GI(S) Use in Schools
125
studies (KERSKI 2003 et al.) in order to make some comparisons possible. In terms of a prestudy, some explorative interviews with teachers were conducted to support item construction. The self-administered questionnaire could be filled out online (www.onlineforschung.
org) as well as at professional development activities for secondary school teachers nationwide. Thus, a sample of 410 teachers was reached. Selected results of this partial study (see
section 3) are presented in this article.
Following a mixed-method approach the second step consisted of a cumulative follow-up
qualitative study which consists of six group discussions. Thereby five homogenous groups
of four to six participants with a similar background were created and one heterogeneous
group with different backgrounds (Group 1 – University students who were studying to
become geography teachers; Group 2 – Trainee teachers in geography; Group 3 – Geography teachers with low GI(S) experience; Group 4 – Geography teachers with high GI(S)
experience; Group 5 – Geography teachers and lecturers with expert knowledge who offer
professional development activities in GI(S); Group 6 – a heterogeneous group consisting
of a teacher with low level of GI(S) experience, a teacher with high level of GI(S) experience, a teacher trainer, a geoinformatics lecturer and a head of education at a secondary
school).
During the group discussions the results regarding the impediments to GI(S) usage of the
quantitative survey were presented to the participants. In the course of the discussions, the
groups developed concepts and ideas reflecting their perspectives on how to overcome
impediments to and promote GI(S) usage in schools. These group discussions are currently
being analyzed.
Fig. 1:
Complete study approach of GIS-1 project
126
S. Höhnle, J. C. Schubert & R. Uphues
On the basis of these empirical results and in light of earlier research, we developed a strategy for GI(S) implementation based on dialogue and interaction between researchers and
teachers.
Partial study III: After the completion of partial study II another partial study will evaluate
the strategies in an intervention-based approach in a school pilot project at various schools.
3
Impediments to GI(S) Use from the Viewpoint of German
Teachers
Overall German teachers observed significant impediments to GI(S) use in the classroom.
The mean of the overall scale was 3.29, considerably higher than the arithmetic mean of the
five-level scale. A total of 15 out of 21 items were rated higher than 3.0.
At the single item level (see table 1) German teachers considered the “lack of regular practice of the teacher in handling GI(S) software” the greatest impediment (mean = 4.23). In
comparison the item “GI-software too complex for students” is rated relatively low (rank 13
overall). In our opinion this illustrates two things: On the one hand it is still difficult for
teachers to transfer responsibility (in this case, technical issues) to students. They continue
to express their personal aspiration of understanding all the technical details in this context.
On the other hand they do not consider GI-software to be too difficult for the classroom.
They rather highlight the fact that GI-applications require training because of a lack of
intuitive usability and because they hardly use GI-tools in the classroom as well as at home,
they have to get to know the software again after a certain period of time. This is quite
tedious for the teacher.
The item “Too time-consuming considering the few geography lessons” is ranked second
(mean = 4.19). Teachers apparently fear the loss of real learning time because of the necessary training time for using the software. This is understandable in light of the syllabus
adjustments of the past years which have led to sizeable decreases in geography lessons in
German schools. Furthermore there seems to be the opinion that GI(S) is a stand-alone
topic which has to be dealt with separately and not as a tool for exploring and analyzing
geographic questions and content which already appear in the curriculum (see HÖHNLE et
al. 2009).
Likewise the “Lack of simple and copyable GI(S) lessons” is seen as a big impediment
(mean = 3.94). This is surprising at first, bearing in mind the soaring number of articles
with lesson designs using GI(S) in various didactical journals in Germany in the past years
(see HÖHNLE et al. 2010). If one analyzes these lessons more thoroughly however, it becomes apparent that almost all of them are showcase projects in a way: GI(S) experienced
authors illustrate what students can accomplish using GI-software proficiently. This approach though seems to demand too much from the bulk of the teachers. Rather, they prefer
simple examples which can easily be copied without much technical know-how and which
can be transferred to their local surroundings.
In fourth place, we find the item “High general workload of teachers”. As illustrated by the
public debate on education in Germany following the outcome of the PISA study, teachers
are confronted with a vast number of demands (see MEHREN & UPHUES 2010). They are
expected to include more competence-oriented teaching, to teach bilingually, to incorporate
Barriers to GI(S) Use in Schools
127
the features of global education in their lessons, etc. Geography teachers likely think that
they do not have enough individual resources to implement further innovations in their
teaching.
Positions 5 and 6 correspond in their thematic orientation and both show a mean value of
3.65 in the evaluation. The relatively high values of “Lack of knowledge about concrete
integration of GI(S) in teaching” and “No apparent additional value of GI(S) for many
colleagues (compared to atlas)” illustrate the insecurity of many test persons regarding the
integration of GI(S) as a tool for building up geographic competences rather than because
of its new technical functionality.
Overall two main trends can be identified in the Top 6. On the one hand, respondents report
that limited time resources constrain their ability to integrate GI(S) (Rank 1, 2 & 4). On the
other hand, teachers are puzzled with the question of how to transform a technical tool into
an educational one (Rank 3, 5 & 6).
Table 1:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Ranking of potential impediments to school implementation of GI(S) according to German secondary school geography teachers
GI(S) usage is impeded by…
Lack of regular practice of the teacher in handling GI(S) software
Too time-consuming considering the few geography lessons
Lack of simple and copyable GI(S) lessons
High general workload of teachers
Lack of knowledge about concrete integration of GI(S) in teaching
No apparent additional value of GI(S) for many colleagues (compared to
atlas)
Lack of applicable GI(S) data sets
Lack of interest of other subjects for an interdisciplinary GI(S) cooperation
No conjunction between GI(S) lesson and the schoolbook
Timing of lessons (45 minutes)
Lack of integration into the school curriculum
Lack of professional development activities in GI(S)
GI(S) software too complex for students
Lack of cooperation in the teaching staff in terms of GI(S)
Lack of computerized workplaces/computer rooms
Low media competence of the teachers compared to their students
Lack of interest of the geography teachers regarding GI(S)
Lack of technical support at the school
Differing didactic preconditions of the students regarding GI(S)
Cost of GI(S) software
Lack of support of the school administration
Mean
4.23
4.19
3.94
3.89
3.72
SD
0.96
0.89
1,05
1.04
1.07
3.65
1.08
3.65
3.41
3.40
3.30
3.33
3.26
3.25
3.08
3.07
3.00
2.96
2.90
2.87
2.51
2.06
1.20
1.16
1.05
1.41
1.20
1.19
1.14
1.23
1.42
1.10
1.07
1.36
1.12
1.34
1.10
Despite the obstacles, implementation of GI(S), nevertheless elicits interest on the part of
respondents. This is supported for example by the fact that “Lack of interest of the geography teachers regarding GI(S)” is among the lowest ranked items with a value below the
128
S. Höhnle, J. C. Schubert & R. Uphues
arithmetic mean (mean = 2.96). Likewise institutional preconditions (equipment and technical support) is ranked quite low. Neither the support through the school administration
(mean = 2.06) nor the general technical support at school (mean = 2.87) nor the cost of the
GI(S) software (mean = 2.51) nor the lack of computer workplaces (mean = 3.07) are perceived as central impediments to GI(S) implementation.
4
Synopsis of International Comparative Studies
KERSKI (2003)
KERSKI conducted a 33-item survey with American high school teachers who had purchased a GIS software package before. Eleven of the items focused on potential impediments and had to be rated on a five-level scale. The total universe of the study comprised
342 test persons. Teachers rated the lack of time to develop GIS-based lesson plans the
main impediment to implementation in the classroom (mean = 4.00). The complexity of the
software followed in second place with a mean of 3.69.
Table 2:
Perceived constraints on GIS implementation (KERSKI 2003)
Description
Lack of time to develop lessons incorporating GIS
Complexity of software
Little technical support for training
Computers not accessible to my students
Cost of hardware and software
Little administrative support for training
Computers not capable of handling GIS
Variable skill levels among students
Lack of geographic skills among students
Class periods too short to work on GIS-based projects
Lack of useful or usable data
mean
4.00
3.69
3.24
3.17
3.13
3.07
3.03
2.88
2.54
2.49
2.42
BAKER et al. (2009)
Based on the first national implementation survey (KERSKI 2003), BAKER et al. questioned
186 K-12 educators who had participated in GI(S) workshops in the US between 1998 and
2004. The test persons were presented a battery of 11 items that had to be rated on a fivelevel scale.
The strongest impediment to using GIS was a “Lack of time to develop lessons incorporating GIS” (mean = 3.39). The item “Variable skill levels among students” (mean = 2.83) and
the lack of or the limited technical and administrative support also interfered with GIS use.
On the other hand the complexity of the software only played a mid-level role for these GIexperienced teachers (mean = 2.73).
Barriers to GI(S) Use in Schools
Table 3:
129
Intensity of constraints that hinder use of GIS (BAKER 2009)
Description
Lack of time to develop lessons incorporating GIS
Variable skill levels among students
Little technical support for training
Computers not accessible to my students
Complexity of software
Class periods too short to work on GIS-based projects
Little administrative support for training
Cost of hardware and software
Lack of geographic skills among students
Computers not capable of handling GIS
Lack of useful or usable data
mean
3.39
2.83
2.82
2.78
2.73
2.59
2.59
2.51
2.45
2.36
2.26
Kinniburgh (2008)
In 2008 KINNIBURGH surveyed 34 teachers who were responsible for the administration and
implementation of GI(S) courses in New South Wales (Australia) about the impediments to
using GI(S). The measuring instrument consisted of 43 items referring to four theoretical
subscales (Logistical and Infrastructure; Professional Development and Training; Pedagogical and Curriculum; Assessment). All items were assessed on a five-level Likert-like
scale.
Table 4:
The impediments to the effective use of GIS in geography classrooms (selected items) (KINNIBURGH 2008)
Description
mean
There is a lack of understanding about how GIS can be used effectively in the classroom
The staff who use GIS at the school have insufficient ICT skills to operate the software to
its full potential
There is insufficient time available for staff to create curriculum resources
The Geography teachers at the school have not completed any training in GIS
There is insufficient access to computing facilities capable of operating the GIS software
in the school
There is insufficient support for the technology from the school's IT department
The GIS software is too complex to understand
The GIS software is too expensive for the school to purchase
It is unknown where relevant and useful GIS data can be obtained
A single class period (40–60 min) does not provide enough time for the teaching and
completion of GIS based learning tasks
School executive is not supportive for the implementation and utilization of GIS
It is not possible to obtain appropriate training in GIS.
The students have insufficient ICT skills to operate GIS software
There is insufficient relevant and useful data that can be used with the GIS
Students do not find the technology relevant to their studies
4.41
4.16
4.14
4.05
4.00
3.90
3.68
3.57
3.33
3.05
2.90
2.86
2.81
2.76
2.25
130
S. Höhnle, J. C. Schubert & R. Uphues
It became apparent that the most important impediments were the lack of understanding
about how GIS can be used effectively in the classroom and the lack of didacticmethodological knowledge about GIS usage in the classroom. Four of the seven items with
the highest mean values can be assigned to this field. Moreover the perceived lack of ICT
skills in general (mean = 4.16) has to be mentioned, as well as the shortage of time to create
curriculum resources (mean = 4.14) and the absence of computer and software equipment
(mean = 4.00).
On the other hand insufficient relevant and useful data that can be used with the GIS
(mean = 2.76) and the lack of training opportunities (mean = 2.86) are hardly considered as
impediments. This is also true for the items about insufficient ICT skills of students
(mean = 2.81) and lack of interest of the students (mean = 2.25).
WHEELER et al. (2010)
In Victoria (Australia) WHEELER et al. (2010) asked 193 teachers overall at private and
public schools to pick the three main impediments to GI(S) usage out of a list of ten
possible impediments (see table 5). The item “Lack of teacher GIS knowledge/education”
received by far the most indications. In this study the teachers also seemed to be insecure
about handling the software and spotted difficulties in transferring this competence to the
students. There is a considerable gap between these items and the items ”Not enough time
for teachers to develop new GIS-based Geography“ and “Difficulties in booking the
necessary computer labs for GIS lessons“.
Table 5:
Participant-defined barriers to GIS use for geography teaching in Victorian
secondary schools (WHEELER 2010)
Description
Lack of teacher GIS knowledge/education
Not enough time for teachers to develop new GIS-based Geography
Difficulties in booking the necessary computer labs for GIS lessons
Not enough resourcing (e.g. budget allocation) for Geography
No textbooks containing relevant GIS-based case studies and data
Not enough computer resources
Curriculum is already too crowded to fit GIS-based lessons
Not enough school senior leadership group support for Geography
Student numbers in Geography are too low to warrant GIS introduction
Limited school IT support
indications
130
85
60
56
38
29
26
19
18
13
AUDET & PARIS (1997)
In an older study AUDET & PARIS questioned 45 GIS using teachers in the US. Of the total
of 50 items on the questionnaire ten items referred to potential impediments that had to be
rated on a four level scale. It became apparent that most of the participating American
teachers saw the biggest problems in the lack of available GIS data (mean = 3.57) and the
lack of teacher training in GI(S) (mean = 3.54). The cost (mean = 3.34) and the lack of
hardware equipment (mean = 3.13) were also rated high.
Barriers to GI(S) Use in Schools
Table 6:
131
Intensity of constraints that hinder use of GIS (*values were transcoded for a
better comparability) (AUDET & PARIS 1997)
Description
mean
GIS data is readily available
Teacher training is necessary before introducing GIS into a school program
Securing start-up funds is an obstacle to implementing GIS
School administration support for GIS is easy to obtain
Large memory requirements are an obstacle to implementing GIS
GIS software is complicated
Becoming proficient with GIS is difficult
GIS data is expensive
Sufficient GIS curriculum materials exist
Software incompatibility with available computers is a problem
3,57*
3,54
3,34
3,34*
3,13
2,90
2,87
2,72
2,67*
2,26
YAP et al. (2008)
YAP et al. surveyed 323 geography teachers about “Factors Discouraging the Use of GIS”.
Nine items had to be rated on a four-level Likert-scale. Analyzing the data a two-group
categorization of the test persons was used: GIS teachers who had conducted GIS-based
lessons before (n = 38) and non-GIS teachers who had not conducted GIS-based lessons
before (n = 285). It became apparent that the two groups showed similar results. However,
non-GIS users scored higher with factors related to the “use of GIS software and resource
packages”. The identified main impediments were insufficient curriculum time, lack of
suitable instructional packages and need for extra preparation time. On the whole, factors
referring to software, especially in terms of its complexity and cost, were featured the most.
Table 7:
Factors discouraging use of GIS and non-GIS teachers (figure modified)
(YAP et al. 2008)
Description
Insufficient curriculum time
No suitable instructional package
Extra preparation time needed
No suitable GIS software
Limited access to computer labs
Inflexibility for group work
Difficulty in using GIS software
Difficulty in using instructional package
Irrelevance to syllabus
5
mean score for GIS
teachers
2.96
2.82
2.78
2.62
2.59
2.42
2.35
2.17
1.93
mean score for nonGIS teachers
3.15
3.03
3.06
2.89
2.34
2.36
2.71
2.60
2.15
Summary of the Results and Conclusion
All in all the results of our survey in Germany show many congruities with international
comparative studies.
132
S. Höhnle, J. C. Schubert & R. Uphues
Regarding the main impediments, two central trends can be found in Germany: teachers
quote their own insufficient didactic and technical knowledge using GI(S) in the classroom
and cite the lack of time resources in the preparation and execution of GI(S) supported
teaching arrangements. Similar results regarding the impediments to GI(S) implementation
can be found in almost all international studies. There are also similarities in comparatively
minor impediments. Items relating to students, such as lack of computer competence, are
rated low for instance. Cost of hardware and software also seems to play a less important
role in recent studies.
The results suggest that starting points for successful implementation strategies seem to be
the same in other countries as well. It has to be emphasized that the main impediments can
be tackled. The integration of GIS in the university education of teachers seems to be a
good starting point, however this has to focus on the didactical part as well as the technical
part of GIS – a symbiosis which seems to be lacking right now. In addition, more efforts
regarding teacher training of teachers already in the job seem to be necessary. A more intense international exchange and cooperation might be very useful, especially if one considers the found similar problems and challenges in the different countries.
References
AUDET, R. H. & PARIS, J. (2010), GIS Implementation Model for Schools: Assessing the
Critical Concerns. Journal of Geography, 96 (6): 293-300.
BAKER, T. R. (2002), The effects of Geographic Information System (GIS) technologies on
students´attitudes, self-efficacy, and achievement in middle school science classrooms.
PhD Dissertation. The University of Kansas, School of Education.
BAKER, T. R., PALMER, A .M. & KERSKI, J. J. (2009), A National Survey to Examine Teacher Professional Development and Implementation of Desktop GIS. Journal of Geography, 108: 174-185.
FAVIER, T. & VAN DER SCHEE, J. (2009), Learning to Think Geographically by Working
with GIS. In: JEKEL, T., KOLLER, A., DONERT, K. & VOGLER, R. (Eds.): Learning with
Geoinformation IV. Heidelberg: Wichmann, pp. 135-145.
HÖHNLE, S., SCHUBERT, J. C. & UPHUES, R. (2010), The frequency of GI(S) use in the geography classroom. Results of an empirical study in German secondary schools. In: JEKEL,
T., KOLLER, A., DONERT, K. & VOGLER, R. (Eds.): Learning with Geoinformation V.
Berlin/Offenbach: Wichmann, pp. 148-158.
HÖHNLE, S., SCHUBERT, J. C. & UPHUES, R. (2009), GIS-Projekte im Geographieunterricht.
Kompetenzorientiert – Kumulativ – Kopierfähig. Praxis Geographie, 11: 26-29.
KANKAANRINTA, I. (2004), Information and communication technologies in GISAS
schools. GISAS Internal Report. Helsinki.
KERSKI, J. (2003), The Implementation and Effectiveness of Geographic Information Systems Technology and Methods in Secondary Education. Journal of Geography, 102:
128-137.
KINNIBURGH, J. C. (2008), An Investigation of the Impediments to Using Geographical
Information Systems to Enhance Teaching and Learning in Mandatory Stage 5 Geography in New South Wales. Geographical Education, 21: 20-38.
Barriers to GI(S) Use in Schools
133
KOREVAAR, W. & VAN DER SCHEE, J. (2004), Modern aardrijkskundeonderwijs met GIS op
de kaart gezet [Modern geography education using GIS has been put on the map]. Geografie [Geography], 13 (9): 44-46.
MEHREN, M. & UPHUES, R. (2010), Gute Theorie ist praktisch – Kompetenzorientiert
Unterrichten im Fach Geographie. Terrasse, 3: 8-12.
ORDNANCE SURVEY (2004), The use of GIS in schools – questionnaire results. Mapping
News, 27: 23-24.
VOGLER, R., AHAMER, G. & T. JEKEL (2010), GEOKOM-PEP – Pupil Led Research into the
Effects of Geovisualization. In: JEKEL, T., KOLLER, A., DONERT, K. & VOGLER, R.
(Eds.), Learning with Geoinformation V. Berlin/Offenbach: Wichmann, pp. 51-60.
WHEELER, P., GORDON-BROWN, L. PETERSON, J. & WARD, M. (2010), Geographical information systems in Victorian secondary schools: current constraints and opportunities.
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 19 (2): 155-170.
YAP, L. Y., TAN, G. C. I., ZHU, X & WETTASINGHE, M. C. (2008), An Assessment of the
Use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in Teaching Geography in Singapore
Schools. Journal of Geography, 107: 52-60.