Preprint
for original document see:
http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/q0v1415335554175/?p=c9512d5e2f384b8ea89f8c32
59dfbba9&pi=2
Re-centering geoinformation in secondary education:
Toward a spatial citizenship approach
Inga Gryl and Thomas Jekel
Cartographica (The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization,
University of Toronto Press) (peer-reviewed) 47 (2012), no. 1, pp. 18-28.
Abstract
This article explores starting points for spatial citizenship education and discusses fields of
competence needed for active spatial citizenship. The use of geoinformation systems at the
secondary-school level has been considered mainly as preparation to join the geospatial
workforce and as a support tool to encourage spatial thinking. While this approach definitely
has benefits in arguing for a wider set of competencies acquired by geoinformation-based
learning, it has frequently been linked to instrumental knowledge, and misses out on the
societal consequences of geoinformation use. The concept of spatial citizenship attempts to
address these shortcomings. Originating from the individual and collective appropriation of
social space, it supports learners in acquiring competencies that will enable them to
participate more actively in society through the critical use of geoinformation. Spatial
citizenship adds an explicitly spatial domain to citizenship education.
Keywords: spatial citizenship, citizenship education, secondary education, critical GIS, web
2.0, volunteered geography
Cet article explore les points de départ concernant l'éducation qui traite de l'appartenance
géospatiale et initie une discussion au sujet du domaine des compétences liées à une
appartenance géospatiale active. L'utilisation du SIG au niveau de l'éducation secondaire a été
considérée essentiellement comme une préparation à joindre une main d'oeuvre géospatiale, et
comme un outil de soutien pour encourager la réflexion géospatiale. Alors que cette approche
a des bénéfices certains quant à l'argument de la diffusion de compétences plus étendues
acquises par le moyen pédagogique du SIG, elle a été fréquemment liée aux seules
connaissances instrumentales, omettant ainsi les connaissances afférentes à la société qui sont
liées à l'utilisation du SIG. Le concept d'appartenance géospatiale essaie de faire face à ces
manques. Ayant son origine dans l'appropriation individuelle et collective de l'espace social, il
soutient les étudiants dans leur acquisition de compétences qui leur permettront d'avoir une
part plus active dans la société par l'intermédiaire de l'utilisation critique de la
géoinformatique. L'appartenance géospatiale ajoute un domaine spatial explicite à l'éducation
de citoyenneté.
Mots clés: l'appartenance geospatiale, l'éducation de citoyenneté, éducation secondaire, SIG
critique, web 2.0, données géographiques volontaires
1 History of arguments: geoinformation in secondary education
A broad interest in including geoinformation systems (GIS) in secondary education can be
tracked back to the mid-1990s in developed countries (MILSON et al. 2012). Excitement about
the use of the new technology was prevalent in the early years, a development that was not
specific to the use of geoinformation (GI) but extended to a variety of new technologies in
education (HEGARTY 2004, pp. 343). Early GI applications for secondary education were
mainly about simple data mapping. Several early enthusiasts also suggested that the use of
digital GI would enhance awareness of environmental problems and, therefore, enhance
responsible action with respect to environmental concerns. As with other new technologies in
education, these assumptions waned in the light of practicalities that suggested that transfer of
GIS to schools was not a viable project outside a set of very innovative teachers (e.g., MILSON
et al. 2012; JOHANNSON 2006; KERSKI 2003). It has also been pointed out that awareness and
action are not directly linked (JEKEL 2007).
With these experiences, we may distinguish among at least three sets of more formalized
arguments for the use of GI in secondary education:
1.
A technical argument (e.g., that GIS might be included in school curricula to
prepare students for the requirements of the increasing geospatial workforce);
2.
the argument of spatial thinking as a key competence for problem solving in a
variety of subjects; and
3.
an argument that re-centres GI in secondary education around the subject and
everyday use of GI.
In this section we explore these three arguments in some detail.
1.1 Technical argument: enlarging the geospatial workforce
The technical argument for the inclusion of GI in secondary and undergraduate education was
developed mainly in the United States, but has since been followed across Europe. This
argument runs, roughly, that (secondary) education should be oriented toward workforce
needs and should prepare students to join this workforce (see DONERT 2010; KERSKI 2003).
Following this basic idea, competency models were developed that place a strong emphasis
on industry-related skills, leading to a definition of “competency” as “a specific, identifiable,
definable, and measurable” skill or characteristic that is essential for “the performance of an
activity within a specific business” or industry context (ALLEN 2004; see DIBIASE et al. 2006;
2010).
The Association of American Geographers (AAG) Body of Knowledge and several other
documents focus on this industry-level definition of competency. They are aimed mainly at
post-secondary education and clearly indicate their reliance on industry stakeholders
(SCHULZE et al. 2011). However, this competency model was also broadly translated to
secondary education in the early stages of GI inclusion in schools, as formally documented
across various European curricula for secondary (geography) education (DONERT 2010;
2007). Informally, this technical argument has also played a role in supporting the discipline
during times of educational reform.
The technical approach can be questioned on several counts. First, lower-level GIS
competencies are largely fulfilled outside Western countries, and imparting what will often be
short-lived software skills cannot reasonably be part of secondary education. Minimizing GIS
in the early stages of education has been suggested by various authors (e.g., MARSH et al.
2007). Second, the development and simplification of software, together with the advent of
digital globes, has enabled learners to devote more time to basic concepts and critical thinking
(HAKLAY 2010, pp. 87) rather than looking into industry-strength software systems. Third, the
links and connections between the private sector and secondary education have been
questioned.
1.2 Learning to think spatially
In 2006, the volume Learning to Think Spatially (NRC 2006) argued for a strong inclusion of
GIS in curricula. This argument was mainly based on the assumption that spatial thinking (in
terms of absolute space) could enhance the quality of decision making in science.
Thinking spatially (NRC 2006) is a much wider concept than the technical argument. Spatial
thinking, according to the National Research Council (NRC) has of three aspects (1) concepts
of space, (2) tools of representation, and (3) processes of reasoning. Together, it is argued,
these dimensions are helpful in solving a variety of everyday problems and should therefore
be taught at the secondary-school level. Empirical studies related to technology (e.g.,
HEGARTY et al. 2011; TU HUYNH 2008; MARSH et al. 2007) suggest ideas for improving
spatial thinking, provided that the definition of “spatial thinking” remains within the
dimensions of absolute space. The concept of spatial thinking can be criticized from various
perspectives. In some places it has been likened to geographical thinking (FAVIER,
VAN DER
SCHEE 2009), a notion we reject because of the limited concepts of space involved. Spatial
thinking considers only a very narrow concept of space, namely the conception of absolute
space and a quantitative spatial approach. Closer inspection of the three main dimensions
shows a heavy reliance on the concept of absolute space, as we see in the examples used to
describe concepts of space (NRC 2006, pp. 12):
relationships between units of measurement (e.g., kilometers versus miles), different ways of
calculating distance (e.g., miles, travel time, travel cost), the basis of coordinate systems (e.g.,
Cartesian versus polar coordinates), the nature of spaces (e.g., number of dimensions, twoversus three-dimensional)
The same heavy reliance on absolute space can be seen in the examples used to depict the
dimension of representation (relationship among views, effect of projections, etc.; NRC 2006,
12) and reasoning (thinking about shortest distances, extrapolation and interpolation, making
decisions; 13).
In addition, the only broad example of the human geography in the NRC report – namely, the
reference to Christaller’s central place theory – again shows a conceptual reliance on absolute
space (NRC 2006, pp. 92).
In the examples mentioned above, some conceptions are conspicuous by their absence: human
intent, power, political processes – in short, important dimensions of social life.
The strength of the concept of spatial thinking, consequently, is its ability to support science
education by formulating hypotheses through spatial representation rather than explanation.
We highly value this contribution to science education, but we also think that GI has much to
offer in terms of citizenship education.
However, citizenship education needs to include the social realm – the realm of learning and
politics, power, conflicts, discourse, and identity. Cognitive and relational conceptions of
space are essential in citizenship education (GRYL et al. 2010; JEKEL 2007), but these are
excluded from the NRC report. In connection with the conception of absolute space, it may be
argued that GI inclusion is again utilitarian, preparing students for a job market in the
sciences, as the form of spatial reasoning proposed bears little resemblance to arguments of
space within the humanities (see SCHUURMAN 2004).
1.3 Spatial citizenship
Both the technical argument and Learning to Think Spatially have been intensively covered
elsewhere. We will discuss the conceptualization of spatial citizenship in more detail here.
Spatial citizenship re-centres the inclusion of GI around the everyday lives of individuals,
rather than around the requirements of science or the industrial workforce. This approach
looks into the everyday uses and effects of spatialities, with specific reference to the now
ubiquitous GI applications available to lay people. The aim is to develop a reflexive practice
toward spatial information and representation at the level of the individual. The concept of
spatial citizenship therefore includes traditional competencies of map reading and information
access that, however, have greatly changed as a result of technological development. In
addition, education for spatial citizenship aims at enabling secondary students to devise
alternative spatial scenarios and to participate competitively in society with the help of GI.
Theoretically, the concept is based on three main traditions that enlarge traditional concepts of
citizenship: (1) the social appropriation of space as a basis for participation in society; (2) a
critical perspective on spatial information and representations as discussed in the critical
cartography/ critical GIScience debate; and (3) various conceptions of citizenship education.
Spatial citizenship requires a consistent use of constructivist concepts both in the learning
environment and in the idea of the subject, taking citizenship education mainly to the
discursive realm.
1.4 Discussion
For two decades, GIS-based learning environments have been discussed all over the world,
and several publications have attempted to establish the field on an international/ global scale
(MILSON et al. 2012; DONERT 2010; JEKEL et al. 2006-2011). We may therefore examine
whether the GI-based learning proposed fits into the concept of active spatial citizenship
education and relevant forms of knowledge. Forms of knowledge were initially classified by
Jürgen HABERMAS (1971) as technical, practical, or emancipatory. The technical type is
associated with instrumental knowledge – knowledge that can be used to find “true” and
explicit solutions to clearly defined problems of limited scope. Within traditional citizenship
education, we may think of handling problems by finding a “true” solution, such as locating
the institution (office) that can solve the problem. Practical knowledge is based on
understanding and more complex problems without a simple and “true” solution; however, the
problem presented may be solved within a given set of norms and rules, as in the case of a
classic participatory planning approach. Emancipatory knowledge in teaching would call for
active and democratic changes to the rules of spatial planning, for example, or their reflective
acceptance, basing on conscious reflection of rules in reconcilement with one’s own interests.
Human forms of knowledge can also provide a framework for knowledge acquisition/
learning and teaching (JEKEL 2007) and can be linked to citizenship education. We expect an
active spatial citizen to be competent in all three fields of knowledge according to
HABERMAS’ classification. How do current GI-based learning environments fare in this
respect? The analysis of contributions to the Learning with GI conference proceedings from
2006 through 2009 shows that GI in secondary education is only rarely used for emancipatory
interest in teaching (only 9 contributions) and, moreover, is strongly linked to a set of
technical competencies (45 contributions; GRYL et al. 2010, pp. 6). If we are to establish
learning with GI as part of an education that prepares the individual for active citizenship,
emancipatory aims must move to the centre of education. This can be done by paying
attention to society and public participation, strengthening the link to spatial communication,
rather than focusing on technical competencies.
Learning environments can also be discussed for the application domains of GISystems they
actually foster. For education purposes, Josef STROBL (2008) identifies three main application
domains (see Figure 1).
Spatial Citizen is a role that each and every citizen should accept. In order to fully participate
in society, a spatial citizen should be able to access, read, interpret, and critically reflect on
spatial information; communicate with the aid of maps and other spatial representations; and
express location-specific opinions using geo-media. We may consider spatial communication
ability an integral part of spatial citizenship, and therefore a main target for primary and
secondary education.
Spatial Analyst: Analysis, as a process of deriving information from data starts, from a
problem framed as a question. The problem can be as simple as finding the best route or
closest facility, or it may be much more complex, such as evaluating land-use suitability or
scenarios of climate-change impact. In more complex cases, analysis requires deep
conceptual, methodological, and technical understanding and, therefore, domain expert
knowledge. Basic forms of spatial analysis can be undertaken in upper secondary education,
but scientific spatial analysis is reserved for post-secondary levels.
A Spatial Information System Manager is involved in establishing systems and service
components for geospatial infrastructures, with a strong focus on IT. Again, the expert
knowledge required for this role is reserved for post-secondary education in most cases.
(based on STROBL 2008, pp. 135-136)
Fig. 1: Spheres of activities/ roles regarding GI (based on GRYL et al. 2010, fig. 1).
If we classify learning environments for GI-based learning into the three application domains
of spatial citizen, spatial analyst, and spatial information system manager, it is obvious that
the early technical argument can be linked to both the domain of the spatial analyst and that of
the spatial information system manager. The spatial thinking argument, to a large degree, was
based on the idea of the spatial analyst. Both domains are reserved to professionals educated
in post-secondary education. Applications for the spatial citizen, however, are largely missing.
We argue that everyday applications are at the core of secondary education.
2 Basic components of education for spatial citizenship
When defining spatial citizenship as ability, we deliberately identify three main contributing
areas of research: (1) appropriation of space through everyday practice as part of citizenship;
(2) links between spatial representations and, therefore, between GI and society; and (3)
citizenship education. All three fields contribute to the normative and theoretical foundations
of this concept. Out of these components, we develop a set of main aims for spatial
citizenship education that differ significantly from the traditional approaches to both
geography and citizenship education.
2.1 Appropriation of space
According to social geographers (MASSEY 1998; WERLEN 1993; PAASI 1986) and social
theorists (LEFEBVRE 1993), the appropriation of space takes place within the framework of
everyday social action. The phrase “appropriation of space” here denotes the process of
putting space to use to achieve individual or collective aims. This process requires the use of
power to impose meaning on space that is conducive to these aims. Meanings collectively
imposed on spaces can develop into explicit rules, which can be enforced and reproduced by
formal and informal institutions. WERLEN (1993) states that meaning and rules are connected
to physical objects through social action in different domains (productive–consumptive,
informative–significative, and normative–political). GI may play a role in all of these domains
– for example, through the guidance of consumption patterns via geo-social communities
(FISCHER 2012, forthcoming), the signifying power of spatial representations in participatory
spatial planning processes (PICKLES 2006), or the delineation of electoral entities according to
expected voter behaviour. In all these cases, spatial narratives (MASSEY 1998) are told that
potentially affect individual or collective behaviour.
For social scientists, analyzing the effects of everyday GI use constitutes an interesting
research agenda. In secondary education, we may look at a conception that makes the
appropriation of space intelligible for students. To this end, we explore possibilities to handle
meanings attached to space with the help of (geo-)media. Generally, we may handle these
meanings attached to space in one of two ways. On the one hand, individuals can accept
meanings unreflectively as given rules. On the other hand, by reference to the aims of
citizenship education, we would prefer to focus on a more emancipated version of
appropriation of space, one that allows for a conscious decision to either accept or challenge a
given meaning of space and that provides the tools to do so.
The multiplicity and dynamics of spaces allow for the second approach, the conscious
decision to accept or reject a given meaning. According to Anssi PAASI (1986), symbolic
shapes of everyday communication and regional institutions naturalize constructed meanings
and lead to an established region that functions as dominant narrative with widely accepted
rules. For the deconstruction of these narratives, we refer to Michel DE CERTEAU’s work on
social practice.
DE CERTEAU (1984) uses the term “strategic practices” to explain how these constructions are
naturalized by the socially accepted legitimacy of powerful institutions advocating certain
narratives. Individual attachments of meaning, because it is not communicated and accepted
by a broader collective and remains spontaneous and short range, are termed “tactical
practices,” the instruments of the powerless. The aim of citizenship education, then, would be
to develop students’ skills in devising “strategic practices,” enabling them to change and
negotiate meanings attached to space through the use of various (geo-)media.
2.2 Spatial information, representation, and society
Various authors have hinted at the fact that the role of (geo-)media is crucial to the
construction of meanings of the physical environment and, therefore, to the appropriation of
space. Henri LEFEBVRE (1993) delves into the matter through his discussion of the
representations of space; PAASI (1986) includes representation prominently in his discussion
of the conceptual/ symbolic shape of regions. A host of case studies based on diverse media
(film, news, images and cartography, classical (mass) media, media from the interactive web
2.0/ geoweb domain) enabled linking representation to the appropriation of space (FISCHER
2012, forthcoming; SCHLOTTMANN, MIGGELBRINK 2009).
With respect to the appropriation of space, we want to stress the term “geo-media,” defined as
media that use the spatial localization of information, that is, that use GI. Thus the category
“geo-media” includes all representations of space, covering a wide range of outputs from
verbal description to visualization. Both theoretical and empirical work suggest that media in
general and geo-media in particular set the stage for the appropriation of space by
contextualizing communication. Geo-media may naturalize constructions of space by
allowing absolute geographical references, displaying one of a multiplicity of constructions,
and hiding the variability of the attachment of meaning (WOOD 1993). They may therefore
lead to appropriation in the form of unreflective acceptance. Being competent in the critical
consumption of geo-media and the active production geo-media to communicate one’s own
interests is the basis for an emancipated appropriation of space. New digital forms
(volunteered geographic information, geo-social networks) allow for individual narratives
within one representation through the use of different layers. Modern geo-media thus may
also be an instrument for the negotiation of interests.
Several authors discuss the effect of representations of the social world rooted in absolute,
Euclidian space and statistics and their role in the control of the individual and in the power to
shape agendas and support specific interests (see, e.g., DUNCAN, LEY 1994; GREGORY 1994;
WOOD 1993). More closely related to digital representation is the exhaustive debate on the
role of GIS in society (see WILSON, POORE 2009; SCHUURMAN 2004; 2000; PICKLES 1995).
GIS in large part works as a tool to control citizens – for instance, to track the movements of
mobile-phone signals and to map criminality in a way of self-fulfilling prophecies, mistaking
the coexistence of extensive police operations and a high rate of detection of crimes as
unquestioned evidence for a crime rate higher than in other areas (BELINA 2010). This leads to
debates on spatial privacy (ARMSTRONG, RUGGLES 2005).
New forms of distribution and collection of GI with the broadening of online resources and
the rise of volunteered geography (GOODCHILD 2007) make both consumption and production
of geo-media available to almost everyone. While few studies to date have critically examined
the use and ideological background of social geo-media, we may consider media competence
the single most important competence for an informed appropriation of space. This
competence, therefore, is laid down in most curricula for secondary education (DEMIRCI 2009;
QCDA 2007; JOHANNSON 2006). However, there is no explicit mention of geo-media in these
curricula. Approaches involving reflective competences – a direct consequence from the
constructivist character of (geo-)media (see LUHMANN 1998), and therefore an important
component for an emancipatory appropriation of space – are also largely missing.
Approaches to spatial citizenship need to cover two concepts: reflection and reflexivity.
Reflection means one’s intellectual engagement with a certain thing; reflexivity means
engagement with one’s own action while doing so (BOURDIEU 1992). With respect to media
competence, reflection can be seen as a classical media critique and reflexivity as an
additional approach, not yet commonly found in secondary education (GRYL 2011).
Critical cartography and critical GIScience provide a basis for reflection and reflexivity in GIbased education. Both go beyond the map communication model (ROBINSON 1952), which
assumes the existence of an ideal map supplemented with a belief in a dichotomy between
ideal and manipulated maps. This concept, however, is still regularly used in secondary
education (see, e.g., GERSMEHL 2005; GRYL 2011).
Reflection may be based on J.B. HARLEY’s (1989) “Deconstructing the Map.” Drawing on the
theoretical approaches of Jacques DERRIDA’s (1998) philosophical praxis of deconstruction
and Michel FOUCAULT’s (1984) theories on discourses and power, “reflection” here means
revealing the construction process and political dimension as characteristic of any spatial
representation. Despite positivist tendencies and a distinct theoretical eclecticism (BELYEA
1992), Harley’s approach seems suitable for geo-media reflection in secondary education.
Beyond representation, critical GIScience (CRAMPTON 2009; PICKLES 2006; SCHUURMAN,
LESZCZYNSKI 2006; CRAMPTON 2001) has hinted at problems with ontology of the social
sphere. In contrast to the social-science sense of the term as “essence of being,” an “ontology”
in GIScience is “a formally defined set of objects in which all the potential relationships
between the objects are also well defined” (SCHUURMAN 2004, pp. 31). If we accept that
research methodology is directly linked to the object of research, reducing the ontology of the
social sphere to the computer-science definition of ontology is not possible. As a
consequence, traditional GIS contributes to a very technical sense of problem solving (JEKEL
2007) that does not further emancipatory aims of learning and reflection.
Reflexivity requires going beyond the focus on the medium and the author and directing
attention to the consumption process. Theories identifying maps as instruments for hypothesis
production instead of as products (CRAMPTON 2001; MACEACHREN 1992) are a starting point
for informed work with maps. Going beyond this concept, we draw additional attention to the
power relations involved in consumers’ construction of hypotheses based on geo-media
consumption. Spatial citizenship enables the student both to develop hypotheses from geomedia and to reflect on this process, taking into account the social realm. For example, when
looking for a place to stay during a vacation, you might use a map-based portal that includes
customer ratings of local services. From the location-based data and ratings, you develop a
hypothesis as to the attractiveness of a specific area. This hypothesis needs to be reflected
upon through awareness of the process whereby the underlying data were generated as well as
of your own subjective consumption of these data and your construction of meaning from
them.
The production of GI by lay people through the geoweb2.0 may make geo-media a more
democratic product, as it allows for competing absolute representations of space. However, a
systematic set of competencies is required to use collaborative geo-media as an instrument for
hypothesis generation, democratic negotiation, and public participation. These new
possibilities allow GI to be linked to citizenship education.
2.3 Citizenship education
Citizenship education is considered an essential dimension of education through which young
people become informed and active citizens of their society. However, citizenship education
is “contested territory” and has been subject to debate.
Citizenship itself has traditionally been defined in diverse ways (LEYDET 2006), with
emphasis on (a) the legal sphere, defined by civil, political, and social rights, in which the
citizen is a legal person free to act according to the law and having the right to claim the law’s
protection; (b) the institutional sphere, which looks at the citizen as a political agent who
participates in the society’s political institutions; and (c) the sphere of identity, in which
membership in a (political) community enables citizens to develop some sense of belonging to
a certain group.
All three concepts have been bounded by administrative borders. However, in light of the
effects of globalized communication, the integration of universal duties and rights in the
concept of citizenship, and the assumption of institutionalization of regions of differing scales
by human action, we may argue for a concept of citizenship devoid of geospatial territories
and the nation-state. In citizenship education, there remain concepts that emphasize the
institutional setup, the legal sphere, or a place/ region/ nation-based form of spatial
identification (DONERT 2008; CRITTENDEN 2007).
We suggest a more emancipatory approach to citizenship education. The idea of a postnational citizenship focuses on a universalist conception of citizenship, educating for
participation in a global civic society (BROOKS, HOLFORD 2009, pp. 94). It is argued that the
citizen today is linked not (only) into administrative entities such as states or communes but,
first and foremost, into discursive formations and virtual communities. Citizens belong to
spatially dispersed groups, accepting the rules and duties expected from group members. This
aim is true to the idea of the “actualizing citizen” (as opposed to the “dutiful citizen”;
BENNETT et al. 2009, pp. 107) who acts and participates through loose networks and uses
(social) digital media for communication. The digital natives are also changing learners’
relationships to civic knowledge and its components of authority, credibility, production–
consumption, and sharing of information (BENNETT et al. 2009, pp. 108).
W. LANCE BENNETT et al. (2009, pp. 118) argue for a distinct set of goals for citizenship
education for the generation of digital natives. They emphasize the need to include goals such
as identifying credible sources of non-official information, participatory media skills and
communication strategies, roles of online communities, and empowerment through
confidence in participatory skills, as necessary.
Tab. 1: Goals and examples of citizenship education in different dimensions (based on BENNETT et al.
2009; GRYL et al. 2010).
Because in most of the web2.0 tools mentioned above (1) a distinctly spatial representation is
now included and (2) the digital representation of space still adheres to the rules and
criticisms brought forward through the critical cartography/ critical GIScience discussion, we
suggest including the spatial domain in citizenship/ civic education. A rough definition of the
spatial citizen thus would include the following aspects: The “spatial citizen” has appropriated
the spatial domain of social life. She has the knowledge, skills, competencies, and abilities to
be able to access and make sense of (geo-)information in order to participate in democratic
processes and make decisions, taking into account the situations and circumstances she
encounters on a daily basis.
Table 1 compares the concepts of the dutiful citizen, the actualized citizen, and the spatial
citizen. It emphasizes that the concept of spatial citizenship is closely linked to the concept of
the actualized citizen, and therefore compatible with the web2.0 society.
3 Toward a participation-based inclusion of GI in education
If we accept the theoretical concepts mentioned above, spatial citizenship can be defined as
the ability to critically appropriate space by democratic means in order to participate in
society. This amounts to either critically and intentionally accepting the attachment of
meanings to certain tracts of land as they are collectively agreed upon or enforced by more
powerful sections of society, or actively participating in changing the meanings of certain
tracts of land by linking into the relevant democratic processes. Both approaches carry an
emancipatory understanding of learning and teaching, not taking the world for granted.
Within a spatial citizenship approach, uncritical acceptance of meanings or intuitively
constituted counter-meanings (tactical practices, DE CERTEAU 1984) will be replaced with
self-directed, intentional constructions, strategic practices that are open for debate, leading to
the creation of democratically negotiated regions.
Thus, spatial citizenship education is about learning how to navigate everyday life with
respect to (a) the physical world, (b) the meanings attached to the physical objects and
environment, and (c) the power relations involved in the production of meaning (including
GIS instruments to naturalize meaning as well as new forms of collaboration and negotiation
of meaning using web2.0 applications).
As described above, recent contributions to GI-based secondary education have focused either
on how to learn GIS in school or on how to support spatial thinking by using GIS as a support
tool. Seldom has such education been rooted in the needs of everyday life.
In contrast, spatial citizenship education will address these shortcomings. If we accept the
emphasis on communication as fundamental, a more detailed perspective is needed to design
suitable curricula that meet the goals of spatial citizenship. GI-based education in primary and
particularly secondary school should therefore focus on the following three components,
based on the characteristics of a spatial citizen as described above (see Figure 2):
Fig. 2: Competences for spatial citizenship.
a)
Technology/ methodology to handle spatial information
b)
Evaluation, reflection/ reflexivity regarding spatial information and representations
c)
Communication, participation, and negotiation with spatial representations
3.1 Technology/ methodology to handle spatial information
Participating in the process of spatial communication requires technological competencies,
including the ability to handle current geo-media. As technologies develop, requirements
vary. Thanks to the contemporary spread of GI-related web2.0 applications (e.g., digital maps
and virtual globes), in tandem with the simplification of applications, improvements in
usability, and lowering/ shifting costs of usage, access to professional geo-media and geomedia production tools has been enhanced. From the technological viewpoint, traditional
“map-reading and drawing skills” need to be revisited and adjusted: new technology broadens
the possibilities for the lay user, ranging from consumption to production of competitive geomedia in the framework of the GI tool. The spatial citizen, as opposed to spatial analysts and
spatial information system managers, is considered to have five competencies within the field
of technology/ methodology (see also STROBL 2008, pp. 136):
•
Consumption: map reading, orientation, and navigation
•
Analysis: using existing functionality to answer simple questions and fulfill singlestep analytical tasks; developing hypotheses from spatial representations
•
Prosumption: changing data selection and visualization within a certain degree of
freedom and participating by labeling, marking, and commenting
•
Production: contributing one’s own data and ideas
•
Social networking: being able to use decision-negotiation instruments on the
web2.0
It is here that many learning environments devised for the spatial thinking approach can be
used. The technical competencies, however, cannot be considered the final aim of an
education for active spatial citizenship; they must be considered preconditions for a reflective
appropriation of space and active participation in society.
3.2 Evaluation of and reflection/ reflexivity regarding spatial representations
This component relates to the “consumption” aspect of handling geo-media. The classical
consumption skills of “map reading”/ decoding must be extended by skills in the fields of,
first, deconstruction, and, second, conscious production of hypotheses. It is necessary to shift
from decoding absolute spatial representations to reading them as the representations of the
multiplicity of intentionally constructed relational spaces. This process can be termed
reflection and reflexivity of spatial representations. Both go beyond a mere intellectual
approach, requiring willingness to tolerate uncertainty and a reflective attitude as well.
•
Reflection: knowing about the naturalization of spaces in geo-media and applying
this knowledge to a certain spatial representations, comparing information with
pre-existing knowledge and other sources, identifying hidden and missing
information, thinking of alternative attachment of meanings and spatial scenarios
•
Reflexivity: knowing about one’s own hypothesis generation with geo-media;
reflecting on one’s own consumption processes; being aware of one’s own
construction of spatial scenarios based on medium, preconditions, and one’s own
interests; developing alternatives; deciding to accept spatial scenarios or promote
alternatives
Several applications for educational use of this concept have been and may be developed. For
instance, tourist maps can be analyzed according to the interests behind the definition of sites,
and can be supplemented with alternative ideas for sightseeing beyond staged touristic paths.
Locally adaptable geo-media examples relevant to everyday life are especially useful, but
reflecting on spatial representations referring to perspectives on the world is necessary as
well.
3.3 Communication, participation, and negotiation with spatial representations
In addition to technological and evaluative competencies, spatial citizenship calls for
competencies for active communication and participation strategies:
•
Expression: finding ways to convincingly communicate constructions of meanings
and alternative, non-mainstream spatial scenarios using GI
•
Communication:
sharing
ideas
and
meanings
with
the
intention
that
communication partners adopt them, either using institutionalized online and
offline communication paths or producing one’s own using the power of emerging
communities, especially on the web2.0
•
Negotiation: engaging and discussing in an interactive, non-linear process, trying
to reach compatible meanings in democratic negotiation acceptable to all
participants, using web2.0 technology as an option
Initial implementations for educational use in this respect have been developed for
participatory spatial planning. These consist either of an integration of Scribble Maps and
WordPress format to allow students to argue and develop visions using spatial representation
(HENNIG et al. 2011) or of online access through public data to comment on proposed changes
in land-use planning during the legislative process (ASAMER, JEKEL 2011) implemented with
ArcGISExplorer Online. While the latter is an open process in which individuals use
geovisualization to politically implement their planning visions, the former project comes
with a series of case studies that allow teachers to transfer a specific case study to their local
environment.
4 Summary
Spatial citizenship connects features of citizenship education with a mature appreciation of
space and its social construction under the conditions of a geo-media society. It draws on
critical GIScience analysis of the relations between society and GI. Specific strategies need to
be developed for working with geo-media in secondary education, strategies that go beyond
the technical competencies widely reproduced in many curricula. We need to enable students
to deconstruct meanings of space in geo-media with respect to geo-media’s subjective and
discursive background and to communicate their own world views as an expression of their
democratically negotiated interests. Spatial citizenship emphasizes the political qualities of
geo-media, in terms of its consumptive as well as productive facets, and takes citizenship
education beyond the territorially bounded concept of the dutiful citizen.
Spatial citizenship requires modifying teacher training. Such training should pay attention to
spatialities or different concepts of space, a constructivist understanding of spatial
representations, and a geo-media competence qualifying for a reflective reading and
production of geo-media. Recent initiatives toward this goal include two large European
Community–funded projects -digital-earth.eu (2010–2013) and spatial citizenship (2011–
2014)- aimed at implementing these ideas in secondary education through sets of spatially
transferable case studies that are thematically grounded and relevant to the daily lives of
learners.
References
ALLEN, C. (2004): Competencies (measurable characteristics). <http://ns.hr-xml.org/2_3/HRXML-2_3/CPO/Competencies.html> (pageview: 2011-01-15).
ARMSTRONG, M. P., RUGGLES, A. J. (2005): Geographic information technologies and spatial
privacy. In: Cartographica (The International Journal for Geographic Information and
Geovisualization) 2005, no. 4, pp. 63-73.
ASAMER, V., JEKEL, T. (2011): raum:plannen. An online learning environment for spatial
planning. In: JEKEL, T., KOLLER, A., DONERT, K., VOGLER, R. (eds.): Learning with GI
2011. Berlin, pp. 30-36.
BELINA, B. (2010). Crime mapping: Production of ideology and alternatives. In: JEKEL, T.,
KOLLER, A., DONERT, K., VOGLER, R. (eds.): Learning with GI V. Heidelberg, pp. 12-21.
BELYEA, B. (1992): Images of power: Derrida/ Foucault/ Harley. In: Cartographica (The
International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization) 1992, no. 2, pp.
1-9.
BENNETT, W. L., WELLS, C., RANK, A. (2009): Young citizens and civic learning: Two
paradigms of citizenship in the digital age. In: Citizenship Studies 13, no. 2, pp. 105-120.
BOURDIEU, P. (1992): Invitation to a reflexive sociology. Chicago.
BROOKS, R. M., HOLFORD, J. A. K. (2009): Citizenship, learning and education. Themes and
issues. In: Citizenship Studies 2009, no. 2, pp. 85-103.
CRAMPTON, J. W. (2009): Cartography. Maps2.0. In: Progress in Human Geography 2009, no.
2, pp. 99-100.
CRAMPTON, J. W. (2001): Maps as social constructions. Power, communication, and
visualization. In: Progress in Human Geography 2001, no. 2, pp. 235-252.
CRITTENDEN, J. (2007): Civic education. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civic-education.> (pageview: 2011-01-14).
DE CERTEAU, M. (1984): The practice of everyday life. Berkeley.
DEMIRCI, A. (2009): How do teachers approach new technologies? Geography teachers’
attitudes towards Geographic Information Systems (GIS). In: European Journal of
Educational Studies 2009, no. 1, pp. 43-53.
DERRIDA, J. (1998): Of Grammatology. Baltimore.
DIBIASE, D., DEMERS, M., JOHNSON, A., KEMP, K., LUCK, A., PLEWE, B., WENTZ, E. (22010):
Geographic information science and technology body of knowledge. Washington, DC.
DIBIASE, D., DEMERS, M., JOHNSON, A., KEMP, K., LUCK, A., PLEWE, B., WENTZ, E. (2006):
Geographic information science and technology body of knowledge. Washington, DC.
DONERT, K. (ed.) (2010): Using geoinformation in European geography education. Rome.
DONERT, K. (2008): Examining the relationship between citizenship and geography education.
In: LAMBRINOS, N., RELIOU, M. (eds.): European geography education. The challenges of
a new era. Arlington, pp. 73-92.
DONERT, K. (2007): Geoinformation in education. A European perspective. In: JEKEL, T.,
KOLLER, A., STROBL, J. (eds.): Learning with GI II. Heidelberg, pp. 2-19.
DUNCAN, J., LEY, D. (1994): Introduction. Representing the place of culture. In: DUNCAN, J.,
LEY, D. (eds.): Place/ culture/ representation. London, pp. 1-21.
FAVIER, T., SCHEE, J. VAN DER (2009): Learning geography by combining fieldwork with GIS.
In: International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 18, no. 4, pp.
261-274.
FISCHER F. (2012, forthcoming): Social navigation in urban public space. Interfacing
networked individualism and tangible urbanism. In: Space & Culture, pages pending.
FOUCAULT, M. (1984): The Foucault reader. New York.
GERSMEHL, P. (2005): Teaching geography. New York.
GOODCHILD, M. F. (2007): Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. In:
GeoJournal 2007, no. 4, pp. 211-221.
GREGORY, D. (1994): Geographical imaginations. Cambridge.
GRYL, I. (2011): ‘Interesting. But I haven’t thought of this before.’ Exploration on teachers’
attitude towards critical cartography in educational environments. In: JEKEL, T., KOLLER,
A., DONERT, K., VOGLER, R. (eds.): Learning with GI 2011. Berlin, pp. 19-29.
GRYL, I., JEKEL, T., DONERT, K. (2010): GI and spatial citizenship. In: JEKEL, T., KOLLER, A.,
DONERT, K., VOGLER, R. (eds.): Learning with GI V. Berlin, pp. 2-11.
HABERMAS, J. (1971): Knowledge and human interests. Boston.
HAKLAY, M. (2010): The end of the ‘ArcInfo driving licence’ era. In: Cartographica (The
International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization) 2010, no. 2, pp.
85-88.
HARLEY, J. B. (1989): Deconstructing the map. In: Cartographica (The International Journal
for Geographic Information and Geovisualization) 1989, no. 2, pp. 1-20.
HEGARTY, M. (2004): Dynamic visualizations and learning. Getting to the difficult questions.
In: Learning and Instruction 2004, no. 3, pp. 343-351.
HEGARTY, M., KHOOSHABEH, P., STULL, A. T., DARA-ABRAMS, D. (2011): Hegarty Spatial
Thinking Lab. <http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/~hegarty/index.php> (pageview: 2011-0114).
HENNIG, S., VOGLER, R., JEKEL, T. (2011): Web2.0 Anwendung zur partizipativen Planung
durch soziale Geokommunikation. In: GIS.Science 2011, no. 3, pp. 65-74.
JEKEL, T. (2007): ‘What you all want is GIS2.0’. Collaborative GI based learning
environments. Spatial planning and education. In: CAR, A., GRIESEBNER, G., STROBL, J.
(eds.): GI-Crossroads @GI-Forum. Heidelberg, pp. 84-89.
JEKEL, T., KOLLER, A., STROBL, J., DONERT, K., VOGLER, R. (eds.) (2006-2011). Learning
with GI I–VI. Heidelberg, Berlin.
JOHANNSON, T. (ed.) (2006): GISAS Project: Geographical information systems applications
for schools. Helsinki.
KERSKI, J. J. (2003): The implementation and effectiveness of Geographic Information
Systems technology and methods in secondary education. In: Journal of Geography 2003,
no. 3, pp. 128-137.
LEFEBVRE, H. (1993): The production of space. Oxford.
LEYDET, D. (2006): Citizenship. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. <http://plato.
stanford.edu/entries/citizenship/> (pageview: 2011-01-14).
LUHMANN, N. (1998): Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a. M.
MACEACHREN, A. M. (1992): Visualization. In: ABLER, R. F., MARCUS, M. G., OLSON, J. M.
(eds.): Geography’s inner worlds. New Brunswick, pp. 99-137.
MARSH, M., GOLLEDGE, R., BATTERSBY, S. E. (2007): Geospatial concept understanding and
recognition in G6 college students: A preliminary argument for minimal GIS. In: Annals
of the Association of American Geographers 2007, no. 4, pp. 696-712.
MASSEY, D. (1998): Power geometries and the politics of space-time. Heidelberg.
MILSON, A., KERSKI, J., DEMIRCI, A. (eds.) (2012): International Perspectives on Teaching and
Learning with GIS in Secondary Schools. New York.
MILSON, A., KERSKI, J., DEMIRCI, A. (2012): The world at their fingertips. GIS in secondary
education. In: MILSON, A., KERSKI, J., DEMIRCI, A. (eds.): International Perspectives on
Teaching and Learning with GIS in Secondary Schools. New York, pp. 1-11.
NRC (NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL) (2006): Learning to think spatially. GIS as a support
system in the K-12-curriculum. Washington, DC.
PAASI, A. (1986): The institutionalization of regions. A theoretical framework for
understanding the emergence of regions and the constitution of regional identity. In:
Fennia 1986, no. 1, pp. 105-146.
PICKLES, J. (2006): Ground Truth 1995–2005. In: Transactions in GIS 10, no. 5, pp. 763-772.
PICKLES, J., (ed.) (1995): Ground Truth. The social implications of Geographic Information
Systems. New York.
QCDA (QUALIFICATION
AND
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AGENCY) (2007): Geography key
stage 3 programme of study <http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/uploads/QCA-07-3334pGeography3_tcm8-400.pdf?return=/key-stages-3-and4/subjects/geography/index.aspx>
(pageview: 2011-01-13).
ROBINSON, A. H. (1952): The look of maps. Madison.
SCHLOTTMANN, A., MIGGELBRINK, J. (2009): Visual geographies. An editorial. In: Social
Geography 4, pp. 1-11.
SCHULZE, U., KANWISCHER, D., REUDENBACH, C. (2011): Competence dimensions in
Bologna-oriented GIS-education. In: JEKEL, T., KOLLER, A., DONERT, K., VOGLER R.
(eds.): Learning with GI 2011. Berlin, pp. 108-117.
SCHUURMAN, N. (2004): GIS. A short introduction. Oxford.
SCHUURMAN, N. (2000): Trouble in the heartland: GIS and its critics in the 1990s. In:
Progress in Human Geography 2000, no. 24, pp. 569-690.
SCHUURMAN, N., LESZCZYNSKI, A. (2006): Ontology-based metadata. In: Transactions in GIS
2006, no. 5, pp. 709-726.
STROBL, J. (2008): Digital earth brainware. In: SCHIEWE, J., MICHEL, U. (eds.):
Geoinformatics paves the highway to digital earth (= gi-reports@igf). Osnabrück, pp.
134-138.
TU HUYNH, N. (2008): Measuring and developing spatial thinking skills in students. In:
JEKEL, T., KOLLER, A., DONERT, K. (eds.): Learning with GI III. Heidelberg, pp. 116-125.
WERLEN, B. (1993): Society, action, and space: An alternative human geography. London.
WILSON, M. W., POORE, B. S. (2009): Theory, practice, and history in critical GIS: Reports on
an AAG panel session. In: Cartographica (The International Journal for Geographic
Information and Geovisualization) 2009, no. 1, pp. 5-16.
WOOD, D. (1993): The power of maps. London.