8th European GIS Education Seminar
6-9 September, 2012
GIS-education: Where are the boundaries?
Marianne Hubeau, Marinus de Bakker, Fred Toppen, Wolfgang Reinhardt,
Thérèse Steenberghen, Jos Van Orshoven (Editors)i©2012, first edition
ISBN 978-90-8826-258-6
Wettelijk depot D/2012/11.109/44
Printed in Leuven, Belgium by PROCOPIA
iii

SESSION 1: GI S&T CURRICULUM DESIGN & IMPLEMENTATION

1

EduMapping the evolution of an academic GI curriculum – the case of Geomatics at Delft
University F.I. Rip & E. Verbree

3

Tools and Methods for Defining an Industry-Validated Model GIS&T Program Curriculum
A. Johnson

13

6 universities, using the best for one nation-wide Geo-information minor
F. Toppen, M. de Bakker, M. Molendijk, W. ten Haaf, R. Lassche & W. Bakx

15

Curriculum Design Based on the UC GI S&T Body of Knowledge Supported by a Software Tool
I. Hossain & W. Reinhardt
19
Education in Geographical Information Science and Technology in Catalonia (2006-2009): A
quantitative overview X. Pons, P. Serra & M. Pou

27

The Italian landscape of Geomatics for the faculties of Agriculture: novelties from those who getused to play second fiddle E. Marcheggiani, A. Galli, G. Modica, M. Pollino, M. Sigura, M. Vizzari 37
SESSION 2: GI S&T VERSUS Geo-ICT: AN ARTIFICIAL BOUNDARY?

47

SESSION 3A: GI S&T-EDUCATION & SDI

49

National SDI portal and SDI education G. Beconytė & A. Balčiūnas

51

Software Tool Development for Higher Education on Geospatial Technology M. Ota

53

SESSION 3B: LIFE-LONG LEARNING OF GI S&T

63

IS-Training in Spatial Epidemiology: the Race Between Long-Term Distance Learning and ShortTerm Release of Open Source GIS Packages W. Hantson, E. Ducheyne & G. Hendrickx
65
A questionnaire to evaluate the GI job market in Flanders: first findings E. Verfaillie, B. De Wit, W.
Kellens, R. Maddens, N. Van de Weghe, V. Vanopbroecke, L. Zwartjes & P. De Maeyer
73
Creating a learning line on spatial thinking in education L. Zwartjes

87

SESSION 4: GI S&T-EDUCATION WITHOUT BOUNDARIES

97

Providing easy access to GIS students in north-south cooperation. A case study in Paraguay
I. Serral, X. Pons & L. Rejalaga

99

GIS Educational Cooperation: Helping from the North and Learning from the SouthP. Fdez-Arroyabe, L. Kankpenandja & V. Castillo

107

SESSION 5: EFFECTIVENESS AND QUALITY OF GI S&T-EDUCATION

115

Software-independent tutorials and their effectiveness for supervised self-study of GI S&T
M. Hubeau, A. De Meyer, T. Steenberghen, K. Van Balen & J. Van Orshoven

117

Measuring Learning Effectiveness of GIS Repetition Units - the GRAPE project
M. Niederhuber & S. Brugger

125

Personal Learning Styles of Students in GIS Distance Education as a Success Factor
A. Szablowska-Midor

127

POSTERLeGIO Tutorial in Cultural Heritage of Monuments and Sites: open GIS e-learning
O. Vileikis, M. Hubeau, V. Heras, K. Van Balen & A. Vandesande

137
139
v

Session 1: GI S&T Curriculum Design& Implementation

EduMapping the evolution of an academic GI curriculum – thecase of Geomatics at Delft University
Frans I. Rip1 & Edward Verbree2
1 Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands
2 Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands

ABSTRACTThis paper shows how EduMapping was used, in combination with Learning Outcomes, to describe
the differences between versions of the Geomatics MSc programme at Delft University ofTechnology. With EduMapping labels, radar diagrams and centroid maps the changes in teachingcontent are visualized. The Learning Outcomes of each version were used experimentally to find out if
the aimed for performance level of the students also changes. This experiment resulted in a change oflevel, but it is uncertain if it was caused by programme changes or by lack of conformity to the format
rules.

INTRODUCTION
The MSc Geomatics programme1 at Delft University of Technology is judged favourably by thestudents2 and by its alumni. Also the staff-members involved in this MSc Geomatics programme arevery motivated to educate the students at a very high level and to incorporate research activities into
their teaching. So, it is not surprising that the latest visitations showed good marks for the programme,
the facilities, and the quality of the education. The only thing is: throughout the last decades thenumber of registered students did not match the expectations and the potential. Despite a lot ofmarketing efforts, BSc students just didn’t become aware of the existence of MSc Geomatics at Delft
University of Technology.
To avoid threatening discontinuation of the programme, it was decided to shift Delft’s MSc
Geomatics programme from its current inter-faculty status to an independent programme, hosted by
the Faculty of Architecture at Delft University of Technology. With regard to content, the MSc
Geomatics programme will be of a more applied nature by a stronger focus on the built environment inorder to make it more attractive for potential students. Besides, this update of the curriculum will
increase the workability (“studiability”) of the programme by a modular course setup. The newversion of the programme (Verbree and Lemmens 2012) was developed during 2011 and early 2012.
To help guard the quality of the curriculum during the update, EduMapping (Rip and Van Lammeren,2010) was applied. This method includes a simple tool3 to relate the components of the curriculum to a
description of the GI domain: the Geographic Information Science & Technology Body of Knowledge(DiBiase et al. 2006), hereafter referred to as “GI-BoK”.
EduMapping had been used in Delft to characterize the proposed (2011) and the final version (2012)of the programme. For this paper that was the opportunity to try answer the question: how does the
EduMapping content characterization represent the three versions of the programme?

1

http://home.tudelft.nl/en/study/master-of-science/master-programmes/geomatics/
The Geomatics programme at Delft University of Technology came out 3rd in the 2011 edition of the “Keuzegids Hoger
Onderwijs” (N.N., 2011), listing the student’s appreciation for academic master programmes in the field of earth sciences,
geography and environmental sciences in the Netherlands.
3
The EduMapping Toolkit: http://www.geo-informatie.nl/rip001/EduMapping/EduMapping.html
23

Figure 1: EduMapping label for Geomatics for the Built Environment 2012

Changes in a teaching programme typically means: introduction of new subjects and / or expansionof the time spent to existing subjects and letting go of obsolete subjects, while the overall programme
size remains unchanged. The values in the time/subject matrix, summarized in a label (Fig.1), make iteasier to keep track of the consequences of the pruning and grafting process of programme change. In
a compact way it shows how the study load of the programme is distributed across subject areas.
During preparation of this paper, a second question arose: how is the evolution of Geomatics
reflected in the Learning Outcomes? That is important because they indicate the aimed-for capability
level of the future graduates, so the impact of programme changes should be watched. The answers to
the questions are relevant for GI curriculum managers and GI teaching programme directors.

Profile of Geomatics for the Built Environment
The web pages of the 2-year 120 credits4 programme describe it as follows (May 4, 2012):“In the first year, you will take the Common Core courses as well as courses from the various
Application Domains. The Common Core provides a strong foundation to all students byteaching the fundamentals of data gathering, processing, analysing, and visualisation. Covered
topics include ‘Positioning and Location Awareness’, ‘Geographical Information Systems andGeovisualisation’, ‘3D Modelling of the Built Environment’, ‘Geo Datasets and Quality’,‘Geo Databases Management Systems’, ‘GeoWeb Technology, ‘Spatial Decision Support’,and ‘Geo-information Organisation and Legislation’.
The application domains are sets of interlinked courses meant to broaden and/or deepen thestudents’ knowledge in one of the many Geomatics application fields: Urban Analysis,
Asset/Facility Management, Water management, Hydrography, Remote Sensing and othergeo-related fields. If you need to update your knowledge in Mathematics, Computer Scienceor basic geographical courses you can use a portion of the application domain credits to follow
convergence courses.”“In the second year, students can choose to undertake the Geomatics Synthesis Project orfollow additional courses from one of the Application Domains. The Synthesis Project allows
you to combine knowledge from the core programme and apply it to a real-world project while
gaining hands-on experience in project management. The MSc in Geomatics is concluded withan individual graduation project that takes about 9 months to complete.”

4

In Europe, a ‘credit’ represents a study load between 26 and 28 hours. In full: ECTS, European Credit Transfer andAccumulation System

4

The courses in the Common Core part take up 45 credits. This is the part that can be mapped to GIBoK. The GI-component in the various application field courses or supporting convergence courses
varies. It has not been mapped. Together, their study loads are 30 credits. The individual graduation
project represents another 45 credits. It is important to note that only the Common Core part of the
programme could be mapped to GI-BoK. The non-mappable 75 credits are booked as ‘generic’ GI.

METHOD
Use of EduMapping implies acceptance of a limited set of concepts to describe the contents of ateaching programme: the GI Body of Knowledge with its hierarchical structure of hundreds of Topics
organized in some 70 Units across 10 Knowledge Areas. Use of EduMapping results in a matrix,
showing amounts of study load (in credits) against subject areas. In the present version of the tool, aGI programme could be mapped to GI-BoK on the Units-level of detail. Edumappings of all three
versions of the programme were made by Edward Verbree, programme manager of the present versionof the Geomatics curriculum. The sets of Learning Outcomes of the 2010 version of the programme
and the 2012 version were written by the teaching staff. For the proposal-version of 2011 no Learning
Outcomes were formulated.

Edumappings comparison
The primary outcome of applying EduMapping is the label. It shows the distribution of study load incredits per content category. The four categories show: which share of the programme can be linked
with GI-BoK Knowledge Areas, which share is clearly GI but not present in GI-BoK, which share is
GI but cannot be linked to specific GI-subjects (hence: “generic”), and finally the share of the
programme which is clearly not GI.
The first category, GI in BoK, provides most details. This invites further comparison. The
quantitative nature of the edumappings allows a straightforward tabular comparison of the study load
values per GI-BoK subject for the three versions. The 2011 version and the 2012 version of the
programme were assessed on the level of GI-BoK-Units, but the 2010 version was assessed on the lessdetailed Knowledge Area level. This makes Knowledge Areas the preferred level of detail forcomparing the three versions of the curriculum.
Please note that the assessment activity, required to produce the figures, is less straightforward.
There clearly is an element of subjectivity involved, as was indicated in (Rip and Van Lammeren2010). Sensitive parts of the process are the assignment of GI-BoK items to parts of the programme
description, and also the quantification of their share of the whole.
The figures resulting from the assessments allow arithmetical processing and enable graphicalpresentation. Two types of visualization were created with Microsoft Excel: a Radar diagram andScatter diagrams. For this purpose, the GI-in-BoK category in each label was taken to represent 100%of the programme. For that purpose the scores per Knowledge Area were recalculated to their part of100%. This gives normalised shares for the dedication of study load to each of the Knowledge Areas.
The Radar diagram shows the 10 GI-in-BoK values by a polyline. Comparing different versions of
the programme then means: check in which of the ten directions which polygon has higher or lower
values. However, doing this for more than a few polylines soon becomes too complex.

5

To reduce the complexity of comparing more than a few polylines, their centroids can be calculated.
The Scatter diagram was used to show the positions of the centroids of the three Geomatics versions ina two coordinate reference system. For this spatialization purpose, a little data processing was
required: grouping, value addition per group and centroid calculation. This process was explained in(Rip and Van Lammeren 2010), and it is included in the EduMapping Toolkit.
Scatter diagrams were also made of the centroid coordinates for the individual modules of eachversion of the programme, altogether about 40 of them.

Comparison by means of Learning Outcomes
Nowadays, in the European Higher Education Area, Learning Outcomes (LO) are essential todescribe qualifications to be obtained at third level institutions. LO’s are defined as a statement ofwhat a learner is expected to know, understand, and/or be able to demonstrate after completion of aprocess of learning. The standardized format of a set of LO’s starts with the phrase “On successful
completion of this module, students should be able to:”, followed by descriptive triplets of the form:
active verb – object – context for each LO (Kennedy 2007). It is recommended to formulate four to six
LO’s for a teaching module. In each LO, only one action verb should be used. A guide to help whichverb to choose can be the non-exhaustive lists of verbs for each of the six stages of Bloom’s taxonomy(fig. 2). These 6 stages represent performance levels, for which learners could acquire the ability.
Bloom also defined performance levels for the affective domain and the psychomotor domain, but here
only the cognitive domain is relevant.

Figure 2: The first stage of Bloom’s Taxonomy, with suitable active verbs (Kennedy, 2007)

For the Delft Geomatics MSc programme, LO’s were available for the 2010 and the 2012 version of
the programme. They were experimentally processed as follows. For each LO it was determined towhich performance level the action verb belonged. In a number of cases, the LO contained more than
one action verb, in which case the one belonging to the highest performance level was chosen to
represent the LO. The other two components of the LO, the object and the context, were not taken into
consideration. The performance level for a group of LO’s (ideally 5 LO’s per module) was calculated
by simply averaging the set of values. This approach produced performance values for the individual
modules. For the programmes, the values for their individual modules were also averaged.
It appeared, that the LO format rules have not been followed very closely when making LO’s for the
Geomatics 2010 version. For some 2010-modules, this required a more than average amount ofinterpretation by the authors to decide which active verb(s) might give a fair representation of theteaching intention of those modules. Then the number of the appropriate Bloom-stage was taken to
represent the performance level for that LO.
6

RESULTS
EduMapping products
Three types of results were available from the collected EduMapping excel sheets.
1. Labels. The values in the labels of the three versions are shown in Table 1.
2. Radar diagrams. The visualisations of the In-BoK categories (columns ‘c’ in Table 1) are in
Figure 3.
3. Centroid coordinates. They were also calculated for the c-columns in Table 1.Their values areshown in scatter plots in Figures 4 and 5.
Figure 4 shows the centroids of the Knowledge Area scores for the EduMappings of the threeprogramme versions in a two-dimensional space (explained in Rip & Van Lammeren 2010). The
horizontal axis (x) reaches from all time spent on Society & Organisation subjects (left) to all timespent on Concept/Methods/Tools subjects. The vertical axis (y) reaches from all time spent on
Physical Reality (top) to all time spent on Presentation (bottom). The resulting centroid coordinates
were: x:6.03, y:8.87 for 2010; x:0.65, y:11.76 for 2011; 7.93,10.33 for 2012.
Figure 5 combines the centroid representing a version of the whole programme with the centroids
representing the individual modules of the programme. It shows the centroid clouds for the three
Geomatics editions.
Table 1: Values in the labels resulting from EduMappings made by E.Verbree. The values in the columns marked ‘c’ wereused for visualisation in radar diagrams and for calculation of the centroid coordinates.
Geomatics 2010
Geomatics 2011
Geomatics 2012
– for the built environment(concept for 2012)
c.
c.
c.
a.
b.
a.
b.
a.
In-BoK
In-BoK
In-BoK
ECTS
share =100
ECTS
share
ECTS
b. share
=100
=100
GI
in BoK
AM
CF
CV
DA
DM
DN
GC
GD
GS
OI

47.0
7.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
4.5
3.0
3.0
11.0
6.0
4.0

GI
Not in BoK

10.0

8%

6.0

5%

0.0

0%

Generic

56.0

47%

60.0

50%

75.0

62.5%

Not GI

7.0

6%

3.0

3%

0.0

0%

sum

120

100%

120

100%

120

100%

39%
6%
3%
3%
2%
4%
3%
3%
9%
5%
3%

14.9%
6.4%
6.4%
5.3%
9.6%
6.4%
6.4%
23.4%
12.8%
8.5%

100%

51.0
5.5
2.0
5.0
2.0
11.0
0.0
2.5
12.0
3.0
8.0

43%
5%
2%
4%
2%
9%
0%
2%
10%
3%
7%

10.8%
3.9%
9.8%
3.9%
21.6%
0.0%
4.9%
23.5%
5.9%
15.7%

100%

45.0
6.2
4.9
2.8
3.6
4.5
3.4
1.9
10.1
4.3
3.4

37.5%
5%
4%
2%
3%
4%
3%
2%
8%
4%
3%

13.7%
10.9%
6.3%
8.0%
10.0%
7.5%
4.2%
22.3%
9.5%
7.6%

100%

7

Figure 3: Three overlaid Radar diagram polylines representing the three versions of the Geomatics programme, as mapped on
10 GI-BoK Knowledge Areas by E.Verbree.

Figure 4: The centroids of the Knowledge Area scores for the three EduMappings in a two-dimensional space.

Figure 5: The clouds of centroids for the individual modules of the 3 Geomatics programmes

8Learning Outcomes
Lists with LO’s were available for the 2010 version and the 2012 version of Geomatics (Verbree andLemmens 2012).
The analysis of the learning Outcomes per unit in the core programme resulted in the following
average values for the performance levels of students that successfully completed the units.
Table 2: Overview of the intended student performance level for Geomatics 2010 and 2012 versions, based on the available
Learning OutcomesCore programme MSc Geomatics 2010 – 29 ECTS

Core programme MSc Geomatics 2012 – 45 ECTS

GM1050. GIS Principles and Applications
GM1080. Geo Database Management Systems
GM1090. Introduction Geomatics
GM1210. Location Based Services
GM1240. Imaging Remote Sensing
CIE4521. Multivariate Data Analysis
CIE4522. Satellite Navigation
2.5
GE4662. Org. and Legal Aspects of Geo-Inf.

Overall average performance level (scale 1-6): 3.1

GM.1 Sensing Technologies for the Built Env. 1.0
GM.2 GIS and Cartography
4.8
GM.3 Positioning and Location Awareness
4.2
GM.4 3D Modelling of the Built Environment
5.6
GM.5 Spatial Decision Support for Planningand Crisis Management
4.4
GM.6 Geo Database Management Systems
4.3
GM.7 Geo Web, Sensor Networks and3D-Geo Visualisation Technology
3.8
GM.8 Geo Datasets and Quality
3.8
GM.9 Geo-information Org. and Legislation
5.2
Overall average performance level (scale 1-6): 4.1

Remarks:
For 9 modules there were 15 content descriptions,interpreted as 25 LO’s. The LO-format was not usedin 5 descriptions.

Remarks:
Nr. of active verbs: 79 in 40 LO’s. Maximum was 4
verbs in one LO. Most verbs were in vocabularyoffered by Kennedy (2007).

4.2
1.5
2.0
3.8
2.7
2.3
6.0

FINDINGS
The objective of this paper is to show the usefulness of the EduMapping method for concise
description of GI teaching programmes and, in spite of that compactness, be able to compare theircontents. The focus here is on showing a few steps in the evolution of the Geomatics MSc programme
at Delft University of Technology. The findings from the two views on the programme versions aredescribed below.

Edumappings
The comparison of labels in Table 1 shows many figures. Looking at the four horizontal maincategories, it is clear that the study load of the GI-in-BoK category stays under 40% of the
programme. In the 2011-proposal its share was 43%, an increase that apparently did not survive
discussion. A second remark is, that in the 2012 edition of Geomatics no time is spent to GI subjects
that are Not-in-BoK, or to subjects that are not GI. However, the textual description of the programmeon the website shows that supportive courses could be taken in for instance mathematics or computerscience. And that part of the Common Core is a module on GeoWeb Technology, which is not alengthy item in GI-BoK. The programme allows students to follow an individually profiled sequenceof modules. The use of EduMapping requires specific choices, otherwise links to BoK-items cannot be
made. So the focus on the Common Core part is in fact too narrow to show the full spectre of the9

programme. Nevertheless, the GI-in-BoK category shows a nice subdivision of how the study load
touches on all Knowledge Areas, and how it differs between the versions of the programme.
Figure 3, the Radar diagram, shows superimposed polylines for the GI-in-BoK category of eachprogramme version. More pregnant than in Table 1 it shows the proposed changes in 2011 for the
Knowledge Areas Data Modelling (DM), Data Manipulation (DN) and Organizational andInstitutional Aspects (OI).
Figure 4 shows the centroid positions for the three Geomatics versions. On this aggregation level,the 2012 version is pretty close to the 2010 version. The 2011 version was a little more data oriented
and had a considerably stronger orientation towards Society and Organisation.
Figure 5 shows all three versions in separate plots, with the centroid positions representing theirindividual modules. The point cloud provides more context. It shows for instance that Geomatics 2010
had three modules in the left half of the plot, whereas Geomatics 2012 only has one. This explains
why in Fig.4 the 2012 centroid position is a little more to the right than the 2010 centroid.

Learning OutcomesAt first sight, Table 2 shows that Geomatics 2012 aims for a 25% higher overall average
performance level by its graduates. This generates questions: For which subjects? and: Is it plausible?
To answer the first question a comparison of the EduMapping labels of the Geomatics versions is
helpful, because it shows how much of the study load is directed at which GI-BoK subject. There, thedifferent module names and the different number of modules play no role.
To answer the second question it is relevant to look at the Learning Outcomes themselves. In thiscase it appears that especially of the Geomatics 2010 LO’s many were not LO format compliant. In the
non-compliant cases, the active verbs were chosen by the authors, based on the provided sentences.
The teaching staff might have chosen other active verbs, having in mind how they would examine andtest the student’s progress. Therefore, the calculated performance level values for Geomatics 2010
cannot be trusted. The change from value 3.1 to value 4.1 is not entirely credible, due to the quality of
the 2010 Learning Outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The preceding chapters of this paper showed how a GI curriculum could be characterized by making
EduMapping assessments and by using the Learning Outcomes. In the opinion of the authors thisapproach is useful for programme management and to provide GI programme information toprospective students, GI employers and professional GI organizations.
However, remarks must be made about a number of limitations to the application of these methods.

Assessor subjectivity
The subjectivity in selecting a GI-BoK item and a time share to represent an aspect of a course orprogramme is unavoidable. Also, LO writing is prone to subjectivity. In this case, the edumappings
were done by the person now carrying responsibility as programme director. The advantage here is in
the fact that this person has also been involved with two earlier versions of the MSc programme,
which implies a certain continuity and experience in linking teaching content to GI-BoK.
10

If this is better than a collection of edumappings made by different persons might be the subject ofanother paper. Asking individual members of staff to make edumappings for modules they teachwould introduce the impact of personal differences in interpretation, skill (familiarity with GI-BoK)and attitude (patience to assign study loads to parts of an existing programme).
The authors see the following strategies to deal with subjectivity:
EduMapping assessments and LO formulation should be done by the person closest to theactual teaching. This would cause the transfer of as much of the teacher’s experience andplans as possible into the results.
If GI-BoK could be compared to a language, than it would be best for the international GI
community to learn that language, teach it, and use it to set up GI courses from the start. This
would reduce the need to translate to and from GI-BoK.
At this place, it seems good to point at the fact that the most detailed level of GI-BoK, the Topics,
consists of LO-like sentences, more than 1600 in total. In GI-BoK they are referred to as “formal
educational objectives” (DiBiase et al. 2006, p.30). They are surprisingly similar to the Kennedy’s
LO’s: they also start with an active verb. The GI-BoK Topics offer a wealth of LO-like sentences foreach of the GI-BoK Knowledge Areas.
Use subjectivity by asking less involved colleagues, or even colleagues from abroad, to makean EduMapping assessment of the same course and formulate LO’s for it. Then discuss theresulting differences. These discussions might bring out different opinions on the focus of thecurriculum, hidden implicit assumptions or local terminology. That should lead to adaptationof the course description.

GI-BoK imperfections
At the AGILE5 conference 2012 in Avignon, France, one of the authors of this paper did a short poll
about GI-BoK during a presentation with about 100 people present. It appeared that 80-90% wasaware of GI-BoK, about 50% was familiar with it, and about 10% liked it. It seems justified to criticise
GI-BoK for a diversity of reasons (usability, content, up-to-dateness). Reinhardt (2011) did so.
However, this should not lead to dismissal of that work. It has been a point of departure for the
Geospatial Technology Competence Model published by the United States Ministry of Labor(DOLETA 2010). It also was the basis for on-going “foundational research” (Ahearn et al. 2012).
This research is funded by the American National Science Foundation. The objective is to develop a
successor “GIS&T BoK2” with a web 3.0 character. The GI Body of Knowledge does have a future!
In this situation, the recommendation of the authors is to make do with the paper version of GI-BoK,
for now. Build up experience and familiarity and in this way prepare for BoK2.

Context
The concept of EHEA, the European Higher Education Area, ensures that teaching in Europe will
become more coherent between countries. The European Qualification Framework is a translator toconnect teaching levels in one country to those in another country by means of Learning Outcomes. Of
course a disciplinary reference is also needed. GI-BoK could be just that for GI Education.

5

AGILE: Association of GIS Laboratories in Europe. Membership in 2012: 89 in 23 countries.

11

EduMapping can help to convert existing programme and course descriptions to GI-BoK referenced
descriptions. In that way a “common ground” could be created for all actors in the GI education field.
In the Netherlands, an important actor is CROHO, the central register for third level education,agency of the Ministry for Education. If an already accredited programme like Geomatics wants to
update or refocus, CROHO asks NVAO, the national accreditation organisation, to check if theintended changes stay within bounds. This visitation of the Geomatics for the Built Environment
programme will take place before the end of 2012. The authors expect that the EduMapping results
will help to satisfy the visitation committee that the change in identity of the programme does not
require re-accreditation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahearn, S.C., DeMers, M., Plewe, B., Skupin, A., Datta, R. & Icke, I., 2012. Geographic information
science and technology bok2: Foundational research. AGILE 2012 Preconference Workshop"Views on the Body of Knowledge". Avignon, France, 2p.
http://www.geo-informatie.nl/rip001/edumapping/AGILE%202012-Ahearn.pdf
DiBiase, D., Demers, M., Johnson, A., Kemp, K., Taylor Luck, A., Plewe, B. & Wentz, E. eds. 2006.
Geographic information science & technology body of knowledge, Washington, D.C.:
Association of American Geographers.
Doleta, 2010. Geospatial technology competency model: Employment and Training Administration,
US DoL.
Kennedy, D., 2007. Writing and using learning outcomes, a practical guide. Cork, Ireland: University
College Cork.
N.N., 2011. Keuzegids masters 2011: Centrum Hoger Onderwijs Informatie, Leiden.
Reinhardt, W., 2011. Geoinformatics education in different disciplines - challenges - approaches andexperiences. In Hubeau, M., Steenberghen, T., Van Balen, K., Van Orshoven, J. & Vileikis, O.
eds. LeGIO Workshop. Leuven, Belgium: LeGIO Workshop, 18 November 2011,
K.U.Leuven, 21-28.
Rip, F.I., 2011. GI-education: The impact of edumapping. In Hubeau, M., Steenberghen, T., Van
Balen, K., Van Orshoven, J. & Vileikis, O. eds. LeGIO Workshop. Leuven, Belgium: LeGIO
Workshop, 18 November 2011, K.U.Leuven, 3-12.
Rip, F.I. & van Lammeren, R.J.A., 2010. Mapping geo-information education in Europe. Proceedings
ISPRS Mid-Term Symposium Commission VI - Cross-Border Education for Global GeoInformation, Enschede, The Netherlands, 2 - 4 June, 2010, Enschede, The Netherlands, 6p.
Verbree, E. & Lemmens, M.J.P.M., 2012. Curriculum MSc Geomatics for the Built Environment final concept: Delft University of Technology.

12

Tools and Methods for Defining an Industry-Validated Model
GIS&T Program CurriculumJohnson, A.
National Geospatial Technology Center of Excellence – GeoTech

A great deal of effort has been expended to determine what skills and competencies should be
included in curriculum for a broadly defined GIS&T profession. The recently published Teaching
Geographic Information Science and Technology in Higher Education (2012) discusses this topic in
depth including past efforts to better define the competencies needed by its workforce and thecurriculum needed to prepare graduates for this industry. This presentation will cover one of these
efforts in the USA lead by the National Geospatial Technology Center of Excellence (GeoTech
Center).
The GeoTech Center, funded by USA National Science Foundation, focuses on two-year college
GIS&T programs to expand the quantity and quality of graduates. In order to develop curriculum
guidelines, the GeoTech Center needed to establish what specific skills and competencies a graduate
seeking entry level employment in GIS&T needed to possess.
The USA Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration (DOLETA) developed aDraft Geospatial Technology Competency Model (GTCM, 2009). A Competency Model provides aframework for listing foundational and technical skills and competencies needed by economicallyimportant industry.
The GeoTech Center volunteered to collaborate with the DOLETA to finalize the Draft GTCM.
David DiBiase convened a panel of industry experts and under his guidance, came to a concensus on
the GTCM which was approved in the summer of 2010. While the GTCM provides a good framework for the industry, it does not specify the competencies for a specific occupation. The GeoTech
Center, focusing on entry-level geospatial occupations, held several DACUM events. DACUM stands
for Developing A Curriculum and is a process of bringing together 10 to 12 expert workers under theguidance of a facilitator (John Johnson) to identify what they do and what they need to know for theiroccupation.
One criticism of the process is that it is time and place specific. To overcome that objection, Johnson
created a new methodology to combine the output of multiple DACUMs and have them validated byworking GIS&T professionals. The Meta-DACUM was then compiled into a list of approximately 320
skills and competencies. The next step was to bring together faculty teaching GIS&T programs to help
define how this list of competencies could be covered in a program. More than 70 educators
participated in multiple one-day workshops to define what competencies at what depth should be
included in each Model Course. Four courses have been completed including a stand alone “Spatial
Awareness course” and the first 3 courses (Introduction to Geospatial Technology, Spatial Analysis
and Data Management and Acquisition) in an 8 course Model Certificate Program. Three more Model
Course workshops are scheduled for March and June (Introduction to Remote Sensing, Cartography
and Visualizatio n, and Programming and Application Development). Each Model Course includes asyllabus, outline, evaluation rubric and other resources. All are available free at
http://geotechcenter.com. A Program Assessment Tool was also created and is currently available as
an Excel Spreadsheet. This Assessment Tool can be used by current programs to see how they alignwith the suggested needed skills and competencies and may be useful for comparing programs at
different institutions.
13

6 universities, using the best for one nation-wide Geo-information
minor
Toppen, F.1, de Bakker, M.2, Molendijk, M.3, ten Haaf, W.4, Lassche, R.3 & Bakx, W.5
1

2

Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Groningen University, The Netherlands
3Free University, The Netherlands
4
WUR, The Netherlands
5
ITC/TU Twente, The Netherlands

Seven universities (Free University, Amsterdam; Delft University, Groningen University, University
Twente, University Utrecht and Wageningen University) in the Netherlands offer at the moment
several courses in Geo-information (GI) education at both Bachelor and Master level.
As foreseen in the Bologna education and from several discussions lead by SAGEO (the Dutchcooperation between GI educational institutes and the employers) we decided to develop a national
minor in GI.
The minor aims at the best of the different universities by using best practices and each specificflavours and specializations.
The presentation will discuss several aspects:
How to decide the objectives and contents of the minor? The results of different interviews
and questionnaires with possible students are shown
What is needed for marketing of the minor?
How do you develop together a minor?
How do you deal with the financial and administrative issues?

Ad 1
More than 5 meetings where necessary in order to speak each other language. Although the
Netherlands is a small country and some of us know each other for a long time, it was necessary to
exchange the contents of the course and methods and formats of education.
We discussed two major groups of expected students: students without any preliminary GI
education and our own students with some GI introductory education. After making of a shortstatement, including different titles of the minor, interviews were done with prospective students,
showing the material. Results indicated that the first group was very difficult to make thementhousiastic. The gap with the possible needs and interests in GI and the offer of the minor was toolarge.

Ad 2 Marketing
The minor is meant to students with some background in GIS, in general based on an introductory
course at their faculty. However, also other students from various other disciplines than the traditional
ones are an interesting target group. The major problem is how to target both groups, not only because
both groups differ in GI knowledge and skills, but because of the problem how to find the nontraditional groups. Their awareness of the discipline is poor and their interest is often rather specific,

15

based on an idea that they are working with spatially referenced data but are missing a tool to handle
it.
Important in this context is SAGEO. They are able to support the development group withknowledge on marketing, contacts with professionals (the potential employers) and access to target
groups. For marketing purposes, also the results of the interviews with prospective students have beenused. Among the issues was the name of the GI-minor. It seemed that fancy names, such as “GI4you”,
were by far the least popular. This is the reason to choose for the straightforward option“Geoinformation minor”.

Ad 3 Course development
It took quite some time, as indicated above, to find a common basis to decide to start developing theminor. Once all partners decided to “go for it”, other issues to agree on were the intended audience,
objectives, structure and size of the modules, the mix of theory and practice, the number and type ofguest lectures and the balance between existing and new material, the organizational “home” of theminor and which institutes were at the end really willing and able to actively participate. Once this wasset, the contents of the GI minor became the prime focus.
About the structure, it was decided for a 30 ECTS minor with four modules The first two modules
were about geo data acquisition and GI analysis and visualization. The third module gives theopportunity to make a choice for one of the existing specialization modules at the participating
universities. Examples of such choices are location based services, remote sensing, and GI and spatial
accessibility and networks. The fourth module is a case study, possibly in conjunction with aninternship.
Developing takes time and time is scarce, also for those involved in developing this minor.
However, there was a clear need to come with a rather detailed course plan, with for each module acomplete list with topics, lectures, literature, lab activities and assignments and case studies. It was
expected that allocating homework to individuals would not be efficient and would not provide theunique opportunity to base the new minor on each others strengths. The solution was found in socalled pressure cooking meetings (PCM). Two of those meetings took place in early 2012, one in
January (two subsequent days) and one in February (one day).
The first PCM was used to first decide on a common structure of the first two modules in terms of
issues such as teaching days, the number of contact hours and so on. Once decided, groups of lecturers
worked together on the contents the two basic modules and the fourth module. During the two days,
feedback on each others progress took place as well as discussion on a common issues such as course
level and which textbook to use. After the first PCM, the body of the two introductory modules was
agreed on.
During the second PCM, the results of the first PCM was evaluated, followed by filling in the gaps,
identifying and solving the overlaps and working out each modules in terms of (guest) lectures, lab
sessions, assignments and case study.

Ad 4 Financial and administrative issues
During the second PCM, the marketing approach was discussed and input was provided for website
and brochure. Next, administrative issues were dealt with in order to allow the “home” university to16meet the need for course descriptions, course schedules to make the necessary room reservations andall other administrative issues to take care of a proper course registration. The choice was to host theminor at one faculty (Free University of Amsterdam, VU). Students from different universities can
subscribe for the minor-modules at the VU, while in the mean time they remain registered at their own
university. The payment of the lectures participating in the minor will be based upon a regular tariff
per lecture unit. During the development of the modules, the estimated work load was more or lessequally divided among the participating universities.
The process of developing the minor was made possible by a sponsorship via SAGEO.

Final remark
By crossing boundaries of different disciplines and cultures a better, more complete and wellbalanced curriculum can be offered. It is interesting to note that during the development of thecurriculum, there was hardly any discussion on priorities in what to teach. This is not to say thatcurrent GI courses at the distinct universities are similar. There are clear differences, based upon thetype of curriculum. Each GI course is in fact a selection of GI issues that is relevant for that particulardiscipline. Having more hours to spend in a minor brings the opportunity to present a broader set ofissues to teach.
Working together in PCM’s proved to be a success, it was focused and stimulating and the results
look promising. The future will learn how it will work in practice and even more important, how ourstudents will react.

17

Curriculum Design Based on the UC GI S&T Body of Knowledge
Supported by a Software Tool
Md Imran Hossain & Wolfgang Reinhardt
Institute of Applied Computer Science, University of the Bundeswehr, Munich, Germany

INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATIONThe usage of the UCGIS Geographic Information Science & Technology (GI S&T) Body ofKnowledge (BoK) [DiBiase et al, 2006] for various purposes has been discussed intensively at quite anumber of workshops and conferences in the European GI communities since its introduction in 2006
[e.g. Johnson et al, 2006, Reinhardt and Toppen, 2008, Rip, 2008]. In general, these discussions reveal
the BoK as a valuable tool which could be used for e.g. curriculum design and comparison. But someweak points have also been identified beyond its expediency, e.g. inadequate representation of SDI
topics within the content of the BoK, missing consideration of a “depth-factor” related to the BoK etc.
Moreover, some people expressed the opinion that a BoK as a pure text is not very comfortable to use
and therefore, conveyed a clear demand for a machine readable implementation of the BoK so that the
BoK content could be stored in a data base and further extended by developing suitable tools to handle
the data and to support various user activities.
This paper deals with the usage of the BoK for curricula design, which includes a short discussion ofextensions of the BoK as well as some tasks in curriculum design. The main part of the paper is tointroduce a software tool which allows for the usage of the BoK and other sources for some tasks incurriculum design. The paper is therefore structured in the way that the next section includes a short
discussion of possible extensions of the BoK and some comments on the way these extensions aredeveloped. Thereafter, some selected tasks in curriculum design are described. These tasks should be
supported by the software tool which is described in the following main section of the paper. Finallysome conclusions are drawn.

SOME COMMENTS ON THE EXTENSION OF THE CONTENT OF the BoKAs already stated in [Reinhardt and Toppen, 2008] the BoK primarily includes a Geographic View
on GI S&T and especially IT issues are not adequately represented. In [Reinhardt, 2011] a suggestion
was made to add a SDI and a programming knowledge area (KA) to the BoK. For the SDI KA thefollowing topics have been suggested:Spatial data infrastructures (SI)
SI1 General purpose and background, initiatives, non-technical aspects, laws etc.
SI2 Metadata (purpose, models, challenges)
SI3 Introduction to Interoperability (syntactic, semantic)
SI4 Basics of Services (HTTP, REST, SOAP)
SI5 Services I (basics, WMS, WFS)
SI6 Services II (advanced, WCS, WTS …)
SI7 Security of Services (authentication, access control ..)SI8 Relevant Standards (GML, Spatial Schema …)
It was also emphasized that the content of these knowledge areas is seen as a first draft and should
be defined by the community of organisations / persons involved in teaching GI issues, to make sure19

that the different perspectives (technical, societal …) and backgrounds (Computer Science,
Geography, Engineering …) of these organisations are represented.
At the AGILE 2012 preconference workshop "Views on Body of Knowledge" (VoB) the “BoK2”
initiative was presented (Ahearn, 2012) which includes a complete different approach compared to theexisting BoK (“BoK1”). As BoK1 was in line with the general body of knowledge concept andpresented a collection of content (knowledge areas, units, topics, themes) in form of a text book, theBoK2 project includes foundational research related to the BoK. This research includes ontology as abase to handle e.g. taxonomies and to be able to map different content. A semantic wiki andsophisticated visualization tools are also included in this research. In a later stage a platform will be
developed which allows for a tool based handling of the BoK. It is planned that through this platform
experts in GI can contribute to the further development and maintenance of the BoK. For more details
related to BoK2 refer to (Ahearn, 2012).

TASKS IN CURRICULUM DESIGN
Curriculum design includes quite a number of levels and also of tasks from the planning of a study
program down to the planning of a lecture. An overview on these levels and on different approaches
can be found in [Painho et al, 2006] and in the literature given there. This paper will focus on theplanning of the content of module units and lectures. As already described in [Reinhardt, 2011] theauthors had to define new GI related modules in different study programs like Computer Science,
Information Systems and Civil Engineering. The challenges within this were the different backgroundand study goals of the students as well as the different number of ECTS credit points dedicated to the
GI related modules. More details on these issues can be found in [Reinhardt, 2011]. The structure of
our study programs is included in figure 1. The lecturers are in fact responsible for designing themodule level and below; up to lecture level and the program coordinator on the other hand usually
taking care of the rest of higher levels.
Lectures

Module Unit

ModuleProgram track

Study Program

Figure 1: Structure of a study program

Only the lectures, module units and modules are dealt here in this paper. The ECTS credit point for asingle module usually varies in a range of 4 to 10. The modules in general consist of two or more – butvery seldom more than three - module units. Module units consist of around 12
lectures/exercises/seminars with 90 or 135 minutes each. To define the content of lectures and module
units a number of considerations have to be taken into account, for example:
The background of the students
The goals of the study program / program track
The number of credit points dedicated to the module unit
Along with the above mentioned considerations, the knowledge depth for each lecture has to be
determined. There are three defined levels of depths.
to know about it
to be able to apply it
to be able to implement it (especially GI methods/functions)20

The planning of the content of a module unit can be performed based on a list of possible topics to
be taught which could be the BoK or parts of it. From these topics the concrete topics have to bechosen considering the items explained in this section (background, goals, and credit points) and haveto be assigned to lectures. To support this tasks a software tool was developed, which should include
the following functions as a minimum:
The possible content of GI education should be stored in a suitable structure in a data base. It
should be possible to extend the content. For reasons of simplicity the BoK – and its general
structure - was used as a base. The SDI extension of the BoK described in section 2 wasincorporated.
The content of the data base should be visualised to be able to view the content graphically.
Also queries related to the content should be supported.
The definition of the content of a module unit (or of lectures) should be supported. Therefore agraphical selection of content and an assignment of content to module units / lectures arenecessary. The content of a module unit has to be stored in a defined structure in the data baseto be able to present it graphically and also to modify or update it.

A SOFTWARE TOOL FOR CURRICULUM DESIGN BASED ON BoK
Since the BoK follows a consistent hierarchy, it is possible to implement it in a database system foreasy update and modification. This section introduces a new software tool which implements the BoK
in a database system and assists one application of BoK among many. The tool as an initial attempt ofautomation covers only the curriculum design application area of BoK. Further application areas of
BoK such as curriculum analysis, program evaluation and assessment, curriculum revision, program
articulation etc. would be incorporated in the tool in near future.

Design and Implementation of the Tool
The architecture of the tool could be compared with the three tier client-server architecture. The
database of the BoK content resides in the data tier while the GUI or user interface acts as client which
executes the functionalities through application or server tier. So the three tiers are: data tier, server orapplication tier and client tier (fig. 2). The tiers are described below in more detail.
Applications

Database

Figure 2: Simple architecture of the tool

The data tier contains the database of extended BoK content and a template of project database.
Those are in fact MS Access databases with .accdb extension. Modelling of those databases has been
done with DB Main - a free data modelling and data architecture tool. Figure 3 shows the data modelof both databases. The consistent hierarchical nature of BoK content imposes a simple but very steadydesign of its data model. The superior hierarchical class is always related with its subordinate class by
one to many relationship that means each Knowledge Area contains many Units, each Unit thencontains many Topics and finally each Topic contains many Themes
The project data model on the other hand is almost identical with the BoK data model with a slidechange. The LECTURE_EXERCISE class which is in fact derived from the Themes class from BoKdata model is the main class and related with two different classes: Lecture and BoK_Topics with therelationship: many to one (fig. 3). The rest of the classes follows BoK data model in a similar way.

21

Bok data model

Project data model
Figure 3: Data models

All the program, queries and data technologies reside in the application/server tier. The Visual Basic.NET has been used as a programing language, SQL as a query language and ActiveX data object for.NET (ADO.NET) as a data object. The main task of the application tier is to process the commands
from client as well as to provide the output to the client by making connection to the appropriate
database, data retrieval and data modification etc.
The client tier contains the graphical user interface of the tool and some graphic modules to show theoutputs from the application tier in a more meaningful ways. The graphical user interfaces (GUI) as
well as the graphics modules are also programmed by Visual Basic .NET. The users in fact senddifferent commands to the application tier and get visual outputs through the GUI.

EXAMPLE OF THE USAGE OF THE TOOL
The tool has mainly four basic functionalities. They are: BoK database modification, data query,graphical presentation and navigation of the database and course/curriculum design. All thefunctionalities are described below in more detail with necessary screen shots.

22

BoK Database Update
The first two sections of this paper have already described the need of a new extension of UCGISS&T Body of Knowledge. It is, therefore, expected that the content of BoK cannot be considered asstatic but rather would be modified over time in form of content addition, deletion and modification.
To make such kind of modification easy, BoK tool incorporates a data modification interface throughwhich a user or respective authority can easily add, delete or modify any content area of the BoK.
Obviously, the process of modification of BoK content should be systematic and could be done inmany possible ways like WiKi, cloud etc. But this is another research question and is not the scope of
the present paper.

BoK Database QueryThe query interface enables the user to see any content area of the BoK in textual form based on its
uppers hierarchical element. To be more precise, user can see all the Units that belong to a particular
Knowledge Area, all the topics belong to a specific Unit and all the Themes belong to a specific topic.
This interface helps the user to navigate through the BoK content in an easy interactive way. A screen
shot of the interface is given below by figure 3.

Figure 4: Data query interface

Graphical Presentation and Navigation
This interface has been designed to provide a complete overview of BoK content as well as to enable
users to navigate through the BoK content graphically but at the same time keeping other content in
the view area to understand the relationship of each element with others. A screenshot of the interface(generated for test purpose) is given in figure 4 which in fact covers a small portion of BoK content.

23

Figure 5: Graphical presentation and navigation interface

The interface draws all Knowledge Areas, Units, Topics and Themes of the BoK in a defined
location. The relationship between BoK elements are further shown by straight lines. Thus a straightline between a Knowledge Area and a Unit means belonging of that Unit to that particular Knowledge
Area. Since there are a lot of elements of BoK to be shown in the graphical presentation, the outlookof the interface becomes a little obscure and difficult to navigate. A number of techniques have been
implied to overcome those difficulties. Firstly, different colour schemes have been applied to different
hierarchy of the content which makes a clear distinction among them. In addition, a horizontal changeof colour is applied to each hierarchy to distinguish each element in the same hierarchy. Secondly, themouse over event changes the colour of each element to its upper hierarchy element. Finally, themouse click event on any element highlights all related elements and paths in red colour. A knowledge
element was clicked before taking the snapshot of the interface. As it is shown in figure 4, all thesubordinate units and the straight lines of relationship are highlighted.

Curriculum Design
As stated earlier, the tool implements one application area of BoK which is curriculum/course
design. The interface/GUI is shown by figure 5. The black left window is the navigation window,
shows all the knowledge areas chosen by the user with their respected units and topics. The grey areaon the right hand side is provided to keep the course information that a user used to design.
Design of a new course starts with finding lecture/exercise topics which are comparable to thethemes of BoK. The themes that sound suitable and appropriate for the course can be dragged anddropped in the navigation pane: Lecture/Exercise topics (fig.5 right part). In this way the user canchose as many lecture/exercise as they want from all topics shown in the navigation window. Eachlecture/exercise topic should be further specified by three attribute that express whether it is lecture or
exercise, how depth the student should learn about the topic and allocated time for that topics. The
final step is to make a group of lecture/exercise topics in to lectures. All the lectures defined by theuser through grouping lecture/exercise topics are listed in the ‘Lectures’ navigation pane (fig.5 rightpart) The users have also the opportunity to get an overview about BoK topics and units which are
coved by the course. The navigation pane ‘BoK Topic covered’ and ‘BoK Unit covered’ serves thosefunctionalities.

24

Figure 6: Curriculum/course design interface

Once a course design is complete the user can see the graphical representation of the course. An
example (part of whole screen) of the graphical representation of the course is given by the figure 6
below. The figure shows that the course module ‘Database’ is composed of three lectures (green
boxes), each lecture are further composed by several lecture/exercise topics (blue boxes) and so on.

Figure 7: Graphical output of a designed module unit

CONCLUSION
Some issues related to curriculum design based on an extended BoK have been discussed in thispaper and a software tool have been presented to support some tasks of designing the content ofmodule units and lectures. The usage of such a tool makes the planning of the content of lectures/module units more easy as it uses a data base with possible content for GI education, e.g. the BoK andallows for a graphical selection of content . Of course many extensions of this tool would be possible
and useful, for example to include not only hierarchical but also general relations to be able to linkunits/topics. Another possible extension would be a web interface which allows students to view thecontent of module units to support their decision of module chooses.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahearn, S., DeMErs, M., Plewe, B., Skupin, A., Datta,R., Icke, I. 2012. Geographical Information
Science and technology BoK2 : Foundational research, Position Paper AGILE 2012,
Workshop (http://www.geo-informatie.nl/rip001/edumapping/EduMapping.html)
DiBiase, D., DeMers, M. et al., Eds., 2006. Geographic Information Science & Technology
Body of Knowledge. Washington, D.C., Association of American Geographers(http://www.ucgis.org/priorities/education/modelcurriculaproject.asp).
25

Johnson, A., Kemp, K., Plewe, B., Luck, A., DeMers, M., 2006: Developing GIS Curricula –UCGIS Model Curricula Body of Knowledge, Proceeings, EUGISES 2006.
Painho, M., Jovani, I., Curvelo,P. 2008, Curriculum design in Geographical Information Systems andScience within ISEGI-UNL, proceeding EUGISES 2006
Reinhardt, W. and F. Toppen,2008. The UCGIS Geographic Information Science and Technology
Body of Knowledge – Some thoughts from a European Perspective. GIScience 2008 - Fifth
International Conference on Geographic Information Science. Park City, Utah, USA.
Reinhardt, W., 2011. Geoinformatics education in different disciplines - Challenges - approaches andexperiences, Proceedings, LeGIO workshop, KU Leuven, ISBN 978-90-8826-217-3
Rip, F. I., 2008. GI S&T Body of Knowledge: basis for elearning, certification and curriculum
planning? AGILE 2008: Taking Geoinformation Science One Step Further. Girona, Catalonia, Spain,
AGILE.
All web resources visited last on may 29.

26

Education in Geographical Information Science and Technology
in Catalonia (2006-2009): A quantitative overview
Pons Xavier, Serra Pere & Pou, Mireia
Department of Geography, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès (Barcelona),
Catalonia, Spain.

ABSTRACT
For many years, Geographic Information Science and Technology (GIST) has taken a leading role inresearch and teaching worldwide. Confirmation of this fact is the large number of educational andresearch organizations that use GIST, as well as the increasing specialized publications andinternational conferences related with it, without forgetting the still growing use among governmental
institutions, producers and users of geographic information. This shows the importance of teaching inan area of high demand for professionals, while stimulating its scientific progress and establishing theterminology in the field of STGI. In this sense, the GIST in Catalonia (an autonomous community
located in the northeast of Spain) also has a weight that should be analyzed with more depth. For thisreason, the main objective of this study, commissioned by the Cartographic Institute of Catalonia (theofficial cartographic institution of the country), is to report the status of GIST teaching in Catalonia,
through higher education subjects (pre and postgraduate, considering both the private and public
universities) or as specialized courses (considering any institution or enterprise). To limit the time
period, this paper takes into account the situation during the years 2006-2009. To achieve this aim we
used a questionnaire delivered to all the courses coordinators (76 in total); it was divided into threeparts: masters and diplomas specialized in GIST, specific subjects within master's degrees or degrees
and specialized courses.
Results showed that the total number of responses was 41 (54%). The total estimation of students
involved in GIST from 2006 to 2009 was of 6,457, being the 12% from outside Spain. In higher
education, 42% of the subjects were given by departments of geography, although the degrees
involved were very diverse (forest engineering, biology, etc.), mostly scheduled in the second andthird year and with a high degree of compulsoriness (60% were core subjects). Akin to the content,
there was a predominance of those related to geographical information systems, followed bycartography and, in a smaller degree, by remote sensing. The most used software packages were
ArcGIS and MiraMon. The study shows a high degree of GIST consolidation between 2006 and 2009
with a tendency to increase its weight in the Catalan higher education.

INTRODUCTION
For many years, Geographical Information Science and Technology (GIST) has taken a leading role
in research and teaching worldwide. Proof of this is the large number of educational and research
projects, as well as specialized international publications and conferences, without forgetting its
growing use in governmental institutions and private enterprises (Brox and Pires, 2004). This factshows the importance of teaching in an area of high demand for qualified workers, while stimulating
its scientific progress and establishing the terminology in the field of GIST. For example, in 1995
GIST courses and programs were available in 500 institutions worldwide (Goodchild and Palladino,1995), whereas in 2001 the institutions offering GIST courses included about 2,000 universities

27

(Strobl, 2003). In 2003, just in China over 500 GIST-related subjects were set up in more than 100
colleges and universities (Fuling and Shaohua, 2008).
In Spain, in general, and in Catalonia (an autonomous community located in the northeast of Spain)in particular, there is a long tradition in GIST education. For example, since 1990 over 500 highschool students attended a special summer program at the University of Girona (northeast of
Catalonia) which uses GIST to study data from the Natural Park of Gavarres (Goodchild andPalladino, 1995); other examples could be the Master in Remote Sensing and GIS from 1995-96, stilltaught by the UAB and CREAF or the more than 20 years of contents on GIS and RS in the UAB
degrees. Therefore, the main objective of this study, commissioned by the Cartographic Institute of
Catalonia, the official cartographic institution of the autonomous community, is to quantify as
exhaustively as possible the status of GIST teaching, through higher education, considering bothprivate and public universities, as specialized or related courses, considering any institution orenterprise. To limit the time period, this paper takes into account the current studies during the years
2006-2009. To achieve this we used a questionnaire delivered to all Catalan educational organizations
involved in GIST. This study complements another for research, which will be published in future
work. From our experience in GIST, the initial hypothesis of the work was that GIST is an increasing
discipline that affects many degrees, although geography is still the most important because it was oneof the primary sources of GIS.
In this paper the term “Geographical Information Science and Technology” has a general sense andincludes disciplines and subjects as cartography, GIS, remote sensing, geodesy, GPS,photogrammetry, among others. Therefore, GIST it highlights the multidisciplinary integration ofprocesses and technologies for obtaining geographical information and for using it for purposes as
different as analysis or illustration. According to this definition, we were interested in knowing thereal offer in GIST education, trying to quantify the number of students implied, their origin, thesubject-matter contents, or the most used software packages. These objectives differ from others
surveys made around the world in two aspects: the more general sense of GIST (for example, the workfrom Roccatagliata (1994) only outlined the GIS situation, stricto sensu, in Italy) and the quantitative
approach. This fact makes the comparison with other regions or countries without quantitative datadifficult, being just possible a qualitative assessment.

METHODOLOGY
Study area
In Spain, four main layers of government exist: the “national” (state) government, the autonomous
community, the provincial government and the municipality. Catalonia, an autonomous community asasserted before, is located in northeast Spain (figure 1), with a total surface of about 32,000 km2.
Catalonia is delimited in the east by the Mediterranean Sea, in the north by France and in the west andsouth by the autonomous communities of Aragon and València, respectively. This strategic situation
has favoured intensive socioeconomic relationships with other Mediterranean countries and with
continental Europe. In 2011, total Catalan population was 7.4 million, equivalents to 16.1% of total
Spanish population (46.1 million). In total, Catalonia has 8 public universities (4 located in theBarcelona province, one in the rest of provinces, Girona, Lleida and Tarragona, and one using a
remote, non-attendance, formula) and 4 private (also one using a remote, non-attendance, formula).
According to the Catalan Institute of Statistics, in 2006-2007, the total number of students in Catalan

28

universities was 217,883 (15.4% of total Spanish students) while in 2008-2009 it was 216,786 (15.6%of total Spanish students).

Figure 1: Catalonia, the study area, located in the northeast of Spain.

The survey
In 2008, the Spanish Association of Remote Sensing (Asociación Española de Teledetección (AET))
carried out a survey about high education in remote sensing for all Spain. The study had as objective
to give information about the institutions teaching courses related with remote sensing and the name of
the main subjects. Although being a very interesting work, our goal was to provide more quantitative
data related with GIST, including GPS, LIDAR, GIS, etc., as asserted before.
The survey was divided in three main sets: one corresponding to university studies (both private andpublic) specialised in GIST (postgraduate), another equivalent to university studies (subjects) relatedwith GIST (pregraduate) and the last one corresponding to courses specialised in GIST taught by any
public or private institutions or enterprises. About 200 web pages were consulted for knowing which
universities, departments and institutions were involved in GIST.
In order to facilitate the answers, reviewers had two ways of response: one following an editable
PDF file sent by email and the other one using a web address (http://llibreblanc.uab.cat). The survey
was sent to all the coordinators implied in GIST. Although the interest in gathering as muchinformation as possible, we decided to pose about 15 questions for each set, in order to avoid anexcessive number of questions, because surveys too long are usually not answered.
In the case of the University studies specialised in GIST, the first question asked in this section was
the centre or entity that performed or taught some graduate studies specialized in GIST. We
differentiated a postgraduate master from a postgraduate diploma because the number of credits andcourse duration is larger in the former than in the latter. From the fourteen remaining questions, one
was related to the number of students involved, distinguishing their origin: Catalan students, rest of
Spain and other students. In order to make easier the response, some very small intervals were
proposed (from 1 to 5, from 6 to 10, etc.). This option allows us to make an estimate of the total
number of students per course and origin. Other questions were related with the course content: it was
requested the percentage of the total content differentiating cartography, GIS, remote sensing and29photogrammetry; finally, the number of ECTS credits and the most used software package was alsoinquired.
The University studies related with GIST, with the same structure as above, contained a set ofquestions referring to individual subjects related with GIST and taught in master’s degrees, diplomas
or degrees. Many of the fourteen questions were identical than in the previous sections but others were
specifically for this case: the type of degree (bachelor, diploma or master) and the course in which thesubject was taught. This information allows us to know when the GIST knowledge was acquired (inthe first year of the curriculum or in the last year, for example). The last question was to know if thesubject was compulsory or optional in order to analyze the interest of the GIST subject inside thecorresponding discipline.
Finally, the courses specialized in GIST included eleven questions very similar than the above
sections with two differences: the institution organizer of the course and the educational level required
to be enrolled on it.

Other tools
As asserted before, a web page was prepared in order to simplify and promote the responses
surveyed. Another important function of the web was to list the centres involved in the study and,
therefore, in case of knowing a missing course, they could send us a notification for being included in
the study. This solution solved one of the main initial problems: which institutions should be includedin the survey.
The survey was sent by email to the course coordinators, specifying the objectives of the study andrequesting their participation. About one month later, those cases without response were contacted byphone in order to solve problems or discuss comments about the questionnaire.

RESULTS
The total number of surveys received by coordinators was 76. In total 41 responses (54% of total)
arrived from 29 different teaching institutions and corresponding to nine specialized postgraduate
GIST studies (being 100% of total in Catalonia), 62% subjects in higher education (61% of total) and30 specialization courses (83% of total). The higher education subjects without response (39%)
corresponded in 22 cases to postgraduate studies and 13 to degrees.
Between the academic years 2006-2007 and 2008-2009, based on the intervals explained in thesurvey section, the estimated total number of students implied in GIST was 6,457 (74% from
Catalonia, 14% from the rest of Spain and 12% from other countries). Postgraduate students were 408,
whereas 4,788 were involved in subjects related with GIST (pregraduate) and 1,261 in specialized
courses.

University studies specialised in GISTIn the period analyzed, there were six active masters specialized in GIST, one of them nonattendance, and three postgraduate diplomas, one of them in non-attendance. As asserted before, thetotal number of students estimated during 2006-2009 was 408. By origin, it was estimated that 185
students were Catalans (45.3% of total), with a tendency to increase, 129 were from the rest of Spain(31.6%), also with a tendency to increase, and 94 were from other countries with a gradual decrease in30

this case (figure 2). A possible explanation of the gradual decrease from foreign students can be theeconomic crisis affecting many parts of the world.
Number of students estimated by origin

Number of students

80

60

Catalan40

Rest of Spain
Other origins

2002006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

Academic year

Figure 2: Evolution in number of students estimated by origin, from 2006-2009, in GIST masters.

According to the content of subjects (differentiating GIS, remote sensing, cartography andphotogrammetry), the comparison among the six masters showed some differences: one masterclearly giving more remote sensing than the remaining (Centre de Recerca Ecològica i Aplicacions
Forestals i Universitat Autònoma de Barceloan (CREAF-UAB), about 47%), while another noticeably
taught more GIS (Laboratori d'Informació Geogràfica i de Teledetecció (LIGIT)-UAB, about 80%)
(figure 3). In the rest of masters, the weight of GIS was very high, above 60%, with the exception of
one from the Universitat de Girona (UdG) where the percentage was only 47%. In this case the second
more important subject-matter was cartography with 45%, this percentage being the highest in all themasters. Finally, a similarity in all of them was the low weight of photogrammetry, below 10%. If thecomparison is made using the number of theoretical or practical hours (European Credit Transfer andAccumulation System (ECTS) credits) for each subject-matter, the most important percentages in allof them were the practical GIS and the theoretical GIS with 29% and 26%, respectively (figure 4). In
the case of postgraduate diplomas, these percentages decrease: 21% and 16%, respectively.

Figure 3: Percentage of content in GIST masters differentiating GIS, remote sensing, cartography and photogrammetry. UB
corresponds to Universitat de Barcelona and UPC to Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. See the text for the rest of initials.

31

Figure 4: Percentage of ECTS credits differentiating theoretical and practical contents in specialized GIST masters.
Regarding the most used software packages, in all the masters the most applied was ArcGis followed by MicroStation (withdifferent versions), while in four masters they used MiraMon and gvSIG (the former programmed from a Catalan institution
and the latter from the government of València), in three masters Idrisi and Geomedia, in two Envi and MapInfo and, finally,in one Ilwis, Surfer and Sextante (figure 5).

Figure 5: Number of masters according to the most used software packages.

University studies related with GISTAs asserted before, in the years analyzed the total number of higher education students involved in
GIST was 4,788, of which 76% were Catalan, 12% from the rest of Spain and 12% from othercountries. In this case, 75.9% of them were undergraduate students and the rest postgraduate.
A total of 20 different departments were involved in 62 subjects of both higher education degrees,masters or doctorate, 38 of them (61%) corresponded to 19 degrees in different universities and 24 (39%) to 16 masters and doctorates. From the total number of subjects, 26 were taught in geography
departments (42% of total). As shown in figure 6, the university that gave more GIST subjects, 16
concretely, was the Universitat de Barcelona (UB), followed by the Universitat Politècnica deCatalunya (UPC) and the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), with 14 and 13, respectively.

32

Figure 6: Number of subjects related with GIST according to public and private Catalan universities. UdL corresponds toUniversitat de Lleida, UOC to Universitat Oberta de Catalunya and UVic to Universitat de Vic. UVic is a private university.

As expected, a varied number of degrees implied in GIST appeared: four degrees corresponding to
Geography and four more to Environmental Studies, but also two to Geology, Technical AgriculturalEngineering and Geological Engineering, and one to Forest Engineering, Civil Engineering, Biology
or Architecture (Superior, not Technical). These results corroborated our initial hypothesis as asserted
in the introduction section.
Other interesting results were that the main number of subjects was given during the second andthird year of the degree and that from the 38 subjects of degree 60% of them were compulsory. On theother hand, in the case of masters the main part of subjects was optional, 16 from 24 (66.7%).
According to the content of subjects (differentiating GIS, remote sensing, cartography andphotogrammetry), the comparison showed some differences: in 32 subjects (52% of total) the content
was equal or above 50% in GIS (figure 7). Cartography in 28 subjects and remote sensing in 21
subjects showed contents between 10% and 50%, whereas photogrammetry in 52 subjects showed
contents equal to zero (84% of total).

Figure 7: Number of higher education subjects involved in GIST according to their content.

If the comparison is made using the number of theoretical or practical hours for each subject-matter(ECTS credits), the most important percentages were the practical GIS and the theoretical GIS withthe 23% and 19%, respectively. Following in importance, the practical and the theoretical in
cartography were 15% and 14% whereas in remote sensing were 13% and 10%, respectively. The
most used computer programs were ArcGis, 30%, MiraMon, 23%, Idrisi, 14% and gvSIG, 10%.

Courses specialized in GIST
The total number of courses specialized in GIST included in this work was 30. As asserted by Strobl(2003), GIST educators were related with GIS software institutions, institutions of higher education
33

and research organizations. They appeared courses with a long tradition, with more than 15 editions,as the “MiraMon standard course”, taught by CREAF or the “Digital cartography with Microstation”
course taught by the Geology Department from the Universitat de Barcelona. Other courses with longexperience were the “Specialization course in ArcGis” offered by the Universitat de Girona, and theones taught by LIGIT directly related with ESRI products (“ArcIMS, ArcGis, ArcInfo, ArcObjects”)
and other specialised MiraMon courses (“GIS for geologists”, “Advanced GIS”, “Analysis with GIS”
and “Open Geospatial Consortium map servers”).
The total number of students from the analyzed courses was 1,261, being 79% Catalan students,
14% from the rest of Spain and 7% from other countries. The study showed a gradual increase, from
340 students in 2006-2007 to 548 in 2008-2009. Akin to courses content, 77% of total had apercentage equal or above 50% in GIS and 39% and 20% had practical and theoretical GIS content,
respectively. Therefore, compared with masters and higher education subjects, specialized courses
were clearly more dedicated to GIS. Finally, the more used software packages were ArcGis, 27%, andMiraMon, 18%, showing the rest a high atomization

CONCLUSIONSThis survey has led to an intensive effort, especially in the monitoring section of answers, because as
it is known the cost of answering questionnaires is high, usually for lack of time. We believe thatgiven the number of responses (54% of total, not of a sample) this study is a good indicator of the
GIST teaching status in Catalonia during the period analyzed.
Based on the answers extracted from small intervals, the results showed that the number of students
that have been involved in GIST training was about 6,457 with an important attraction of students
outside Catalonia especially in the case of postgraduate studies. This outcome is a positive parameterthat needs to be taken into account for the future educational planning. In this sense, we estimated thatthe weight of GIST subjects (19) related with all the subjects offered in Catalonia (161) was about
11.8% and 10.4% in the case of all not specialised masters (16 in front of 153).
Another conclusion extracted from the study is that GIS (practice and theory) is the main content
inside GIST, both in masters as in degrees and specialized courses. This fact reinforces the weight of
GIS followed by cartography and remote sensing and the low importance of photogrammetry in termsof teaching effort. On the other hand, according to the number of subjects involved in GIST, the main
disciplines concerned in GIST were geography and environmental sciences as in other European
countries (Austria or The Netherlands, for example) (Strobl, 2003). In addition, and as in othercountries, engineering and architecture were moderately involved in GIST compared with computersciences, with a low implication.
According to the answers, in degree studies the GIST subjects were programmed in the second andthird undergraduate year, which means that a certain amount of experience and knowledge for
applying GIST was required. In this sense, it should be highlighted that 60% of subjects werecompulsory as a signal of its recognition as an important discipline to be considered. Probably, thisrecognition remarks the long tradition in masters and specialized courses available from 2006 to 2009,
with more than ten editions. Also maybe, this long tradition explains the use of software programmed
in Catalonia (in the case of MiraMon) and in València (in the case of gvSIG) together withinternational software as ArcGis or MicroStation.

34

Therefore, from this study we can conclude that GIST is an important discipline in Catalonia, with aweight above 10% considering all the educational system as asserted before, and with a highimportance in geography but also in other disciplines especially, in part probably thanks to its GIS
tools experience. In this sense it would be interesting to reapply the survey in the future to see the
GIST situation and as well as making a comparison at national or European scale. In this sense, we
cordially invite other actors to perform a similar study (even using the same form) in their area.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Institute Cartogràfic de Catalunya for funding this study, theparticipating entities for responding the questionnaires and the research group “Grup de Mètodes i
Aplicacions en Teledetecció i SIG” (GRUMETS) from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona for its
support and help. Xavier Pons is recipient of an ICREA Acadèmia Excellence in Research grant(2011-2015).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Asociación Española de Teledetección, 2008. Estado de la Docencia en Teledetección en España. [InSpanish] Available at: http://www.aet.org.es/?q=encuesta-docencia-gral1
Brox, C. and Pires, P., 2004. Education in Geoinformatics – Career profiles, requirements andchanges. Proceedings of the Fourth European GIS Education Seminar, Austria, 2nd-5th
September 2004, 1-9.
Fuling, B. and Shaohua, W., 2008. Problem, innovation and development of GIS higher education in
our country. Proceedings of the International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote
Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol XXXVII, part B6a, Beijing 2008, 269-272.
Goodchild, M. and Palladino, S., 1995. Geographic information systems as a tool in science andtechnology education. Speculations in Science and Technology, 18, 278-286.
Pons, X., 2004. MiraMon. Sistema d'Informació Geogràfica i software de Teledetecció. Centre deRecerca Ecològica i Aplicacions Forestals, CREAF. Bellaterra. ISBN: 84-931323-4-9
Roccatagliata, E. (1994). A survey on GIS in Italy. Proccedings of the Conference and Exhibition on
GIS, The Netherlands, EGIS Foundation, 563-571.
Strobl, J. (2003). Summary of the report on the identified and priority GIS needs. International
Cooperation of GIScience Education. Department of Geography and Applied Geoinformatics,
UniversityofSalzburg,
Austria.
Availablein:https://www.sbg.ac.at/zgis/InterGIS/OutComes/Summary_CR_WWW.pdf

35

The Italian landscape of Geomatics for the faculties ofAgriculture: novelties from those who get used to play second
fiddleMarcheggiani E.1, Galli A.1, Modica G.2, Pollino M.3, Sigura M.4& Vizzari M.5
1

Università Politecnica delle Marche - D3A
2
Università Mediterranea – DiSTAFA
3ENEA - Earth Observations and Analyses Lab (UTMEA-TER)
4
Università di Udine - Department of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences
5
Università di Perugia - DUT

ABSTRACT
Going along with our previous intervention Would Google Earth be a proper GIS? (Marcheggiani2011), had during last LeGIO-workshop held in Leuven (Belgium) in November 2011 our intention is
to take advantage of the incoming 8th European GIS Education Seminar to attest the arguments wedisplayed. A step further has been the involvement of GIS-teachers from the broader Italian context.
With this in mind a survey has been conducted considering the whole Geomatics background for the
Agriculture faculties in Italy. A special attention has been paid to potential kernels of new ways of GIS
and Geomatics teaching emerging by teachers and scholars. To do this a questionnaire has beendevised to test students background and to collect their opinions. The survey wants to be a gaze on theways in which GIS is taught in Italy today.

GIS AND GEOMATICS IN THE AGRICULTURE FACULTIES: THE STATEOF PLAY IN ITALY
Because of their high multi-disciplinary, the Agriculture faculties in Italy have always played aminor role in the teaching of engineering and technological subjects, if compared with other faculties
such as Civil Engineering and Urbanism. That has been due to a patchy historical evolution of thehigher education system, whose curricula have been strongly separated within a number of
uncommunicative faculties. In addition, the Bologna Accord (http://www.ehea.info/) has found the
Italian education system slightly unprepared to gather a “three plus two” frame, typical of North
Europe heritage, which was not fitting with its traditional scheme.
That has affected in particular the most innovative technological sectors and all the related national
scientific subjects. In particular, recalling Rinaudo, Italy never had a Geomatics School. This situation
has remained unchanged over the time. As a result it is not possible to find a bachelor or Master oreven a PhD school curriculum based on Geomatics in Italy today (Rinaudo, 2011). The term
Geomatics makes its first appearance in the Italian faculties of Agriculture only at the eve of year
2000. The first Italian book was that of M.A. Gomarasca “Elementi di Geomatica”, edited by the
Italian association of Remote Sensing (AIT) in 2004. Before that the Italian background remained
unchanged until the ’50s, when Topography and Cartography were often taught within patchy courses
called Genio Rurale. Remote Sensing techniques and GIS were introduced twenty years later, by Carlo
De Carolis an Italian plant-pathologist and by Giovanni Lechi, a pupil of Gino Cassinis. All that has
made up a situation in which the faculties of Agriculture are playing a second fiddle to the whole offer
of Geomatics and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) courses. In spite of the ability to manage
spatial information is one of the main requirement to obtain a qualified job as agronomist or bioengineer, this vital part of the academic offer is often underrated and have to suffer for the lack of37

coordination and of financial and human resources (i.e. high cost for the maintenance GIS’s
laboratory, insufficient propaedeutical predisposition of students, etc.).
Nevertheless in recent years, innovative approaches, have been devised, to encourage students tofocus since the early stages on GIS platforms deemed more intuitive and user-friendly. In addition to
specific commercial (CCSS) or open source (FOSS), GIS students are more often introduced to newframes, such as Google Earth®, Build a Map® and Bing®, and Sketchup®, enabling students to
identify and annotate spatial features in an intuitive-fashion environment. All that opens the faculties
of Agriculture to new scenarios in which new distributed and volunteered geo-information wellmatches with the needs of students to be effectively introduced to analyse and assess the charactersand changes of studied territories and landscapes.

THE WIDENING OF THE GIS APPROACH
It is universal recognised the capacity of maps to offer an overview of and insight into spatial
patterns and relations (Kraak, 2004). To query and consult the maps used and produced during the
Geomatics courses it is necessary the adoption of specific and suitable GIS software package: this is alimit to the spread and sharing of the Geospatial data.
Thanks to recent advances in geospatial technologies, it is possible to effectively overcome thisproblem by using and exploiting specific web-based GIS environments and applications, suitably
developed.
The
mostpopularinourexperienceisGoogleEarth®
(http://www.google.com/earth/index.html), although nowadays several other similar platforms andenvironments have been developed and made available. Among them we can mention “Build A Map”
(http://www.buildamap.com/), “World Map” (http://worldmap.harvard.edu/), “ArcGIS Online”(http://www.arcgis.com/),“GeoCommons”(http://geocommons.com/)and“Indiemapper”(http://indiemapper.com/). In particular, “WorldMap” has been conceived to provide scholars
anywhere in the world with a set of open tools to discover, organize, visualize, create, share andpublish geographically referenced information.
The significance of such applications resides in their capability to fill a growing function between
powerful desktop-bound mapping applications and lightweight web solutions. Further, these systems
make use of a range of great open standards, protocols, and data formats to encourage geospatial
collaborations including several standards: WMS, GML, KML, ESRI Shapefile, etc.
The above mentioned applications play a crucial role into the development of approaches based on
the so-called Volunteered Geographical Information (VGI), in which data are created by nonprofessional people (or rather without formal qualifications) after a rapid training (Heipke, 2010).
Some authors (Heipke, 2010; Steiniger & Bocher, 2009; Ramm, 2008) also use the term“crowdsourcing” to describe this typology of data acquisition by large and diverse groups of people,
using web technology and specific data sources. Considering the aim of the present paper, it isimportant to outline how these tools enable the students not only to access and investigate on-line
maps by the WebGIS services (De Longueville, 2010), but also to create new georeferenced featuresand data. In particular, the latter task can be carried out by using mobile devices (such as SmartPhones
and Tablets enabled with GPS). Then, the collected data can be recorded into WebGIS systems bymobile Internet access.
In this way, teachers and students can use the above described approach to visualize, analyse, share,and study information geographically in a user friendly environment. Moreover, they can report the38

status of the study area through its geographical components and produce ad hoc information, timely
and at local scale. Potential external viewers of created maps can control the data layers seen on their
PC or Tablet (using Apple or Android OS) and can choose to view the data, for example, on top of
Google Maps or OpenStreetMap (http://www.openstreetmap.org/) map tiles. Therefore, from an
overall point of view, as well as creating their own maps, users can search and view maps from thehundreds of maps already created. The added value of VGI in educational activities, the enabling
technologies, collectively termed Web 2.0, and ad hoc geospatial tools to develop and diffuse, collect,synthesize, verify, and redistribute this information have been extensively discussed and investigatedby the scientific and technological communities (see, among others: Goodchild, 2007; Laituri, M.
&Kodrich, 2008; Marcheggiani et al., 2011).

GIS’S TEACHING: WHAT ABOUT STUDENTS’ OPINION?
This new way of teach GIS through distributed online resources looks promising, but is internet asolution to students problems? In addition, would Google earth ever be a proper GIS? We are intransition times towards new ways of teaching and all available information are needed about all theactors involved in the process. Considering students as one of the most important stakeholder a study
has been conducted with the aim to explore their opinion. A survey has been devised to make the pointon the Italian situation for the faculties of Agriculture for the 2010–2012 semesters. To do so an online
anonymous questionnaire focusing on Geomatics and GIS has been given to Bachelor or in Masterstudents to test their knowledge and to profile the appeal of GIS. The survey has involved four of the
major faculties of Agriculture across Italy: Marche Polytechnic University (Univpm), Mediterranean
University of Reggio Calabria (Murc), University of Udine (UoU) and University of Perugia (UoP).
About 300 students have been contacted, about the half of them have replayed fulfilling 130
questionnaires. The results are shown and a synthetic appraisal is discussed hereafter.

The questionnaire structure
To perform the online survey we have made use of the Google Doc® (known as Google Drive)
repository. This free Web-based suite allows users to create and edit real-time documents online.
Google Docs combines the features of Writely and Spreadsheets with a presentation program.
Documents, spreadsheets, presentations can be created with Google Docs, imported through the webinterface, or sent via email. Documents can be saved to a user's local computer in a variety of formats.
This allows for easy surveys which responses can be therefore saved in Excel® format and postelaborated as figures and chart in automatic way. The whole questionnaire accounts for eighteen
questions divided on four main topics: a first cluster of questions to profile the sampled population, asecond cluster to test students’ skills before to attend the courses, a third set of questions to ask whichhave been the main issues encountered during the GIS and Geomatic courses, and lastly a selfevaluation of courses appeal and consistency.

Marche Polytechnic University (Univpm)
Analysis conducted at the Univpm concerns students attending the third and final year of thebachelor degree in Agricultural Sciences and Forestry. Before to be on a Geomatics course the 68% of
students had never been in touch with basic theory and a significant 11% do not respond. In spite ofthat, the most of them declare of being already experienced to practice GIS (73%) and CAD (44%).
The 84% are used to access web-based geo-information systems such as: Google Earth® (87%),
Bing® (10%), but none knew Map Built®). Then again, only nearly half of the respondents declare to39

recognise Internet as a potential tool for locating places of interest or to plan journeys. Even thought,
the interest in geospatial information resources and services is substantial: 81% of students consider asimportant the opportunity to exchange geographic data through mobile devices (tablets or smart
phones), and the 38% of them find that extremely useful; just a few (2%) score for a “no value”
assessment. No one has been able to give a correct definition of GIS, indicating the need for
preparatory courses in the first stage of Bachelor training. The definition of CAD has been more clear,probably because this tool has been learned at secondary school. In contrast with the expectations,
40% of students has not been able to express preferences for Open Sources GISs vs. commercial ones
(11% prefer commercial software and only 29% open sources) whilst the 50% do not respond. The
above result indicates that students from the Univpm are less equipped with basic of informatics thanothers from the other three universities, and probably out of the debate which sees young people
closely interested to the open and software philosophy. This trend is also confirmed by the responses
concerning both the level of education at the beginning of the course, where 78% were poorly trained,
and had a lot of difficulties to work with GIS. Apparently 96% of students have found the GIS too
hard to be effectively used t deploy the final project-work during courses (only 4% expresses nodifficulty), while a same difficulty level is expressed by just 47% when working with CAD.
Confirming that despite CAD is a less important tool for agriculture engineers remains a most friendly
tool at least for those who come from secondary technical school.
Unlike the students from the other three university only the 50% of respondents consider theknowledge gained during GIS and Geomatics courses very or extremely important for future
professional life. Whilst a large cluster (24%) consider it less important. The same trend is about theperception of the importance GIS as a way to gain a valuable training curricula. In spite of that the
50% of students consider enough the time (in term of credit) spent to practice GIS showing a lowinterest to invest credits to fill the lack knowledge in Geomatics as emerges from the previous
responses. These results reflect the Bachelors’ curricula offered at Univpm which profiles are deeply
rooted more in the domain of biological sciences than agriculture engineering technical issues. Despite
the overall assessment of Geomatics courses quality is still generally positive (50%), with a 11% of
students whose found course very positive, a high 11% evaluated the courses in negative way. This
could be interpreted as a symptom of uneasiness that students have had working with GIS software
without an adequate preliminary preparation which make the class work less appealing.

University of Udine (UoU)
All the students were from Bachelor. The most of them (80%) already know the meaning of the term
Geomatics before to attend the courses, but only a few (15%) have had previous experience with GIS.
It is interesting to note that 10% of students declared to have been introduced to principles ofGeomatics during secondary schools and another equivalent quote has received basic knowledge of
GIS and CAD. Whilst a significant 34% declare to be used to work with GIS and CAD duringsecondary education without any theoretical knowledge. All respondents (90%) are habitually used toaccess online web resources to virtual exploration of places and Google Earth, with the 95% ofsharing, is resulted to be the most wanted tool. Remarkable (78% of medium and very high rates) is
the interest in new applications of GIS technologies that enable for the exchange of geographic
information by mobile devices such as SmartPhones, Tablets, ecc. Accessing and managing geoinformation through GIS seems highly appealing and an easy for the most of the students (79%express a low or medium-low difficult in working with GIS).

40

All the involved students have been introduced to a specific GIS software and the 70% have given a
correct definition of it, but too high still remains the quote of non-responders (30%).
Geomatics and GIS are considered relevant both for education and professional activities (38% very
important, 55% medium important) but the role of GIS as problem solving tool is perceived as more
important for the professional activity. The answers have shown an overall preference Open Source
GIS (84%) because of its free availability giving the possibility to get in touch with these tools evenoutside the faculty labs, but even for a general natural predisposition of younger pupils toward free
software initiatives. The overall assessment of Geomatics courses in terms of quality and organisationshows a satisfactory evaluation (54% considers the offered courses of very high quality, as well as the
26% high, 15% medium, and a 5% very low).

Mediterranean University of Reggiocalabria (Muorc)
In this case the sampled population of students seems split in two halves. A 62% of involved
students did not know the theoretical principles of Geomatics before attending the courses and either
have no experiences with GIS, on the contrary the 43% were already well trained on the use of CAD.
Nearly the whole of sampled students are used to regularly access Internet sites to locate places ofinterest and to plan their journeys. Unsurprisingly Google Earth® is the most famous tool (90%), if
compared with other resources, e.g. Bing® (10%). Also accessing and managing geo-information
through mobile devices is considered a good opportunity for the 90% of students and 62% of themworth the possibility of exchange geographic data through mobile devices assigning it a very highinterest. Quite all the students have given a correct definition of GIS and 71% of them expressed apreference for Open Source GIS; just a few (4%) prefer commercial solutions, 10% do not answer.
Regarding the self-evaluation of personal expertise before the courses results show a 52% of
inexpert beginners, a 47% of people declaring a mid-expertise. Despite this low skills surprisingly asignificant half (57%) declare to have no difficulties to work with GIS, even a 19% declare nonedifficulties at all. The proportion of those that feels itself confident with the software tool growth to
48% with CAD, but at the same time the proportion of those who begin to get hampered by medium
problems increases (from 29% to 33%). The importance given to be trained in Geomatics shows a
95% of students that consider GIS important or very important. And a 76% of them consider thenumber of hours dedicated to GIS practices too low.
In synthesis, answers show an overall satisfactory evaluation about the results of the courses (81%give a high rate), especially regard the technical expertise in GIS, perceived by students as a key
element for their professional skills.

41

Figure. 1: the 90% of students are used to make use Internet to explore places, search for events, or to view maps and to plan
trips (in blu the percentages of respondents scoring for a Yes, whilst in red those answering No and in green the quote of nonrespondents). But stat Geomatic and GIS courses with any specific propaedeutical literacy, even during the secondary school.
As shown in figure the percentage of students which have already have received base Geomatics or GIS knowledge decline to20%. Remarkable is the high rate of non-respondents at the Univpm highlighting as still strong inhomogeneous Italiansituation.

University of Perugia (UoP)
The survey conducted at the University of Perugia has involved about 40 students attending
Geomatics courses at Bachelor or Master. The most of the students (75%) did not know the meaningof Geomatics and Geo-information before to attend the courses, whilst almost all were used to accessInternet sites and applications for locating place of interest and for planning journeys. Predictably
Google Earth, thanks to its very effective and appealing interface is the most known tool for such
purposes. Also accessing and managing geo-information through mobile devices (i.e Tablets andSmarthPhones) seems appealing for many of the students (35% medium, 15% high, 45% very highinterest). The students at the Master course were already trained to specific GIS (75%) and CAD(55%) software and all have given a correct definition of these systems. The results show a preference
for Open Source software (85%) because its free usability and for the appeal of open approach. All the
involved students consider Geomatics relevant both for their own university training as well as fortheir future professional activities (35% medium, 45% high, 20% very high relevance). Time
dedicated to Geomatics is considered not sufficient principally by the students who give high and very
high relevance to GIS matters. Student’s skills on Geomatics before the courses appear very poor(35%), poor (35%) and medium (30%). Concerning the learning difficulties faced during the course
the answers are very patchy but with a clear tendency toward the lower levels, both on GIS and CAD,
42

showing a good effectiveness and “student-friendliness” of the teaching methods. Moreover theanswers show an overall satisfactory evaluation about the outcomes of the Geomatics courses (50%very high, 30% high, 15% medium, 5% very low).

Figure 2: few students develop during secondary school the needed expertise to attend university’s courses of Geomatics.
However students often declare intermediate difficulty in using GIS technology, the gap between the mere use of softwareand the deepen of theoretical basis of spatial planning, analysis and land management is still far too large to allow for aneffective transmission of the due knowledge.

DISCUSSION
The crux of the matter has been twofold. On one hand our aim has been to put the finger on somemajor issues limiting the potential of Geomatics in Italy. On the other, by involving GIS teachers fromfour of the major faculties of Agriculture across Italy and a research unit namely the Italian National
Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), we haveaimed to depict the state of play today. Results suggest different scenarios for the surveyed
Universities, however some general trends can be indicated. The survey in general confirmed student’s
awareness on the importance of Geomatics and GIS as an effective tool to improve their competences,skills and to obtain a qualified and satisfactory professional life. As matter of fact the majority ofinterviewed is persuaded on the central role of GIS for planning and spatial information management(see Fig. 3). The preferences are for open source software, and remarkable is the interest in new
applications of geo-information and GIS technologies which enable friendly and distributed tools (i.e.
virtual globes such as Google Earth® and Bing®) and the exchange of geographic information
thorough mobile devices, such as SmartPhones and Tablets. Such a trend confirms how active
exploration of places will be an important asset of future improvement of Agriculture faculties offer
where open GIS solution will have the more and more have to easily match the needs of students for anumber of modes to access geo-information which students routinely shall use to perform theirtraining.

43

Figure 3: the results of survey have in general confirmed student’s awareness on the importance of Geomatics and GIS as aneffective tool to improve their competences, skills and to obtain a qualified and satisfactory professional life. As matter offact the majority of interviewed is persuaded on the central role of GIS for planning and spatial information management.

In average the 90% of students are used to make use Internet and its wide web resources to explore
places, search for events, or to view maps and to plan trips. But this has to be fostered by a more
integration of curricula between secondary and higher education, as confirmed by the trend that sees
students generally start GIS course whit any base knowledge (see Fig. 1). Only a very few of themdevelop at the secondary school the needed expertise to attend university’s courses of Geomatics.
However students often declare intermediate difficulty in using GIS technology, the gap between themere use of software and the theoretical spatial planning, analysis and land management paradigms isstill far too large to allow for an effective transmission of the due knowledge (see Fig. 2). For
Agriculture Faculties problems arises non only because this lack of coordination with secondary
schools. So far the amount of credits dedicated to Geomatics and GIS and still few if compared with
the number of hours dedicated to bio-sciences. Efforts should have to be done at the level of academic
structures when the assignments for each scientific subject are decided, every three or five years
averagely in Italy. But the unresolved division seeing Agriculture faculties out from the cluster ofengineering faculties in Italy and a stronger inclusion in bio-sciences domains hamper any potential
improvement of the number of credits in favour of technical and engineering subjects.
Education of students in Agricultural Science faculties on GIS issues is generally positively
assessed. Anyway, differences emerges within each study case, marking the specificity of the four
surveyed faculties. Students generally require additional credits to deepen specific scientificapplications and project works with GIS. However a minority of them still remains reluctant mainly
because the high technical and computing efforts required. This is in contrast with the maths and IT
requirements needed to attend traditional agricultural and biological courses. The main critical point,
as often expressed by respondents, is not on the quantity of hours dedicated to Geomatics but on the
scarce integration of GIS class works with the other courses. That highlights for one of the biggest
44

issue in Italian higher education systems nowadays: the lack of interdisciplinary coordination among
the different scientific subjects. This limit is particularly strong in the faculties of Agriculture where
the multidisciplinary is at the highest level if compared with other faculties. Despite the geospatial
approach would benefit a number of scientific subjects taught, such as: economy, soil science,hydrology, botany, marketing, planning, botany, etc , in the matter of fact the level of integration isvery low generating a conceptual disconnection of Geomatics from the other subjects and a
progressive decay of student’s acquired skills.
In last words, the major problems emerging from the teaching experience can referred to two mainsituations. The unbalance between the time needed to train students over a specific GIS software andthe less time spent to introduce them to theoretical principles and methodological frameworks. On theother hand, this scarce theoretical improvements relegates GIS’s applications as mainly oriented to thecartography and maps production, and less for deepening the potential of GIS as powerful analytical
tools for spatial purposes and to spatial planning. One of the most appealing aspect of GIS, which is its
deep character of problem solving tool integrating technologies with human resources should befurther improved by applications to on real study cases, because that would great benefits thecreativity and the critical thinking of each student. The whole GIS educational process enable them toform their own ability to tackle concrete cases enhancing their own design ability to build a personal
visions of the world.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clancey, William J., 1997 Situated Cognition: On Human Knowledge and Computer representations.
Cambridge University press. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, United
Kingdom. ISBN 05214449004, pp 406.
De Longueville, B. Community-based geoportals: The next generation? Concepts and methods for thegeospatial Web 2.0. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2010, 34, 299–308
Goodchild, M.F. Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 2007, 69, 211–
221
Heipke, C. Crowdsourcing geospatial data. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2010, 65, 550–557
Kraak M. (2004) The role of the map in a Web-GIS environment, “Journal of Geographical Systems”,
6(2), pp. 83-93. DOI: 10.1007/s10109-004-0127-2
Laituri, M.; Kodrich, K. On line disaster response community: People as sensors of high magnitude
disasters using internet GIS. Sensors 2008, 8, 3037–3055
Marcheggiani, E. Would Google Earth be a proper GIS? Proceedings of the LeGIO-workshop, GISeducation in a changing academic environment. Leuven, 18 November 2011 (pp. 135-139).
Leuven, Belgium: SADL - Spatial Applications Division Leuven
Marcheggiani, E.; Galli, A.; Gulinck, H. The Characterisation of “Living” Landscapes: The Role of
Mixed Descriptors and Volunteering Geographic Information. In Lecture Notes in Computer
Science; Murgante, B., Gervasi, O., Iglesias, A., Taniar, D., Apduha, B.O., Eds.; Springer:
Berlin, Germany, 2011; Volume 6782, pp. 369–380
Ramm, F. Crows Sourcing Geodata. In Proceedings FOSSGIS 2008; Freiburg, Germany, 1–3 April
2008. Available online: www.geofabrik.de/media/2009-09-08-crowdsourcing-geodata.pdf(accessed on 4 May 2012)
Rinaudo, F. Teaching Geomatics in Italy. GTC 2011 Geomatics Technologies in the City First
Steiniger, S.; Bocher, E. An overview on current free and open source desktop GIS developments. Int.
J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2009, 23, 1345–1370

45

Session 2: GI S&T versus Geo-ICT: an
artificial boundary?
Discussion session

Session 3A: GI S&T-education & SDINational SDI portal and SDI education
Giedrė Beconytė & Andrius Balčiūnas
Vilnius University M.K.Čiurlionio 21/27, LT-03101 Vilnius, Lithuania

ABSTRACT
Development of national and regional SDI portals has become more intense and co-ordinated after
INSPIRE directive has been adopted in May 2007. In 2012 it can be stated that national geoportals arepractically functioning in many countries of the EU. More and more people use them for searching
map-related information, browsing of maps and downloading geographic data. Soon the time willcome, when finding, use and analysis of geographic information becomes a part of daily life for the
major part of the society. The NSDI portal in Lithuania (www.geoportal.lt) has been launched in 2009.
During the last three years we have observed interesting changes in user dynamics that indicate a trendof transformation of the geoportal from a rather rigid and limited use system to a true Web 2.0
collaborative medium that has a huge potential of further user involvement. We believe that suchenvironments make a significant impact on development of geographically aware society. In ord er to
use the full potential of NSDIs and geoportals, they must be correspondingly introduced in geographic
information studies of different levels: from the ideas of geographic crowdsourcing in secondary oreven primary schools to understanding of metadata and geographic web services as a component ofgeneral university education. Issues of GIS business, management and innovations must become anatural part of all higher level geographic information study programmes, including geography andcartography. Specialized SDI-orientated modules should be developed for spatial planners,
environmental managers and other target groups that make decisions based on combined
heterogeneous geographic information. Whereas consistent SDI education is still more a vision thatreality, the national geoportal itself can serve as the starting point. Along technical and functional
enhancements of the Lithuanian geoportal, two supporting lines of development are planned: researchon geoportal qu ality and user education ‘inside’ the geoportal. We expect that geoportal quality
research will result in a methodological framework for objective evaluation of a geoportal in several
aspects such as functionality and usability. The goal of user education is building and expanding acommunity of proactive geoportal users who would then be able to educate the others. The SDI
education outside the geoportal would help bringing new users; however, it alone cannot guaranteethat they stay. It is thus important to foster geographic communication, crowdsourcing/cloud projects
and social networking by geoportal tools and environments. Meanwhile geoportal.lt user community
has no identifiable structure and standard communication measures such as forum, community
channels and interactive glossary of GI terms are barely used. It is partly due to still limited
geoportal.lt contents, but also the need for more user-involving projects and services is obvious.
Therefore a cloud service is planned to be included in geoportal.lt in 2014.

51

Software Tool Development for Higher Education on Geospatial
Technology
Morishige Ota
Kokusai Kogyo Co., Ltd. & University of Tokyo

ABSTRACT
People who have knowledge on Geospatial Information Standards are not enough, even though the
Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) is constructed widely in the world. One of reasons is that only a few
educational organizations open courses on the related knowledge in Japan. We should consider adevelopment of the educational tools to improve such a situation. This paper aims to propose thedesign of the introductory course, course materials and the open software tool on Geospatial
technology based on the knowledge behind Geographic Information Standards.
Keywords: GIS education, Geographic Information Standard, open educational tool

INTRODUCTION
Today, the construction and utilization of global, international, national, and sub-national SDIs arepromoted rapidly. We can point out at least three reasons. The first is the natural resource depletioncaused by the world population growth. The second is the escalation of disasters and environmental
issues. The third is the social demand to make spatial data interoperable. ISO/TC211, OGC and otherrelated organizations provide Geographic Information Standards to realize the spatial datainteroperability. EU published INSPIRE Directive in order to establish an infrastructure for Spatial
Information in the member countries (European Union, 2007). Japanese government enacted “Basic
Act on the Advancement of Utilizing Geospatial Information” in the same year (Murakami, 2008).
Also the US Ministry of Labor identifies the Geospatial Industry as the high growth industry (USMinistry of Labor, 2010).
Meanwhile, UCGIS published GIS&T Body of Knowledge (BoK) in 2006 (DiBiase et al., 2006),
and an education initiative in the Association of Geographic Information Laboratories in Europe(AGILE) is investigating BoK and education, qualification, and certification systems. In Japan, theinitiative on a GIS&T BoK was undertaken by the research project "Development of geographic
information science curricula and sustainable web library systems for serving their contents" [Chair:
Atsuyuki Okabe, University of Tokyo] from 2005 up to 2007 (Ota et al., 2008). Also the research
project "Geographic Information Sciences Education and Spatial Thinking" [Chair: Yasushi Asami,
University of Tokyo] is running from 2009 to 2013. The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science(JSPS) funds both projects. International Conference on Spatial Thinking and Geographic Information
Science to promote the later research activity was held from September 14 to 16, Tokyo (Asami,2011).
The author is a member of both projects and developing teaching aids for the introductory course of
Geospatial Technology on the viewpoint of the dissemination of Geographic Information Standards(Ota, 2010). There are two reasons to emphasize GI Standards. One is that there are few educational
tools to learn knowledge behind SDI in Japan, even though the SDI construction and its utilization areurgent issues. The other is that GI Standards can be seen as a gateway to the knowledge of Geospatial

53

Technology. For example, ISO 19107 - Spatial schema (ISO, 2003) provides well-structured spatial
geometry and topology.
This paper will focus on designing of the lecture notes (slides) and the software tool for a semester
course brought for undergraduate students and beginners in the GIS industry. At first, we will discussdesigning the introductory course on Geospatial Technology. At second, the software tool called"GeoPack" will be reported in preliminary fashion as it is still under development. And finally, we will
remark the future works and the schedule of the development.

DESIGNING OF THE COURSE ON GEOSPATIAL TECHNOLOGY
We will discuss the purpose, constraints, topics, and syllabus of the semester course forundergraduate students and for beginners working in GIS industry in this section.

Purpose
Purpose of the course is that students will have an overview of Geospatial Technology, the role ofeach knowledge unit in the BoK of Geospatial Technology, and how to acquire, store, analyse,
exchange and represent geospatial data. Furthermore, we have a plan so that the students will be able
to get tips on the geospatial software development, if they ask for.

Constraints
We have to accept several constraints before designing the course. There are time limitation, volume
of knowledge that students can learn, and prerequisites. Standard lecture hours are 22.5 hours as 15
lectures (1 credit) in Japan. In addition, students are expected to study 22.5 hours before and after
lectures. It means that the total length for students is 45 hours and it is divided over 15 lectures. Thus,
appropriate volume of lecture notes (slides) for teachers and aids for self-learning are required. We
cannot request long list of prerequisites to students, as long as they are beginners of this research field.
However, we expect they have knowledge of high school level mathematics (In case of Japan, it may
happen that students who did not select mathematics as the subject of entrance examination are
included in the class), because they will learn geometric attributes (point, curve and surface) ofgeographic features, basic idea of coordinate reference system and fundamental algorithm (distance,
centre, point in polygon, etc.) of spatial analysis.

TopicsIn accordance with the scope of ISO/TC211 (http://www.isotc211.org/scope.htm), standards
provided by TC211 may specify, for geographic information, methods, tools and services for data
management (including definition and description), acquiring, processing, analyzing, accessing,presenting and transferring such data in digital/electronic form between different users, systems andlocations. Meanwhile, GIS&T BoK (DiBiase et al., 2006 on page 5-6) defines Geospatial Technology
as it supports a wide variety of uses, from data acquisition (e.g., aerial imaging, remote sensing, land
surveying, and global navigation satellite systems), to data storage and manipulation (e.g., GIS, image
processing, and database management software), to data analysis (e.g., software for statistical analysis
and modeling) to display and output (e.g., geovisualization software and imaging devices).
In this paper, Geospatial Technology (in other words, Geomatics, or Geographic Information
Science and Technology) is defined as a discipline of modelling, acquisition, management, analysis,
54exchange and representation of geospatial data. Each element of Geospatial Technology can be seen asa knowledge unit of the BoK on this research field.

1) Modelling
Modelling is a process to describe "feature" as an abstraction of the real world phenomena. An
abstraction process is called modelling. A structural cluster of models is constructed in the humanbrain by assimilation and accommodation. However, to think of digital data acquisition following themodel, it is impossible to get well-structured data, if the model contains ambiguity. It means that dataacquisition is not possible without formal description of model, in other words the schema. Therefore,
the schema description language such as UML is important to achieve un-ambiguity.
Geospatial data is a special type of data as it relates to the position/location on the earth. So, we need
the restrictions to the schema. General Feature Model (GFM) defined in ISO 19109 (ISO, 2005)
provides them as a meta-model for the formal description of feature and association between them.
GFM includes rules how to define attributes and operations of a feature and an association. The author
simplified the GFM defined in ISO 19109 for the elemental education (Figure 1).

Figure 1: General Feature Model (GFM) for the elemental education of Geospatial Technology.

Attributes are classified as spatial, temporal, thematic and location. The schema made in compliancewith GFM is called an application schema. In case of the semester course, spatial attributes are limited
up to two topological dimensions. It means that geometric primitives are point, curve and surface. Buta coordinate can be three-dimensional. Temporal primitives are zero-dimensional instant and onedimensional period. Thematic attributes are for example, character string, number, image and movie.
Location is a place on the earth identifying indirectly.
Operation is a function to get characteristics of a feature processing by an application. It returns a
result of operation by input attributes as arguments. Association is a connection between features. The
strong association is called composition. “Strong” means if a feature is eliminated, connected features
are also eliminated. As long as an association is a real world phenomenon, association is a feature.

552) Acquisition
Acquisition is a production process of spatial data, in other words a set of feature instances. Thisknowledge unit contains not only methods but also spatial and temporal reference systems and data
quality. Actually the scope of this knowledge unit is huge. For example, paper map digitizing, groundsurvey, GPS survey, photogrammetry, remote sensing, hydrographical survey, geological survey,
meteorological investigation are all acquisition technologies. However, it is impossible to teach themin the limited time. Thus the lecture is limited to paper map digitizing, spatial/temporal reference
systems and data quality. Because, students can experience paper map digitizing rather easier thanother acquisitions, and concepts of reference system and data quality are important for almost all
acquisition process.

3) Management
Management, in this case, means the action to store, access, and transfer data files (e.g., a set offeature instances, application schema and metadata). Metadata is defined as "data about data" (ISO,2003). The actual metadata used in clearinghouses is complicated as it was designed for general
purpose. However for the fundamental education, we need at least what is it and how it works.
Therefore, enough elements of metadata for basic education could be title, overview, responsible
party, geographic extent, temporal extent and publication date.

4) Spatial Analysis
Huge variety of spatial analysis methods is developed for different research fields. Therefore, it is
impossible for students to get whole image of spatial analysis in this course. We recommend learning
the basic computational geometry, for example, showing below, because we presume computational
geometry is the most fundamental knowledge of spatial analysis.
Centre – gravity centre, centroid
Algorithm to judge “point in polygon”
Distance – Euclid, Manhattan
Fundamental algorithm of the shortest path
Algorithm to judge “point in line buffer”
Introduction to Voronoi diagram
Introduction to 9 intersections
Allen’s temporal relationships

5) Representation
Representation is a process to make information from data. For example, map is information
produced by visualization of geospatial data. People may find the meaning from maps but may notfrom geospatial data, as it is just a sequence of codes.
Structure of maps and portrayal schemas selected from the basic knowledge of Cartography are
introduced in the lecture. A map consists of content (symbols and labels), title, subtitle, legends, scale,orientation, inset maps and illustrations, frames and neat lines, description of producer, resource,
lineage and date of publication. Meanwhile, portrayal schema defines the structure of symbols andlabels by using UML. Students will learn how to illustrate these elements on maps.

566) Exchange
Data exchange is defined as data transfer from one system to another. If the style of data
management is different, then a sender encodes data from internal to standardized external format, anda receiver decode data to its own format. To achieve encode and decode, the rules to describe
standardized data shall be required. ISO/TC211 and OGC standards adopt XML as a common rule.
For example, a coordinate is defined by a sequence of number and dimension. It can be described asfollows. Component is a sequence of coordinate elements, while dimension is a number of coordinate
elements.
<Coordinate component="575.8,278.2" dimension="2"/>
We exchange spatial data but also application schema, metadata, portrayal schema, etc.

Syllabus
The author has got an opportunity to teach a semester course of Geospatial Technology at Universityof Tokyo from 2008 to 2010 (Ota et al., 2009). The topics and volume the students can learn during ahalf-year became clear through this experience. Table 1 shows topics for the course. As long as SDI
is the means to assemble geographic information that describes the arrangement and attributes offeatures and phenomena on the Earth (National Research Council, 1993) and its overriding objective is
to facilitate access to geographic information assets, modelling (the real world recognition and its
formal description) and exchange, in other word data sharing are both important subjects in Geospatial
Technology.
Table 1: Topics for semester course “Introduction to Spatial Technology”

Classes Topics
Knowledge Units
1. Introduction (Geospatial Technology and Society) Maps and Images on the Web
 Augmented reality in SF Movies/Animations and mobile-phones
 Official geospatial applications and information sharing Crisis mapping and disaster response The definition of Geospatial Technology
2. Spatial Thinking and Modelling
Modelling Spatial thinking - cognition, reasoning and discovery
 Cognition - equilibration and three mountain task by Jean Piaget,
conceptual modelling Spatial cognition - The Image of the City by Kevin Lynch, etc.
 Reasoning - deduction, induction and abduction, the first low ofgeography by W. Tobler
3. Formal Description of Models
Modelling Model and meta-model, and consensus making
 The definition of a feature UML as a schema language
 Class diagram and its notation
4. General Feature Model and Application Schema
Modelling General feature model Application schema and its design process
5. Formal Description of Feature Instances
Modelling, Exchange How to describe feature instance following application schema in XML
6, 7. Spatial Schema
Modelling, Exchange
 2D geometric primitives - point, curve and surface
 2D geometric complex
8. Temporal Schema
Modelling, Exchange Time in our dairy life57 Temporal primitives
 Feature succession as temporal association between features
 How to describe "change" on attribute level and feature level
9. Reference Systems and Place
Modelling, Exchange Spatial referencing by coordinate Spatial referencing by geographic identifier Temporal reference system - calendar and clock, ordinal time Position, location and place
10. Coverage
Modelling,
Exchange,
Analysis
 Object view and field view
 Coverage - point, curve, surface
 Coverage - discrete, contiguous
 Coverage schema and algorithm to get value at the given position
11. Spatial Data Acquisition
Acquisition
 Spatial data acquisition and its process Acquisition methods
 Data product specification
12. Conformance and Quality
Acquisition
 Conformance of application schema Data quality - completeness, positional and temporal accuracy, logicalconsistency, and thematic accuracy
13. Spatial Data Management and ExchangeManagement, Exchange Metadata and clearinghouse Encoding - application schema, spatial data, etc.
14. Spatial Analysis
Analysis Introduction to spatial analysis
 Computational geometry as spatial analysis method
15. Representation
Representation
 Separation of visual data from spatial data
 Portrayal schema and portrayal dictionary Map design

GEOPACKIn this section, we introduce how the student will experience and learn through exercises. GeoPack
is software as a teaching aid for exercises on Geospatial Technology. Each knowledge unit
corresponds with each module of GeoPack as shown in Figure 2. The module "Application schema
designer" corresponds with the knowledge unit "Modelling" and it allows the students to design theschema through definitions of feature types and association types. Students will be able to understandhow people recognize the real world, what modelling means and how to describe schemas for his/her
universe of discourse.

58

Figure 2: Module hierarchy of GeoPack

Modelling
Application Schema Designer is used to compose a formal conceptual model. Application schema
has two components. One is Feature Type Designer and the other is Association Type Designer.
People who share the universe of discourse should use the same application schema. In the exercise,students design application schema independently at first. Then, they will work to build consensus
through the group discussion.

Acquisition
In GeoPack, data acquisition is realized as digitizing geometry on the base map, inputting texts andattaching photos and/or movies on a feature instance. The sequence of exercise for data acquisition
will be as follows.
1. Prepare the base map for digitizing geometric attribute and texts, photos and/or, movies forthematic attributes of features.
2. Select the application schema on the Acquisition module.
3. Set parameters- Coordinate reference system and projection- Portrayal dictionary
4. Create feature instance, digitize geometry, and input or select temporal, thematic and location
attributes
5. Store a “kit”, a set of feature instances, application schema, and default symbol dictionary.

59

(a)

(b)
Figure 3: Acquisition Manager (a) and Geometry Editor (b)Management
Data Management is act of receiving, storing, accessing and sending data. In case of GepPack, we
can manage spatial data using metadata. The sequence of exercise is as follows.
1. Describe metadata for the kit. Metadata elements for GeoPack are,- Title- Overview- Responsible party- Publication date
- Geographic extent- Temporal extent- Keywords.
2. Find a kit through narrow down of metadata in the selected folder by restricting element
values.
3. Update or analyze feature instances in the kit.
Kits are stored in the folder of user's PC, as GeoPack is desktop software. It means that this exercise
is not the experience to use public clearinghouse or catalogue service. However, the student canunderstand how to manage and access the spatial data by using metadata.

60

(a)

(b)
Figure 4. MetadataEditor (a) and KitFinder (b)Analysis
The operation defined during feature type design analyses the feature instance. The result of analysis
is stored in the feature instance as an attribute value. For example, imagine spatial attributes "shape:
SG_Surface", "centerPosition:SG_Point" (SG means Spatial Geometry), and an operation"getCentroid (surface:SG_Surface):SG_Point" is declared in a feature type "Building". The declaration"an argument surface responds to an attribute shape" allows “getCentroid” active. To push "run"button on the module, "getCentroid" will run using the shape of building and the result will be stored
in "centerPosition". Anyone will be able to add new operations, because we are planning to publish
GeoPack as open source software.

Representation
This module will have sub-modules for designing symbols and labels, designing maps, displaying
maps on the screen, and printing out on the paper. However, we realized only the symbol designer at
the moment of writing this paper. The sequence of symbol design is as follows.
1. Design line symbol: Select colour, thickness, transparency, caps, joints and interpolation
method
2. Design area symbol: Select filling pattern and borderline
3. Design point symbol: Set the size. Digitize lines and areas after selecting line symbol and area
symbolExchange
This module simply encodes and decodes data. Target data are, application schema, symbol styleschema, kit, and metadata. In GeoPack, interior data format is Action Message Format (AMF),
because the program is written in ActionScript V3.0. The sequence of the typical exercise is asfollows.
1. Encode a kit to XML document.
2. View the XML document on the text editor
3. Change an attribute value (for example, text, colour and coordinate value)
4. Decode the XML document into inner format
5. Confirm the change on the screen
61

FINAL REMARKS
We have a schedule to publish lecture slides and GeoPack around the end of 2012. However,
GeoPack is still under-developing at the moment writing this paper, we need to add the consistency
between lecture slides and GeoPack. We also need to add the manual of GeoPack.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Lecture slides and GeoPack are developing in the research group of Geospatial Technology under
the research project "Geographic Information Sciences Education and Spatial Thinking (Chair:
Yasushi Asami, University of Tokyo)" funded by The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science(JSPS). The special thanks goes to Koichi Kubota, Masatoshi Arikawa, Hideyuki Fujita, Taichi
Furuhashi, and colleagues in JAG Kokusai Kogyo Co., Ltd. for their valuable comments on thedeveloping of both Lecture slides and GeoPack.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Asami, Y. (Ed), International Conference: Spatial Thinking and Geographic Information Science
2011. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Science. Elsevier. Vol. 21, 2011.
DiBiase, D., DeMers, M., Johnson, A., Kemp, K., Luck, A., Plewe, B., et al. (Eds.). Geographic
Information Science and Technology Body of Knowledge (1st ed.). Washington, DC,
Association of American Geographers, 2006.
European Union, Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March
2007.
Official
JournaloftheEuropean
Union.
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:108:0001:0014:en:PDF.
ISO, ISO 19107:2003 Geographic information - Spatial schema. ISO, 2003.
ISO, ISO 19115:2003 Geographic information - Metadata. ISO, 2003.
ISO, ISO 19109:2005 Geographic information - Rules for application schema. ISO, 2005.
Murakami, H., New Legislation on NSDI in Japan: Basic Act on the Advancement of Utilizing
Geospatial
Information.
Bulletin
of
the
GSI.
Vol.
55.
http://www.gsi.go.jp/ENGLISH/Bulletin55.html. Geographical Survey Institute, 2008.
Ota, M., Arikawa, M., Makino, H., Kubota, K., Okabe, A. The Research Initiative on a Curriculum for
Geographic Information Technology in Japan, Proceedings of the 6th Asian Symposium on
Geographic Information Systems from a Computer Science & Engineering Viewpoint[ASGIS2008], Niigata, Japan, pp.5-12. May 22-23, 2008.
Ota, M., Arikawa, M., A Curriculum for Geospatial Information Technology and Its Experimental
Practice, Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Digital Earth (CD-ROM),
Beijing, China, September 9-12, 2009.
Ota, M., Basic Schema on the Geographic Information Developed for Higher Education, Proceedings
for the 3rd ISDE Digital Earth Summit (CD-ROM), Nessebar, Bulgaria. June 12-14, 2010
US Ministry of Labor, http://www.doleta.gov/brg/indprof/geospatial_profile.cfm, updated March 08,
2010.
US National Research Council, Toward a coordinated spatial data infrastructure for the nation.
Mapping Science Committee. Washington DC: National Academy Press. 1993.

62

Session 3B: Life-long learning of GI
S&T

GIS-Training in Spatial Epidemiology: the Race Between LongTerm Distance Learning and Short-Term Release of Open Source
GIS Packages.
Wouter Hantson, Els Ducheyne & Guy Hendrickx
Avia-GIS, Zoersel, Belgium

SUMMARY
Avia-GIS offers courses, from an intensive 3 week face to face course to courses that last several
months via their e-learning platform. As participants use a slightly different configuration this cancause interoperability problems between software and tutorials. In this paper we focus on thechallenging race between the creation and refresh rate of educational software tutorials and the fast(er)release of (open source) GIS packages, and especially the specific problems that appear when using
Open Source GIS programs together with conventional tutorials.
Two courses on spatial epidemiology are compared and discussed. We localized the problems anddiscussed the use of ‘software independent tutorials’ to solve the problems.
It seems that we can win the race by applying software independent tutorials in future GIS courses!

INTRODUCTION
The GIS technology development started in the 1960s with the Laboratory for Computer Graphics
and Spatial Analysis at the Harvard Graduate School of design with the development of a number ofimportant theoretical concepts in spatial data handling and the development of a grid-based mapping
program that served as a model for later GIS systems (Mark et al., 2012). In the early 1980s,
commercial software vendors like Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) and Earth
Resource Data Analysis System (ERDAS) entered the software business and became major GIS
software-players. At the same time GRASS started their development, first proprietary but in the
2000s released as public domain software. The development of Quantum GIS just started in 2002.
Since then GIS software development, research on both methodology and application of GIS was fast
growing with a maximum publication output in 2005 (Figure 1).

120000100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 1: Yearly number of publications/citations referred by Google Scholar when searched for 'GIS'.

65

Currently, GIS has become an established tool for many different research and application fields
ranging from engineering and social science to spatial epidemiology and beyond. Although the total
number of general GIS papers is currently decreasing, figure 2 shows that in the specific case of
epidemiology the number of papers related to GIS published is still increasing which indicates a fast
growing interest in the use of GIS in this specific research field.
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 2: Yearly number of publications/citations referred by Google Scholar when searched for 'GIS'+ ‘epidemiology’.

As a private company specialised in spatial epidemiology, Avia-GIS has a long and outstanding
reputation in developing learning materials and in training post-graduate and post-doctoral students
both in developing countries as well as in Europe. Training is provided through regular curricula ofmaster and post-doctoral programs (ITM, Antwerp; UP, Pretoria) and on-demand as part ofinternational collaborative FP7 funded R&D projects (e.g. EDEN, ICONZ, EDENext, GLOWORM
and OH-NEXTGEN). The training is characterised by an increased specialization and specific(software) training according to the user needs. The GIS education method is an active and problembased approach with case studies taken from the context of veterinary and public health practitioners.
The participants use the same GIS-software, and most likely the same release of the software, tocomplete the tutorial.

TRAINING ‘GIS & SPATIAL EPIDEMIOLOGY’Participants of the Avia-GIS training programs have specific needs focused on the use of GIS in
spatial epidemiology. In contrast to the more general courses on GIS that are developed to a broad
audience of participants we apply a “quick-to-the-core approach”, which has been proven very
efficient and successful (Goossens et al., 2011). Instead of a complete overview of all the GIS topics,
participants are able to create their learning path according to their needs. This approach is supported
by De Bakker (2011) who states that students need Geo Information topics in relation with theiractivities.
The course material is very visual, screenshots and screen casting of actions that need to beundertaken with the GIS-software are interspersed throughout the learning materials. A screenshot of
the outcome of a requested operation is given so that participants can verify if they completed theexercises correctly.
The training is organised around different topics (e.g. Raster Modeling) where each learning cycle ischaracterised by a successive contextualization and decontextualization of the learning materials. The
66

learning cycle can be divided into three parts that are tightly interwoven: A. Theory, in which
participants acquire insights in spatial thinking, combined with a conceptual understanding of the rolethat GIS can play in epidemiological studies. B. Hands-on exercises to complete their conceptual
knowledge using a particular GIS-software package followed by a “real life” casus that they need tosolve by creative thinking and applying the conceptual insights ánd GIS skills they acquired sofar. C.
Facilitates the interaction between students – and depends on the strong user engagement. Participants
are encouraged to interact with each other and thus stimulate creative thinking around the topic.
This approach was developed during the last years and was applied on the MSTAH – Master of
Science in Tropical Animal Health course at ITM, Antwerp with veterinarians as target audience–organized by the Department of Animal Health (DAH). The mission is to generate, distribute andapply scientific knowledge on tropical diseases in livestock for the improvement of human health andwell being in developing countries. This includes our intensive, full-time 3-week GIS training. In
general a session starts with theory, and continues with appropriate exercises. The students finish witha short personal project and presentation. The course is intensive and based on a strong interaction
between tutor and students. The software used is Manifold 8 and the tutorials were course andsoftware specific developed.
Currently, our training courses are increasingly based on open source GIS programs. The programs
are available for multiple operating systems and they launch new releases frequently. Using open
source software is free of cost, students can install and use GIS software on their home computers,even after the GIS course, and the licence allows modifying and distributing applications (Tsou andSmith, 2011). Wheeler et al. (2007) describe it as follows: “Open Source Software / Free Software(OSS/FS) are programs whose licenses give users the freedom to run the program for any purpose, tostudy and modify the program, and to redistribute copies of either the original or modified program.”
An overview of the existing GIS products is given by Steiniger & Hay (2009), Steiniger & Bocher(2009), Ramsey (2007), and Hall & Leahy (2008).
Open source software was used during the EDENext workshop and distance learning, where
European partners are investigating the biological, ecological and epidemiological components ofvector-borne disease introduction, emergence and spread, and the creation of new tools to control
them. Within this context the Spatial Data and GIS course was organized, starting with a 3dayworkshop dealing with GIS theory and introductory exercises, followed by the distance-learning
program. The exercises from the distance learning are presented on our e-learning Moodle platformthat offers the possibilities to present course content and an interactive support and evaluation. The
software used was QUANTUM GIS and the tutorials were course and software specific (QGIS 1.7.0).
The participants come from various backgrounds and include biologists, entomologists, PhD students
on statistical modeling and veterinarians.
Both of the courses were evaluated by 8 students of that particular course. The MSTAH evaluation
was a short paper questionnaire to evaluate the course content, approach, and intellectual challenge.
The EDENext evaluation was a web-based questionnaire, conducted in July 2012, presented on our
Moodle e-learning platform. Moodle offers the opportunity to create an extended web-based
evaluation that is time-efficient and easy to use for students and that offers an automated summary of
the results for the tutor. The first part of the questionnaire was similar to the MSTAH evaluation andthe extended questionnaire was based on a questionnaire already created by Hubeau et al. (2011)
which makes the results comparable. Here the participants are asked to their ‘level of agreement’ inorder to evaluate specific parts of the course setup and -content.
67

COURSE EVALUATION
Based on the student evaluations, the results of both courses are compared and discussed. The
general evaluation of the course as a whole for both, the MSTAH and EDENext course, more than
80% of the participants assessed the course between ‘Excellent’ and ‘Good’. For MSTAH everybody
assessed the course as ‘excellent’ (Fig. X), while for the EDENext the evaluation is spread from ‘fair’(1) till ‘very good’ (1), but on average ‘Very good‘ and ‘Good’.
On the question ’Was the course beneficial for the future?’ the answers were mostly ‘(very)
beneficial’, with again a slight better evaluation for the MSTAH-course, where almost everybody
found the course ‘Very beneficial for the future’.

Figure 3: MSTAH and EDENext course evaluation.

While the participants evaluated the intellectual challenge exactly the same, there is a better
evaluation of the MSTAH-course.
Intellectual challenge
100

%

80
60
40

MSTAH

20

EDNext

pl
i ca

te
d

ev
el
To
o

co

m

yl
At
m

To

o

si m
pl
e

0

Figure 4: Intellectual challenge.

As the course content was similar, the difference in course evaluation is probably due to theeducational setup (tutor guided versus distance learning) and/or the use the GIS program (Manifold or
Quantum GIS). To explain the different evaluation of the two courses, the detailed evaluation of the
EDENext course is analysed based on the following hypothesis:

1. The EDENext course takes several months, based on an e-learning platform;
participants may need more or other support than provided.
Generally spoken, the evaluation of the teaching approach and support of the tutor was relatively
good, although some participants indicate that they could use more ‘human support, advice, andfeedback’ and that the tutor should stimulate more their creative thinking and problem solving attitude.
The support of the tutor asa whole was:The tutor stimulated mycreative thinking andproblem-solving attitude

a. Excellent
338%
a. Almost always
225%

b. Very good338%
b. Often
1
13%

c. Good2
25%
c. Sometimes
563%d. Fair00%d. Seldom
00%e. Disappointing
00%e. Almost never
0
0%

68

Most participants (strongly) agree with the used teaching approach used for the distance learning,which gave them the freedom to work independently and was time efficient for most of theparticipants. The course was also stimulating for dealing actively with the course materials andlearning process.
I am satisfied with the teachingapproach of the EDENext ‘Spatial
Data and GI S’-course.

1. Strongly Agree4
50%
I 'm satisfied with the form of the
1. Strongly Agreetutorial of the exercises.
00%
The course 'Spatial data and GI S' was 1. Strongly Agreetime efficient.
00%Human support, advice and feedback 1. Strongly Agree
were sufficiently available.
2
25%
The exercises were sufficiently clear.
1. Strongly Agree00%
The form of the course gave me the
1. Strongly Agreefreedom to work independently
338%
Experience with the software prepares 1. Strongly Agreefor professional use.
1
13%
The form of the course was stimulating 1. Strongly Agreefor dealing actively with the course0materials and the learning process.
0%
The theoretical background of GI S
1. Strongly Agreebecame more clear.
1
13%

2. Agree
225%
2. Agree
563%
2. Agree
450%
2. Agree
225%
2. Agree
450%
2. Agree
450%
2. Agree
225%
2. Agree
563%
2. Agree
563%

3. Rather Agree225%
3. Rather Agree00%
3. Rather Agree1
13%
3. Rather Agree225%
3. Rather Agree338%
3. Rather Agree00%
3. Rather Agree338%
3. Rather Agree225%
3. Rather Agree1
13%

4. Rather Disagree
00%
4. Rather Disagree
338%
4. Rather Disagree
225%
4. Rather Disagree
113%
4. Rather Disagree
00%
4. Rather Disagree
00%
4. Rather Disagree
225%
4. Rather Disagree
113%
4. Rather Disagree
1
13%

5. Disagree
00%
5. Disagree
00%
5. Disagree
1
13%
5. Disagree
1
13%
5. Disagree
1
13%
5. Disagree
1
13%
5. Disagree
00%
5. Disagree
00%
5. Disagree
00%

6. Strongly Disagree
00%
6. Strongly Disagree
00%
6. Strongly Disagree
00%
6. Strongly Disagree
00%
6. Strongly Disagree
00%
6. Strongly Disagree
00%
6. Strongly Disagree
00%
6. Strongly Disagree
00%
6. Strongly Disagree00%

The level of satisfaction about the form of the tutorials and exercises is twofold, from ‘agree’ (60%)
to ‘rather disagree’ (40%). Some participants indicate that the exercises could be more clear andshould prepare more for the professional use, but almost everybody agreed that the theoreticalbackground of GIS became more clear.

2. The EDENext course takes several months; participants may use a slightly
different QGIS version causing interoperability problems between software andtutorials, or Open Source (QGIS) software issues.
During the course, almost everybody had several software problems. This comes back in thequestionnaire, when we asked the students if they had additional remarks or comments’:‘Sometimes I got stuck with QGIS (bugs) and it was impossible to understand why. I needed help
several times. … I hope that in the future such bugs will be fixed, because I'm afraid not having
someone to help me every time I will need! ‘‘I found QGIS sometimes not working properly. If possible, I would like to use also a different
program: I like the idea of free software but sometimes it was really difficult just to repeat the same
analysis due to software problems. ‘‘There are many problems with the software. … Sometimes I had the feeling that exercises were not
updated because what I saw in the image was not the same with what I saw in my QGIS project. As aresult, I wasn't sure if I did it right. At the end all the previous can be good because you are forced tothink more, but if you encounter many problems at each step, it gives you great psychologicalpressure.’

69

‘The biggest problem on the course was the software QGIS. … At least the beginning would havebeen easier with user-friendly software, so that not so much energy would have been spent on solving
technical problems and banging your head on the wall with some trivial detail.’This was supported by the questionnaire, most of the people ‘Strongly agree’ that the software
contains too many bugs. These software problems seem to be a ‘key’ issue for the course, but 75% of
the participants have the intension to re-use QGIS.
The software contains too many bugs.

Do you intend to re-use Quantum
GI S?

1. Strongly Agree
5
63%
a. Yes675%

2. Agree
1
13%
b. No
2
25%

3. Rather Agree1
13%

4. Rather Disagree
1
13%

5. Disagree
00%

6. Strongly Disagree00%This is a short overview of software and plugin related problems during the distance-learning coursewith QGIS, from tutor perspective:
Unexpected QGIS behaviour / crashes
Some participants reported unstable behaviour of QGIS causing a software crash. Reinstallation of
QGIS solved most of these problems. More problematic from teaching point of view are student errorsthat were impossible to reproduce. Even tests with an identical OS and QGIS version and with student
files deliver correct results, but the student isn’t able to reproduce the correct output on his pc. Tell
students that their error is unsolvable and that they need to reinstall QGIS creates an unreliable hazeover the software.
Use of different QGIS versions
Between the start and end of the course, the QGIS version was upgraded from 1.4.0 to 1.4.4,
including several changes in layout and functionality.

Sept. 2011

Feb. 201270

Differences between 1.7.1 (win) left and 1.7.4 (mac) on the right: “Export to new projection” and“Join attributes” are left out in version 1.7.4 where only right-click – save as… can be used to change
the projection of a vector layer. These problems are problematic using a visual approach. With any
difference between software and course materials, even if the content is only one month old, thecourse appears to be already out-dated!

SOFTWARE INDEPENDENT TUTORIALSThe use of software independent GIS tutorials, as presented by Hubeau et al. (2011), could solve a
lot of problems described before. Software independent tutorials creates the possibility for a flexible
software environment combined with solid GIS tutorials, which offers the knowledge to the students
to develop their skills to think spatially and to construct their own conceptual knowledge of GIS.
There are no specific learning material provided, so the participants need to gather the software
information by themselves, and once used to search and solve the students acquire the skills to solve
problems related to software, hardware, and data-interoperability (Hubeau et al. 2011).

DISCUSION & CONCLUSION
In general, a Manifold course based on the visual teaching approach is easier to create, maintain, andsupervise compared to the open source variant QGIS. The use of ‘software independent tutorials’
without specific learning material provided, is less based on a visual approach could help to solve theimpression of working with out-dated tutorials when using open source software with an active
developing team.
The participants of the EDENext GIS course want to be more stimulated into creative thinking andthe development of a problem-solving attitude; the use of software independent tutorials could
increase their creativity to solve both software- and GIS related-problems. This could also increase thesatisfaction about the tutorials, exercises, and prepare the student better for their further GIS work.
Internet provides a lot of information, although that could be difficult for some QGIS starters. Creating
and stimulating an interactive discussion-forum with a ‘self-supporting’ community, supervised by thetutor can encourage their problem-solving attitude. This is common for open source software. The
71

open source software community offers in general “free” user-to-user assistance, and as Lakhani et al.
(2003) states, most of the effort expended by information providers in fact returns as direct learningbenefits to those providers. Within discussion fora real-world problems (exercises) are delivered andanswered by the ‘user community’ while actively building on their knowledge. This fits perfectly in
our training philosophy that knowledge is constructed from experience and that the focus should beshifted from systems of delivery of knowledge to the construction of knowledge. The same approach
will be applied in the future software independent course where the participants will be motivated topost their questions into discussion fora, so they are urged to take an active role in building theirknowledge. This is supported by Siemens (2005): “Let the learner share his information with others”.
He suggests that learning is based on experiences and because first-hand experience is not always
feasible, competence is gained from forming connections and sharing the experiences of others.
The use of software independent tutorials seems very promising for solving the problems that appear
using Open Source Software in GIS tutorials. The software independent tutorials are currently underdevelopment and from august on they will be tested. Maybe some preliminary results can already bepresented during the conference.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
De Bakker, M., 2011 Geo-Information Education: For Everyone and / or For the Specialist?
Proceedings of GIS-education in a changing academic environment. Leuven, Belgium. ISBN
987-90-8826-217-3: pp 15-20.
Hall, G., Leahy, M. Open source approaches in spatial data handling. Springer, Berlin, 2008.
Hubeau, M., Steenberghen, T., Vileikis, O., Van Balen, K., Van Orshoven, J. 2011 SoftwareIndependent tutorials for supervised self-study of Geographic Information Science andTechnology, Leuven, Belgium. ISBN 987-90-8826-217-3: pp 117-125.
Goossens, E., Ducheyne, E., Hendrickx, G. 2011 GIS-training in spatial epidemiology: the role of theprivate sector in bridging the gap between research and decision making, Leuven, Belgium.
ISBN 987-90-8826-217-3: pp 29-35.
Lakhani, K., von Hippel, E. How open source software works: “Free” user-to-user assistance.
Research Policy, Volume 32(6), 923-943, 2003.
Mark, D., Chrisman, N., Frank, A., McHaffie, P., Pickles, J., The GIS History Project. From
http://www.ncgia.buffalo.edu/gishist/bar_harbor.html, accessed 13 july 2012.
Ramsey, P. The State of Open Source GIS. Refractions Research, Victoria, BC, CA, 2007.
Siemens, G. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional
Technology and Distance Learning Volume 2, 3–10, 2005
Steiniger, S., and Bocher, E. An overview on current free and open source desktop GIS developments,
International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 23:10, 1345-1370, 2009.
Steiniger, S., Hay, G.J.: Free and Open Source Geographic Information Tools for Landscape Ecology.
Ecological Informatics, 2009.
Tsou, M.-H. and Smith, J. 2011 Free and Open Source software for GIS education. UnpublishedWhite Paper Prepared for the GeoTech Center, accessed on 18-06-2012 ,http://www.iapad.org/publications/ppgis/tsou_free-GIS-for-educators-whitepaper.pdf
Wheeler, D. 2007: Why Open Source Software / Free Software? Look at the Numbers!, accessedon 18–06-2012, http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html

72

A questionnaire to evaluate the GI job market in Flanders: firstfindings
Verfaillie, E. 1,2, De Wit, B. 1, Kellens, W. 1,3, Maddens, R. 1, Van de Weghe, N. 1, Vanopbroeke, V. 1,
Zwartjes, L. 1 & De Maeyer, P. 1
1

CartoGIS Cluster, Ghent University (UGent) - Department of Geography, Krijgslaan 281 - S8, B-9000 Gent,
Belgium
2
Current contact address: Ghent Port Company, John Kennedylaan 32 - Haven 3000 A, B-9042 Ghent, Belgium
3
Current contact address: GEO Solutions NV, Veldkant 33B, B-2550 Kontich, Belgium
Contact: els.verfaillie@havengent.be

ABSTRACTAt present, it is unclear whether graduated GI students in Flanders are ready for the GI job market ornot. A questionnaire has therefore been developed by the Geography Department of the Ghent
University, aiming to (i) assess the required profile of an employee in the domain of ‘geo-information’(GI worker) by questioning GI employers; (ii) check whether the university GI education meets theneed of the market; and (iii) evaluate the quality of GI education in secondary schools. The target
group of this survey was very broad: private companies, consultancy firms, governmentalorganizations and educational institutions.
The questionnaire was carried out in spring 2012. In addition to the general characteristics of the GI
job market, information on the profile of current GI workers, the need of GI employers and the GI
education, were collected, as well as various GI aspects (data mining, data processing, image
processing, presentation, databases, programming, web development, geo web development, data
modeling, juridical knowledge and management).
The questions about the profile of current GI workers deal with education and qualification level andnumbers of people working in different GI categories (i.e. GI users, data managers, Geo-ICT experts,
coordinators). The needs of GI employers were investigated by questioning if organizations face anincreased need for Geo-ICT, how they cope with this issue, which technical competences arenecessary for a GI worker, and which levels of required expertise per GI domain are necessary. The GI
education was evaluated by questioning the skills of graduated GI students.
In this paper, the first findings of the questionnaire are presented by giving a summary of the mostimportant conclusions.

INTRODUCTION
In an online survey taken during the months of April and May 2012, Flemish employers were asked
for the desired profile of an employee in the domain of ‘geo-information’1 (abbreviated ‘GI worker’).
An additional aim was to test whether the current Flemish programs meet the needs of the GI
employers. The target audience of surveyed employers was very broad: both companies, consultancies
and government departments.

1

The definition of geo-information as used in the survey: geo-information = GI = geographic information = all spatially referenced
information (information is that part of the selected data relevant for a particular use or purpose).

73Based on the answers it was possible to gain insights in the needs of the Flemish GI labor market. In
this way the higher educational institution can adjust their programmes in order to prepare students
more efficiently for the labor market.
The survey consisted of five parts:
GeneralProfile of current GI staff
Needs of GI employers
Training
Final questions
The answers were processed confidentially and with the utmost discretion. Also, answers weregeneralized, so a specific answer cannot be linked to a particular organization or name.

SURVEY DESCRIPTION
The link to the online survey was distributed through different channels:
AGIV website (April 2012)
AGIV digital newsletter (May 2012)FLAGIS mailing list (May 2012)AGORIA Geo-ICT mailing list (May 2012)
A total of 103 respondents participated in the survey, but only 20 of them completed the entire
questionnaire. This can probably be explained by the extensiveness of the survey as some respondents
indicated to find the questionnaire too long. For the presentation of the results per question, themaximum number of respondents is used (i.e. at least 20 per question). For each question the value"N" (bottom left for the figures and top left for the tables) indicates how many respondents completed
this question. Since only descriptive statistics are given and no comparative statistical tests thatcombine different questions, the variation of the sample size is no problem.
Representatives of both private companies (e.g. Geo-ICT companies, architects, surveyor agencies),government (municipal, Flemish and federal level) and higher education institutions participated in thesurvey. The distribution of respondents is similar for the Flemish provinces (Figure 1), only Limburg
is weakly represented. The majority of the participating organizations are from East Flanders (26%)
and Antwerp (24%). Despite its small size the Brussels Capital Region apparently houses a large
number of GI employers, since 18% of the respondents is based there.
Flemish Brabant
18%

Antwerp24%

Oriental
Flanders
10%

N=79

East Flanders
26%

Brussels Capital
Region18%
Limburg
4%

Figure 1: Response percentage for the Flemish provinces

74

The lower response rate in some provinces is probably due to a lower number of GI employers basedin those provinces. Since the survey was distributed via e-mail, it is unlikely to explain the lower
response rate by a heterogeneous distribution of the survey. The majority of respondents (84%)
indicate to be informed of the survey by e-mail (Figure 2) and this presumably through the AGIV
newsletter as this is an electronic newsletter.
Other, 10.5%
Through AGIV
website, 5.3%

Through e-mail,
84.2%
N=19

Figure 2: Percentage per distribution method

The main activities of the respondents (Figure 3) consist for the majority (47%) of non-defined
activities such as education, architecture, Geo-ICT, services, measurement solutions, a combination ofseveral activities. Many organizations are mainly concerned with data processing (21%) and to a lesser
extent with databases (9%), presentation (6%) and data mining (5%)2.

Other
47%

Management2%
N=79

Geo webdevelopment
1%

Data
Data mining
5%processing
21%
Image
processing
3%
Presentation
6%
Databases
9%
Programming3%
Webdevelopment
3%

Figure 3: Average percentage per main activity
2

These GI categories appear in a large number of questions throughout the survey. Category definitions are as following:• Data mining: capture of spatial data without processing• Data processing: processing of spatial data to a geographical product• Image processing: recording, saving and editing geographic images in the form of electronically encoded image elements in a computerizedenvironment• Presentation: visualization of geographic information• Databases: a place where information (whether or not geographic) about certain topics is collected, stored and may be consulted digitally• Programming: writing a computer program or application• Web development: Web development• Geo web development: Web development in which geographical information is made available• Data modeling: describing how geographic information data is structured.
• Legal knowledge: knowledge about regulations for geographic information• Management: how a process, project or organization is headed75

The functions of the respondents (Figure 4) vary widely: the majority indicates to practice a nondefined function (e.g. GI coordinator, lecturer, policy...). Furthermore, many respondents holdfunctions such as director (22%), project staff (15%), project manager or department head (11%).
Other
26%

Director
22%

Division head
8%

Consultant
6%

Department
head
11%

Project staff
15%
N=79

Commercial
manager
1%

Project manager
11%

Figure 4: Average percentage per function

Figure 5 shows how many workers there are per participating organization. Mainly large companies(251-1000 employees) participated (23%), followed by organizations of varying sizes. The reason forthis large proportion of respondents from big organizations may be due to the fact that several
respondents probably work for the same organization, which may cause a slight deviation of theresults.
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
N=7

0-10
11-25
26-50
51-100101-250 251-1000 1001-5000 > 5000
employees employees employees employees employees employees employees employees
Figure 5: Average percentage of the number of workers in the organization

The age categories within the organizations (Figure 6) vary widely, the majority of employees issituated in the age group of 30 to 40 years (39%). Workers older than 50 are represented the weakest(13%), which is lower compared with the average for the sector of informatics and communication in
Flanders (16%, VDAB 2012) and Belgium (20%, VBO 2011).
>50 year, 13%

20-30 year,26%

40-50 year,
22%

N=42

30-40 year,
39%
Figure 6: Average percentage of employees per age category76

As for the gender information, 67% of the employees of the participating organizations are male and
33% female (Figure 7). This is for the whole sector of informatics and communication in Flanders(VDAB, 2012) 69,8% male and 30,2% female employment., in Belgium (Van Hootegem, 2008) 75%
male and 25% female.
Female
33%

Male
67%

N=42

Figure 7: Average percentage of employees per gender

The majority of the employees of the participating organizations have a university degree (38%),
followed by a non-university Bachelor's degree (26%) (Figure 8). There are also 16% of employeeswith a non-university Master's degree, 13% with a secondary diploma and 7% with a degree inelementary education. This indicates that GI employers mainly employ the highly educated.
Other, 0%
University degree,38%

Non-university
higher education(master), 16%

N=41

Elementary
education, 7%Secondaryeducation, 13%

Non-university
higher education(bachelor), 26%

Figure 8: Average percentage of employees per education level

PROFILE OF CURRENT GI STAFF
This part of the report takes in account results on the GI workers, which means the workers that
perform tasks specifically linked to geographic information. On average 41% of the total number of
employees per organization perform GI tasks (Figure 9), although there are organizations where thispercentage rises up to 100% (e.g. Geo-ICT companies), indicating the strong specialization of someorganizations.
GI employees,
41%

N=54

Non GI
employees,
59%
Figure 9: Average percentage of GI employees per organization

77

The majority of the GI employees hold a higher university degree (45%, Figure 10). There is also alarge number of workers with a non-university Bachelor's degree (29%) or a non-university Master's
degree (17%). It is noteworthy that 9% of the GI employees only completed secondary education,
which is e.g. the case with municipalities, land survey offices, Geo-ICT companies and mapping
institutes.
Elementary
education, 0%
Other , 0%
University
degree, 43%Secondaryeducation, 9%
Non-university
higher education(bachelor), 28%
Non-university
higher education(master), 16%

N=34

Figure 10: Average percentage of GI employees per education level

Looking into the specific qualifications of the GI workers (Figure 11), 32% is covered by diverse
non-defined categories (e.g. spatial planning, engineering, geology, biology, linguistics, real estate,economics, chemistry). This is a remarkable phenomenon, as we would expect such positions filled inby a person with a GI related degree. The other workers do hold GI related diplomas such as
geography (16%), Geodesy - industrial engineer (14%), bio-engineering (12%), informatics (11%),
Geodesy - university level (10%) and a very limited degree in civil engineering (5% ).
Geography, 15%
Other, 30%
Geodesy/Geomatics(univ. level), 9%
IT, 10%N=32

Geodesy (industrial
engineer), 13%

Bio engineer, 11%Civil engineer, 5%

Figure 11: Average percentage of GI employees per qualification category

In Figure 12, the GI workers are viewed per category as defined by De Bakker and Toppen (2009)3.
32% of current employees are considered a Geo-ICT expert, 22% a user4, 22% a coordinator and 18%
a data manager. 6% of the GI employees could not be placed in one of these classes (e.g. service
engineer, product manager, developer, general management). Remarkably, nearly 1 out of 5 GI
workers has a coordinating role.

3 The classes defined by De Bakker and Topping (2009) are:- User: person who makes use of geo-information within specific domains (e.g. spatial planning, water, mobility, ...)- Data manager: person responsible for the management of geographic information and metadata- Geo-ICT expert: person responsible for IT tasks that are linked to geographic information (e.g. geoportal, spatial databases, Web services,...)- Coordinator: person who coordinates the various tasks linked to geo-information (e.g. project manager, department head geodata ...)
4

A large number of respondents considered all GI workers as 'User', whereas it was intended to consider only their main task for thisquestion. In this case, during data processing the total number of GI employees was decreased with the number of employees from othercategories (data manager, Geo-ICT expert, coordinator and "Other") to withhold the number of real ‘users’.

78Other, 6%User, 21%
Coordinator, 21%

Data manager,
17%
N=34

Geo-ICT expert,
30%
Figure 12: Average percentage of GI employees per GI category

NEEDS OF GI EMPLOYERS
In the previous sections of the report, results on the current GI employees were displayed. Thissection presents results of the needs towards future GI employees.
Figure 13 shows that the vast majority of respondents (90%) pinpoint a growing demand for knowhow in the Geo-ICT domain.
Do you notice within your organization a growing demand for Geo-IT knowhow?
100%

90%

80%
60%
40%
20%

0%

10%

No

No opinion

0%
N=30

Yes

Figure 13

Figure 14 displays different ways to deal with this growing need. This figure shows that mostemployers ensure their GI employees to grow, either through an external course (72%) or through self
study (66%). Very often specific Geo-ICT profiles are hired (48%) and in 28% of cases tasks areoutsourced to external specialists. When asked whether it would be useful to organize Geo-ICT-related
training courses in Flanders (Figure 15) a majority of the respondents reply that this would be very
helpful (76%). There is no further proof needed to point out that there is a market for additional GeoICT courses.

79How do you cope with the growing needs of know-how in the Geo-IT domain?
Multiple answers are possible.
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

72.4%

65.5%

48.3%
27.6%

Growth:training (selfstudy) of
current
employees
N=29

Growth:training(externalcourses) ofcurrent
employees

Outsourcing toHiring a
Avoiding such Not applicable
external
specific Geo-IT assignments
experts
profileOther

Figure 145

How useful would Geo-ICT related trainings organized in Flanders be?
75.9%

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

13.8%

6.9%

10%

3.4%

0%
Not helpful
N=29

Rather not
helpfulNeutralRather helpful Very helpful Not applicable

Figure 15

The next questions ask for the requirements (technical skills, required expertise, expected evolution,required educational level, desired qualifications) for the different GI categories discussed previously
in Figure 3.
Figure 16 states clearly that GI employers particularly demand knowledge of data processing,databases and geo web development.

5

As multiple answers are possible in Figure 14, the sum of the percentages is in many cases higher than 100. Therefore results for thisquestion are represented in a bar chart and not in a pie chart, as the sum of the percentages is by definition equal to 100 in this chart type.

80

What are the main technical competences of a person operating in
the GI domain in your organization?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Not applicable
Very important
Rather important
Neutral

N=28
Figure 16

From Figure 17 can be deduced that the main growth is expected within the domains of geo web
development, databases and data processing.
Do you expect within the following domains a decrease or an increaseon the need for GI workers in the coming years?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Not applicable
Very important
Rather important
NeutralRather unimportant
Unimportant

N=23
Figure 17

Figure 18 shows that for the domains databases, data modeling, legal knowledge and management
preference is given to holders of a university degree, while in data mining, data processing,presentation, programming, web development and geo web development a non-university Bachelor's
degree is picked more easily. Figure 19 shows that for the domains of databases, programming, web
development and geo web development IT profiles are hunted on. Other qualifications such as
Geography and Surveying / Geomatics are surprisingly not particularly desirable for any GI domain,
despite the fact that spatial qualities do seem an important characteristic of GI workers.

81What education level do you prefer for these domains?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Not applicable
DoctorUniversity level (master)Non-university higher education(master)
Non-university higher education(bachelor)
Secondary education

N=23
Figure 18

What specific qualifications do you prefer for these domains?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Not applicable
Other
Geodesy (industrial engineer)
Industrial engineer
Bio engineer
Civil engineer
IT
Geodesy/Geomatics (univ.
level)
Geography

N=24
Figure 19

Figure 20 shows that the respondents believe that there are not enough skilled graduates available for
the GI job market (64%). A minority (27%) think this number is sufficient.
Do you think the current Flemish education institutionsdeliver enough skilled graduates ?
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
N=22

63.6%
Yes
No

27.3%

No opinion
9.1%
Yes

No

No opinion

Figure 2082

Figure 21 shows that young graduates have sufficient knowledge for the domains of data mining,data processing, image processing and presentation. These same young graduates however lack skills
about databases, web development and geo web development.
At what level do you think that graduates of eg Geography / Geomatics
present sufficient knowledge?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Not applicable
Amply sufficientSufficient
NeutralInsufficient
Amply
insufficient

N=21
Figure 21

The next question (Figure 22) shows that employers are mostly eager to offer their employees
training possibilities and especially for the domains of geo-databases and web development - to alesser extent for the domains of data mining, data processing, image processing, programming, web
development, legal knowledge and management.
In which field are you eager to offer your employees training possibilities?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Not applicable
Very much
Rather yes
NeutralRather not
Not at all

N=19
Figure 22

Regarding the provision of internships for students (Figure 23), the majority of respondents (62%)
affirm to be willing to offer unpaid internships.
83

Are you interested in offering unpaid internships for students?
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

61.9%
28.6%
9.5%
Yes

No

No
opinion

N=21
Figure 23

CONCLUSIONSIn this report, some first results of the GI survey held in April and May 2012 are presented. The
major conclusions of this survey are summarized below. Since the number of respondents was low,
this study cannot be considered representative for the whole GI labor market, but it can help us to getfirst insights in the needs of GI employers.
The skills that are currently most important for GI employees are knowledge about data processing
and databases. In terms of data processing (and data mining, image processing and presentation) GI
employers are satisfied with the knowledge of graduates, while they are less satisfied with theknowledge of databases (and geo web development and web development). There is a clear andgrowing demand for Geo-ICT know-how.
Organizations currently cope with this lack of knowledge by offering training sessions to theiremployees or to recruit specific profiles. However, the supply in terms of training seems not to suffice,because the majority of respondents would find it very useful that additional Geo-ICT training isorganized for their employees. In cases GI employers recruit specific profiles, the desired qualification
for the domains of databases, programming, web development and geo web development (all Geo-ICT
domains) is a degree in IT. Remarkably, other qualifications (e.g. Geography or Surveying /Geomatics) are much less explicitly sought-after while there is a need for workers with strong spatial
insights and knowledge.
Based on this survey, it is possible to establish a new survey for future purposes, which takes lesstime for respondents to fill in and which will create a more representative picture of the needs of the
GI labor market. Moreover, a reward for completed surveys (e.g. a book token to win) could have astimulating effect.
A GI domain that was not currently included, is the aspect of GI mobile applications (e.g.
smartphones, tablets,...). GI is growing strongly in this domain and will be included in future
questionnaires.
Some considerations coming forward from this survey:
Geo-ICT is a hot topic.
A clear demand exists for more Geo-ICT training.
IT degrees are currently the most desired qualifications within the GI labor market.

84

Other qualifications (e.g. Geography or Surveying / Geomatics) do not provide graduates witha specific Geo-ICT profile and could act on it by offering more practical Geo-ICT training instrong cooperation with the GI market (companies administrations, ...). This training could bestarted as interaction between various university and high school groups (e.g. Geography,
Surveying, Computer Science,...).

REFERENCES
DE BAKKER, M., TOPPEN, F., 2009. Changes in the geospatial education landscape, a shortoverview of 20 years in the past and a forecast for the next years. Vision paper EUGISES
2010, European GIS Education Seminar, 9-12 September 2010. 4 p.
VERBOND DER BELGISCHE ONDERNEMINGEN, 2011, Hoe 50-plussers langer aan het werk
houden?
VBO-forum, 50+ experience is our capital, analyses, cases, getuigenissen,
debat, standpunten.... Brussel, 80 p.
http://vbo-feb.be/media/uploads/public/_custom/publication_free_of_charge/VBOforum2011_NL.pdf

VLAAMSE DIENST VOOR ARBEIDSBEMIDDELING EN BEROEPSOPLEIDING, 2012,
Sectorrapport informatica, media en telecom. Brussel, 35 p.
http://vdab.be/trends/sectorrapporten/informatica_media_telecom.pdf

VAN HOOTEGEM, G. (chair), 2008, Bits, bytes en bugs : next generation. Tendensen in de
informaticasector in België. CESO (KULeuven) i.o.v. Cevora, 77 p.
http://www.cevora.be/fileadmin/library/documents/Service_d_etudes/NL_etudes/Sectoriele_monografien/Informati
casector-lange_versie_2008.pdf

85

Creating a learning line on spatial thinking in education
Luc Zwartjes
Geography department Ghent University

ABSTRACT
Spatial thinking in education should be a fixed value in addition to other such as linguistic andmathematical thinking. It is part of the everyday life. As research showed one of the best tools to
introduce spatial thinking in education is geography. It offers al the tools for the three components ofgeography: skills, subject matter and perspectives.
But nevertheless the introduction and use of GIS in education is not a success. Researchers havedescribed many reasons, among others the lack of education standards on the use of GIS in the
curriculum.
Therefore the Digital Earth project creates a benchmark with learning outcomes through theeducational curriculum. To make it practical a learning line – including an increasing level ofcomplexity – in using GIS should be developed.
Key words: GIS, spatial thinking, education, learning outcomes, skills, competences

SPATIAL THINKING IN EDUCATION
Many reports state that spatial thinking in education should be a fixed value in addition to other suchas linguistic and mathematical thinking. According to the National Research Council (Down e.o.
2006) thinking spatially enables knowing about
Space – e.g. different ways of calculating distance, coordinate system
Representation – e.g. effect of projections, principles of graphic design (semiology)
Reasoning – e.g. different ways of thinking about shortest distances, estimate the slope of ahill from a map of contour lines
A spatially literate person has following characteristics:
He has the habit of mind of thinking spatially – he knows where, when, how and why to thinkspatially,
He can practice spatial thinking in an informal way – he has deep and broad knowledge ofspatial concepts (such as distance, direction, scale, and arrangement and representation (maps,
3D-models, graphs…),
He can adopt critical stance to spatial thinking and evaluate quality of spatial data, he can use
spatial data to construct, articulate.
Spatial thinking is integral to everyday life. It is the concept of space that makes spatial thinking a
distinct form of thinking. We live in a spatial world, we solve spatial problems. Thus it is a basic andessential skill that can and should be learned, besides other skills like language, mathematics andscience.

87

LINKING SPATIAL THINKING TO THE USE OF GISWhen referring to GIS mostly is mend ‘Geographic Information System’: a set of computer
technologies that allows visualizing and manipulating geodata in an easy visual method. In this paper
GIS refers to this definition. But GIS can also be called ‘Geographic Information Science’ (Goodchild,1992), thus also involving a way of methods and ways of looking at the world (Milson, 2012),
whereby GIS is used to obtain spatial thinking skills.
Freeman (1997) stated ‘changes in technology pervade the pedagogy and methodology ofgeography’ so with the possibilities offered to use GIS nowadays (free software, available datasets,computers with internet common) we can now longer ignore the use of it in education. Koutsopoulos(2010) mentions two approaches for using GIS in education:
We can use the powers of GIS to teach geography for it can help us understand our world
through both the natural and the man-made manifestations which are the essence of geography
In teaching with GIS a positive effect can be created on the development of spatial thinking
and reasoning.
Thompson (1991) states that GIS is an ‘educational delivery system for improving the student’s
knowledge of the world in which she or he lives.’ GIS is able to answer all the questions thatknowledge, understanding and application in geography education requires (Koutsopoulos, 2010).
Because of its capabilities GIS is inherently an excellent vehicle in expressing the five themes ofgeography, as defined by the Joint Committee on Geographic Education (1984): location, place,
relationships with places, movement and region.
Koutsopoulos (2010) developed a conceptual framework for using GIS. For his idea he uses theGeographic Education Standards Project (GESP, 1994), stating that geography is composed of threecomponents: skills, subject matter and perspectives whereby all three are necessary to be‘geographically informed’ and thus should be examined (Figure 1).
Geographic skills are a series of tools and techniques, including asking geographic questions,acquire and organize spatial information. The purpose is mainly focused on the level of knowing(“where is it?”), although some questions will lead to the process of understanding (“why is it there?”)or even applying (“what if …?”).
The subject matter is divided - according to GESP - into six “essential elements”. Most of theserefer to the process of understanding.
A geographic perspective is a lens through which geographers look at the world. It involves the waysthat knowledge and understanding can be used to solve geographic problems (process of applying).
The specific aspect of geography – linking human and physical systems in a spatial lens – provides
everything to solve spatial problems by active participation.
Geographic skills, subject matter and perspective correspond to the processes of knowing,
understanding and applying: by “learning the concepts and vocabulary of geography (knowing)
students may begin to think about what they mean (understanding) and apply to real problems(applying)” (NAEP Geography Consensus project, 2010).

88Knowing is in spatial terms expressed by the questions ‘What is it?’ and ‘Where is it?’, in GIS thismeans processing spatial data.
Understanding is expressed by questions such as: ‘Why is it there?’, ‘What has changed?’, ‘What isthe pattern?’, ‘What is the interaction?’, in GIS this is spatial analysis.
Applying is expressed by the question ‘What if ...?’ to solve spatial problems, in GIS this means
planning.

Figure 1: Linking the science of geography to GIS (Koutsopoulos, 2010 & own edit)

Koutsopoulos (2010) linked the 3 GIS processes with the questions and the five themes ofgeography – created by the Joint Committee on Geographic Education (1984): location, place,
relationship with places, movement, and region (Figure 2).
His framework shows very clearly the impact and importance of GIS in answering the questions on
the level of the three processes. He results that “GIS can serve as an unique educational tool in which
the manipulation, analysis and presentation of spatial data can support the teaching of geography”(Koutsopoulos, 2010).

89

GIS input

Figure 2: A conceptual framework in Instructing with GIS (Koutsopoulos, 2010 & own edit)

More specific typical spatial thinking skills are enhanced using GIS. By involving student activities
using GIS “students not only learn by hearing and seeing, they also have the ability and opportunity topersonally apply the knowledge using higher-order skills such as problem solving and synthesis”(Sanders, 2002) In order to foster such skills teachers and students may need to work in new ways
such as through enquiry based methods and problem-based learning.
The approach developed by Koutsopoulos follows one of the four GIS schools described by Kemp
(1992, quoted in Sui, 1995): GIS as an enabling Technology for Science, arguing that GIS is not an
goal in itself but a means to use spatial thinking skills.

INTEGRATING SPATIAL THINKING – USING GIS – IN EDUCATION“Geography educators have justified GIS’s introduction using three competing and yetcomplementary rationales that correspond to GIS’s strengths: (1) the educative rationale: GI Scienceand GIS support the teaching and learning of geography; 2) the place-based rationale: GIS is the ideal
tool to use to study geographical problems at a range of scales; and 3) the workplace rationale: GIS isan essential tool for knowledge workers in the twenty-first century. These arguments have not90

appealed to large numbers of teachers however.” (Bednarz and van der Schee, 2006). According theirresearch the main reasons are:
1. In teacher training (pre-service and in-service) GIS is not a core item
2. More and more geography is taught by non-geographers, “this lack of specialist geographyteachers means that many teachers have limited pedagogical content knowledge, defined as
knowledge about the best way to teach subject matter. The result is that few teachers assigned
to teach geography recognize the potential opportunities GIS offers to teach geography content
and skills” (Bednarz, van der Schee, 2006).
3. The curriculum doesn’t include or impede adoption to include GIS
4. The availability of free data and software
5. The attitude of teachers. “Innovations that are complex in form and function, hard to grasp andaffect multiple aspects of the teaching–learning system are less likely to be
implemented”(Bednarz, van der Schee, 2006). It seems difficult to persuade teachers to use
new technologies, certainly if they are highly technical demanding.
They made 3 recommendations,
Address the key internal issues related to GIS implementation: teacher training, availability ofuser friendly software, ICT equipment in schools
Use a community of learners approach.
Institutionalizing GIS into curricula, making sure that it is aligned with significant generallearning
goals
likegraphicacy,
criticalthinking
andcitizenshipskills.
The same recommendation was made by The National Academy of science (2006) stated as
one of the primordially recommendations the development of spatial thinking standards andcurriculum material.
So spatial literacy must start in education, but therefor we need to answer some questions:
1. How may GIS be incorporated into existing standard-based instruction in all knowledge
domains across school curriculum
2. How can cognitive developmental and educational theory be used the develop new versions of
GIS that are1) Age appropriate in their design
2) Age appropriate in their scope and sequence
The second question is a matter of developing easier to use software with data access. On both fields
a lot of progress is made. There are a lot of free GIS viewers or open source full GIS software
programs available. Also more and more governments are offering datasets (for free) or provide open
access to database servers.
The first question is one of the aims of the Special Interest Groups 3 and 4 of the Digital Earthproject: develop goals / learning outcomes for using GIS in education.

GIS LEARNING OUTCOMES THROUGH EDUCATION1
The digital-earth.eu project examines the use of geographic
media in schools and teacher education. Geo-media is the1

This benchmark statement has been produced as a result of the digital-earth.eu COMENIUS network SIG 3 (Teacher
education and teacher training) meeting in Brugge, Belgium in October 2011www.digital-earth.eu

91

visualization of information from different media sources and is concerned with digital content and it’s
processing based on place, position and location. Many geographic media are widely used fornavigation and routing purposes. Cartographic communication has never been so easy to implement,
therefore 21st century school education needs to include geo-media into daily work. Innovative
approaches to teaching and learning are needed to study environments from local to global scale.
The digital-earth.eu network seeks to provide broad access to resources, promoting innovation andbest practice in the implementation of geo-media as a digital learning environment for school learningand teaching. The goal is to raise the profile of learning with digital earth tools and resources. The
network encourages the sharing of innovative practices and rewards organizations and individuals
displaying ‘excellence’.
Special Interest Groups (SIGs) are working on following topics:
1. Resources, technologies and geoinformation
2. Learning and teaching with geo-media and geoinformation
3. Teacher Education and Training in geo-media
4. Curriculum aspects and geo-media.
Developing spatial literacy assumes the availability of digital earth tools, which allow students tointeract with geoinformation, to answer questions and critically reflect using a geographic approach.
They can also clearly communicate the results to a broader audience.
Therefore, teachers must understand basic geographic concepts and be able to support students’learning needs. Taking in account the different levels of age and education, teachers must be enabled
to apply different methods and tools in the respective learning environments. Appropriate evaluation
and assessment methodology has to be developed and implemented by Europe’s 21st century teachers,
teacher educators and trainers.
Goals for teacher training and education in Europe:
Spatial literacy
Create digital earth citizens that are aware of basic spatial concepts and able to use digital
earth tools
Increase active citizenship in spatial decision making
Increase employability opportunities for teachers
Encourage lifelong learning
Competencies:
Spatial thinking: To know concepts of spatial thinking
 Be able to use tools of spatial representation,
 To apply processes of reasoning (Where is it? Why is it there? What if it was
somewhere else? Making informed decisions and defend personal points of view)
Pedagogic and didactical skills for the use of digital earth tools in school
Ability to use spatial skills in real world problem-solving context
Understanding complex and changing interrelationships
Awareness and understanding for the digital earth concept
Ability to use digital earth tools (also technological skills)

92Lifelong learning competencies: ability to find training opportunities, time management,planning competency, communication competencies
Being able to identify and evaluate resources
Social learning: Being able to work with others – teamwork
 Use professional social networks (virtual and face-to-face)
In order to prepare teachers to effectively implement digital earth in their practice, teacher training
and teacher education needs to appropriately prepare teachers for different levels of education.
Primary school teachers need to be able to enable students (year 1-6) toOpen digital maps and virtual globes on a computer
Indicate the different parts of digital maps/virtual globes (navigation bar, menu, scale, map
window)
Interpret symbols on digital maps
Work with digital maps and 3D representations of the world: Find significant locations (their home, school or town) on a virtual globe
 Pan, zoom, orientate
 Make measurements
 Use the layers to focus on specific features
 Update maps
Be aware of generalization levels applied in different zoom levels (e.g. road density)
Access information efficiently and effectively, evaluate information critically and competently(see maps as manipulated representations created by people/organizations with a certain
purpose, e.g. classification methods, color schemes, map contents)
Use digital maps and virtual globes for a variety of different purposes

Secondary school (year 7-12)
In addition to the learning outcomes of primary school, secondary school teachers need to enable
their students toKnow the digital earth concept and its tools
Understand the basic purpose and application of digital earth to real world problems
Be able to gather and evaluate information
Use advanced digital earth tools for learning (starting with Web-GIS, GIS viewers to GIS
software)
Manipulate maps
 Display information on maps
 Create own maps
 Communicate cartographic information
Understand the construction of digital maps as a representation of the real worldThe power of maps (reliability of data, classification and color schemes)

 Topology: points, lines, polygons
 Layers
 Database
Know about the professional use of GIS and other digital earth tools
Gather information from data resources or through fieldwork activities (use GPS devices,mobile applications)93Use digital earth tools for investigation/research Interpret content
 Identify and ask significant questions that clarify various points of view and lead tosustainable solutions
 Frame, analyze and synthesize information in order to solve problems and answer
questions

CREATING A LEARNING LINE IN GISTaking in account the age and level of complexity the best option is to work with a learning line ineducation, thus covering at least the six years from age 12 to 18, but even better starting in primaryeducation.
A learning line is defined here as the educational term that refers to the construction of knowledge
and skills throughout the whole curriculum. This learning line reflects an increasing level ofcomplexity, ranging from easy (more basic skills and knowledge) to difficult.
As
anexampletheFlemishgeography
curriculum(LEERPLANCOMMISSIEAARDRIJKSKUNDE (2010) defines these learning lines in the secondary geography curriculum:
5 learninglines:

Fieldwork Working
Workingwith images with maps

Workingwithstatisticalmaterial

Creation ofknowledge

Level 1

Perception – knowledge of facts

Level 2Analysis – selection of relevant geographic information

Level 3Structure – look for complex connections and relationships

Level 4

Apply – thinking problem solving

Some existing examples:
Learning line maps
Level 1: Recognize and name the elements of the legend on the map. Distract the scale.
Level 2: Retrieve from the map those geographic elements that are relevant within a researchcontext.
Level 3: Classify and relate elements on the geographic map.
Level 4: Interpret a map.
Learning line images
Level 1: Describe the image
Level 2: Retrieve from the image those geographic elements that are relevant within a researchcontext
Level 3: Examine the correlation between the different elements by using various techniques(map studies, surveys, statistics ...).
Level 4: Make up a synthesis of the image
94

When applying the learning line concept to the learning outcomes (described in the previous section)
we get this result:Level 1: Perception - being able to work with digital maps and virtual globes:
Open digital maps and virtual globes on a computer
Indicate the different parts of digital maps/virtual globes (navigation bar, menu, scale, map
window)
Interpret symbols on digital maps
Understand the construction of digital maps as a representation of the real world (topology,
layers, database)
Level 2: Analysis – selection of the relevant geographic information
Work with digital maps and virtual globes: find locations, pan, zoom, orientate, makemeasurements
Access information efficiently and effectively, evaluate information critically and competently
Be able to gather and evaluate information from data resources or through fieldwork activities
Interpret content
Level 3: Structure – look for complex connections and relationships
Use digital maps and virtual globes for a variety of different purposes
Identify and ask significant questions that clarify various points of view and lead tosustainable solutions
Manipulate maps by creating own maps
Communicate cartographic information
Level 4: Apply – thinking problem solving
Be aware of generalization levels applied in different zoom levels (e.g. road density)
Understand the basic purpose and application of digital earth to real world problems
Use advanced digital earth tools for learning (starting with Web-GIS, GIS viewers to GIS
software)Frame, analyze and synthesize information in order to solve problems and answer questions
For introduction in the different grades of secondary schools the level would depend of the age, thus
grade:
Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Grade 1 (13-14 y)
Grade 2 (15-16 y)
Grade 3 (17-18 y)

CONCLUSIONS
Spatial thinking in education should be a fixed value in addition to other such as linguistic andmathematical thinking. Because of its capabilities GIS – Geographic Information System – isinherently an excellent vehicle to obtain the essential spatial thinking skills. The framework developed
by Koutsopoulos shows very clearly the impact and importance of GIS in answering the questions on
the level knowing, understanding and applying. GIS can serve as a unique educational tool in which
the manipulation, analysis and presentation of spatial data can support the teaching of geography.
95

The introduction of GIS in secondary education is not easy. Most reasons why previous attempts
didn’t succeed are overruled by recent developments. But the main reason to persuade teachers is theimplementation in the curriculum. The benchmark created by the Digital Earth project SIG 3 is a firststep. When adding the concept of learning lines we can construct the content depending of the pupilage. With input from others this might lead to a real curriculum reform.

REFERENCES:
BEDNARZ, S. and VAN DER SCHEE, J., 2006, Europe and the United States: the implementation ofgeographic information systems in secondary education in two contexts. Journal ofTechnology, Pedagogy and Education, Vol. 15, No. 2, 191-205
DOWNS, R.M. (chair), 2006, Learning to think spatially: GIS as a Support System in the K-12
Curriculum. National Research Council, National Academy Press, 313 p.
FREEMAN, D., 1997, Using Information Technology and New Technologies in Geography, Teachingand Learning Geography, London: Rutledge, 202-217
JOINT COMMITTEE ON GEOGRAPHIC EDUCATION, 1984, Guidelines for Geographic
Education: Elementary and Secondary Schools. Washington DC, 28 p.
GEOGRAPHY EDUCATION STANDARDS PROJECT, 1994, Geography for Life – National
Geography Standards. National Geographic Society, Washington D.C., 272 p.
GOODCHILD, M.F., 1992, Geographic information science. International Journal of Geographical
Information Systems, Vol. 6, 3-45
KOTSOPOULOS, K., 2010, Teaching Geography – Instructing with GIS and about GIS. Using
GeoInformation in European Geography education, 1-19
LEERPLANCOMMISSIE AARDRIJKSKUNDE, 2010, Aardrijkskunde Tweede Graad ASO,VVKSO, Brussel. http://ond.vvkso-ict.com/vvksomainnieuw/document.asp?DocID=2431
MARAIS, H.J.W., 2008, The Challenges of GIS Education and Training: (GIS Use by Municipal
Urban and Regional Planning). http://www.a-a-r-s.org/acrs/proceedings2008.php
MILSON, J.M., et.al., 2012, International perspectives on teaching and learning with GIS in secondary
schools. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., New York – Heidelberg, 353 p.
NAEP GEOGRAPHY CONSENSUS PROJECT, 2010, Geography Framework for the 2010 National
Assessment of Educational Progress. U.S. Department of Education, Washington D.C., 72p.
http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/gframework201
0.pdf
SANDERS, L.R., et.al. 2002, Electronic mapping in Education, Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, Vol.34, No.2, 91-1009
SUI, D., 1995, A pedagogic framework to link GIS to the intellectual core of geography. Journal ofgeography, Vol. 94, N° 6, 578-591
THOMPSON, D., 1991, GIS – A view from the other (dark) side: the perspective of an instructor of
Introductory Geography Courses at University Level. Cartographica, Vol. 28, N° 3, 55-64

96

Session 4: GI S&T-education withoutboundaries

Providing easy access to GIS students in north-south cooperation.
A case study in Paraguay
Serral I.1, Pons X.2 & Rejalaga L.3
1

2

CREAF (Edifici C. Campus de Bellaterra (UAB). 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Catalonia, Spain)
Department of Geography, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) (Edifici B. Campus de Bellaterra.
08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Catalonia, Spain)
3
Universidad Nacional de Asunción (UNA), Paraguay

ABSTRACT
Accessing cartography is always a major concern when dealing with students who do not haveenough GIS knowledge or there is not much accessible cartography in the country. Both conditions
existed in a north-south cooperation GIS lessons taught by Centre for Ecological Research andForestry Applications (CREAF) and the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), in Catalonia,
Spain, performed at the Universidad Nacional de Asunción (UNA), in Paraguay, during October andNovember 2011. Enrolled students were mainly post-graduated (environmental sciences, forestry, etc)
and public servants, but also professionals from several sectors.
There are only a few examples of publicly available maps in Paraguay, not even in paper format, so
the basic cartography for the course was difficult to obtain. On the other hand, Spatial Data
Infrastructures are not mature in Paraguay, so their role could not be used for discovering existingdatasets not for accessing them. The software used was MiraMon, developed by CREAF and theneasily adaptable by the MiraMon team to new requirements and tools if necessary. This choice wasimportant for two reasons: firstly, it allowed not only having a primer contact with GIS, but to coveradvanced topics in topology building, spatial interpolation, remote sensing or standard metadata
edition; secondly, because of the near free nature of the software, it allowed that most of the students
are currently using this solution in their professional or academic development. In this complete
environment some already existing properties of the program were intensively used whereas new ones
were adapted to fulfill all the needs aroused (working with several spatial references systems, current
and ancient, global and local, for example).
Some of the existing tools used to approach spatial data to students were the Favorite Maps
Collections interface, and the use of OGC WMS standard compliant servers from all over the world. A
collection of favorite maps of Paraguay was created and made available in the software as a result
from these lessons.
Finally we humbly believe that the presented program course can be helpful to other colleagues
involved in education in the field of Geographic Information Science and Technology in a context ofNorth-South cooperation.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
Geographic Information Systems (GIS), are important and very necessary tools for resource andlandscape management and widely used within management disciplines. South America is a very
diverse region and so there are different levels of technical development among them. Thus, while
Argentina and Brasil are more technical countries, Uruguay, Bolivia, Paraguay, etc are still lacking afunctional GIS structure, specially in the public administration sector.
99

Paraguay is a South American country with an estimated population of 6.3 million and an area of
about 406752 km2, being Asunción the capital and largest city. Though it remains one of poorest
regions and least-developed countries, in 2010, Paraguay's economy grew by 14.5%, the largest
economic expansion in Latin America, and the third fastest in the world after Qatar and Singapore. By
2011, economic growth slowed but remained high, at 6.4%.
There is little official reference cartography in Paraguay, in terms of topographical maps andorthophotographies, although it has its own cartographic institute since 1941, the Military Geographic
Institute (Instituto Geográﬁco Militar - IGM) (Mugnier, 2007). Whenever this basic cartography
exists, it is not freely available for most of GIS users. However, there is an evident and increasing
amount of thematic cartography elaborated by the public administrations like the Secretaría delAmbiente (SEAM), the Instituto Forestal Nacional (INFONA), several NGOs operating in the country
like Guyrá Paraguay or international ones like World Wildlife Fund (WWF), or other organizations
specific of Paraguay like the Asociación Colonia Neuland.
Due to the claim of the scientific community in Paraguay to deepen the use and understanding of the
GIS science and tools among all the professionals involved in, the Universidad Nacional de Asunción,
UNA, through the Faculty of Agrarian Sciences, invited CREAF and UAB to give a GIS applied
course for all interested users in the sector.
The course was taught in October-November 2011 in the UNA and was attended by 20 students
from several institutions of Paraguay like SEAM, Guyrá Paraguay, INFONA, Asociación Colonia
Neuland, the Directorate of Meteorology and Hidrology (DMH) of the government of Paraguay, andmany students from the last course of Forestry Engineering of the UNA.
The main objective of the lessons were to provide basic knowledge in the GIS science andfundamentals, as well as to provide attendees with a sufficient level of autonomous work when
performing their own maps based on existing cartography of Paraguay or by means of using otherglobal sources of spatial information like Landsat satellite imagery, the ASTER and SRTM Digital
Elevation Models of 30 and 90 metres of resolution, the ecoregions map of the WWF, etc.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Until 1962, IGM was dedicated to low-order surveys with the exception of a period of four years
when with the help of an Argentine Technical Mission, IGM reproduced four topographic map sheetsat a scale of 1:50,000 for the metro area of Asunción. These sheets were cast on the Paraguay GaussKrüger Transverse Mercator projection (Mugnier, 2007). There are no much more reference maps inParaguay since that. Moreover the current national geographic reference system of Paraguay is UTM
21S WGS84 although some existing ancient maps are in other reference systems.
For this reason, it was very difficult to find and prepare basic cartography with which to perform thepractical exercises for the course. The materials used to this purpose were:Administrative boundaries layer with the basic administrative structures: municipalities,
districts, departments and regions.

100.
Figure 1: Paraguay administrative boundaries.

Digital Elevation Models, not available in Paraguay, from the ASTER and SRTM
platforms at 30 and 90 metres of resolution.
Landsat satellite imagery from Landsat 5-TM of the area of Asunción and other interested
areas as the huge Itaipú dam and some areas of high deforestation.
Ecoregions map produced by WWF.
Ancient maps in paper formats, as the one of Santiago at 1:250 000 made by the Head
Office of Geodesy and Cartography of the German Democratic Republic from 1971.
Orthophotographies extracted from Google Maps and Microsoft Bing.
WMS services of the world.
In-situ GPS information capture.
Most of the vector data available, was previously produced in SHP format and it was transformed
when needed to the geographic reference system used in all lessons (the official UTM 21S, except in
the cases of exercises of projection transformations).
The software used was MiraMon v7 (Pons, 2004), a GIS and Remote Sensing programme developedsince 1994 at CREAF, Catalonia, Spain. It is an almost freely tool with the only cost to maintain the
structure of developers who implement applications and innovations in the GI Science andTechnology discipline. This software was chosen by the professionals in the UNA for its low cost so
they could get several licenses for every computer and student. In cases of developing countries, thiskind of software strategy is a very good option as combines the completeness and professional
maintenance of costly software but in a really affordable cost.
The lessons were scheduled in 40 hours during 5 days (26th-28th October and 3rd-4th November)and structured according to the following programme, which was carefully thought. We assume it will
be clear to other professionals of GIS education, but some cases will be illustrated and explained morein detail in the next section.
1. Introduction (4h)Introduction. GIS fundamentals
o Raster and vector data models. Main formats.
o Georeferencing. Concept and importance.
o Databases. Tables, fields, records, relationships.
MiraMon specificationso Operating systems and hardware platforms.
o Functionality model: main application, modules, etc.
101

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
7.

8.

o MiraMon files.
Data visualizationo Layer control.
o Visualization and cartographic symbolization.
Queries and selectionso Queries by location and attributes.
o Interactive selection of entities.
More about datao Layers. Monolayer and multilayer files. Multirecord datasets.
o MiraMon Maps: MMM and MMZ.
Database management (2h)Relational database model
MiraDades: MiraMon database manager
o Table relationships edition.
o ODBC: Access to huge database managers (Oracle, etc), XLS tables, etc.
Metadata documentation (2h)Introduction to metadata documentation standards: ISO 19115/19139
Metadata documentation with GeMM (MiraMon metadata manager)
Georeferencing and subsequent data acquisition (12h)Georeferencing of scanned cartographic documents: georeferencing fundamentals andtheory; conversion from a map or a scanned orthophotography into a digital georeferenced
document; scanning criteria; practical methodology; geodetic calculator and reference
system (projection, datum, etc) changes.
Georeferencing and generation of orthophotos: conversion from an aerial photograph to an
orthophotography.
Digitizing new vector information: creation and updating vector information: point, arc,
polygon; tools for digitizing and editing vectors; topology fundamentals.
Pre-existing data acquisition (2h)Data import and export from other common formats: SHP (ArcView), DGN (MicroStation),DXF (AutoCAD), TIF and GeoTIFF (Tagged Image File Format), JPG - JPEG (Joint
Photographic Experts Group), JPEG2000, SID (MrSID) and ECW, GPX (GPS), XLS(Microsoft Excel) and TXT (ASCII).
Cartography in the Internet: OGC standards and MMZ maps: introduction to the main OGC
standards: Web Map Service (WMS), Web Map Tiling Service (WMTS), Web Coverage
Service (WCS), Web Feature Service (WFS) and Web Processing Service (WPS)
Printing and presenting results (2h)Basic tools (3h)Raster conversion and compression
Changing raster resolution
Mosaicking and clipping raster and vectors
Raster <--> vector conversions
Spatial Analysis (5h)Spatial interpolation. Main methods.
Terrain analysis. Slope, orientation, visibility, map shadowing, etc.
Buffers and distance calculations.
Merging layers: temporal dynamics, comparison between thematic maps, etc, entity
enrichment with information from another vector or raster layer, etc.
102

Map algebra.
9. GPS navigation (3h): introduction to real-time navigation and off-line downloading data from theGPS.
10. Applications in remote sensing (5h): satellites, planes and sensors applied to Earth Observation,
electromagnetic spectrum principles, geometric and radiometric corrections, classification
methods to obtain categorical maps, quality assessment (confusion matrices, kappa index, RMS,
etc).

SOME PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONSAs stated before, it is not possible to explain, discuss and illustrate each one of the parts of this 40 h
GIS&RS program in this brief paper, so we will focus on some particular cases, interesting from somepoint of view (thematic, procedural, etc).
Part 1, Introduction, does not require especial comments in the context of this course.
Regarding Part 2, Database management, note that we emphasize the possibility of accessing
tabular data from a variety of formats, from huge database managers to spreadsheet files.
In Part 3, Metadata documentation, we emphasize the interest of using an environment that reallyrelates data and metadata and that serves to define the relationships explained in Part 2 (as the GeMM
applications does), and using ISO standards, but we also show their weakness and drawbacks.
Part 4, Georeferencing and subsequent data acquisition, requires a large session, but we think it
is usually important, and especially important in developing countries, where digitizing to acquireancient information (sometimes the only information available) is crucial, and where orthophoto
generation gives a very valuable base cartography for visual interpretation. In this case, the practicalexample was performed using an ancient map of Paraguay in paper format made by the Head Office ofGeodesy and Cartography of the German Democratic Republic in 1971, in Conic equidistantprojection. This exercise wanted to be a real situation where the students only have the spatial data
information in a conventional paper map and in a reference system different than the one mostcommonly used in their country.

Figure 2: 1971 map of the used to illustrate several aspects: georeferencing, transforming spatial reference systems, analyzinglarge land cover changes (as the huge Itaipú water reservoir), etc.

103This specific geographic reference system had to be created and included in the list of reference
systems in MiraMon and so concrete parameters of the projection had to be analysed and incorporated
following the specifications in Snyder, 1987.
Parts 5, Pre-existing data acquisition, and 6, Printing and presenting results, do not require especial
comments.
When facing Part 7, Basic tools, we planned that all students were able to use tools as basic andnecessary as mosaicking and clipping raster and vectors.
Part 8, Spatial Analysis, could be covered in a similar length course by itself. Nevertheless we had
to select appropriate exercises to illustrate topics as different as spatial interpolation or map algebra.
To avoid an excessive dispersion of data, we used for many aspects the ASTER Digital Elevation
Model of 30 metres of resolution. Beyond the classical computation of slopes, etc, this DEM was used
to perform some terrain analysis in relation to the Itaipú dam (water volume, etc).

Figure 3: ASTER DEM from the Itaipú dam area

Part 9, GPS navigation, introduced real-time navigation and off-line downloading data from theGPS using three different approaches:
Navigating from a laptop with a GPS receiver connected to it that merges in the sameenvironment all the GIS power and the real-time navigation. This directly generated thetracks in the GIS thematic and temporal structure.
Navigating from a GPS receiver. This allowed to download the GPX file created, very
common nowadays, and to open, off-line, it in the GIS environment.
Navigating form a phone application (in this case a version of MiraMon for Windows 6.x
Mobile phones). This allows a view of the GIS datasets overlapped in real time with the GPSdata, but with a more limited set of functionalities with regard to the first one. Of course inthis case GPX files must be used intensively.

104

Figure 4: Examples of GPS tracks obtained by the students, overlaid on an orthophoto of the UNA campus.

Finally, Part 10, Applications in remote sensing, tries to give an overview of the enormous
possibilities of Remote Sensing, and especially in countries where data from plane acquisition is not sousual.
Four Landsat 5-TM scenes were used to examine the changes in the territory, for example due to theconstruction of the Itaipú hydroelectric dam on the Paraná River located on the border between Brazil
and Paraguay on 1970.
The selected scenes were: 20111017 (224-077), 20111017 (224-078), 19730223 (240-077) and
19730223 (240-078). All images were downloaded from the GloVis NASA server and geometricallycorrected by UAB following the methods described in Palà and Pons (1995).

Figure 5: Overlapping of ancient (1973) and current (2011) satellite images. This allowed seeing the huge flooded area andthe affected land uses.

Other examples analysed using Landsat imagery were the land use/land cover changes from forest to
crops, and the huge deforestation ratios of the forest (according to local agencies, Paraguay is theAmerican country with the highest ratio).

105

Figure 6: Examples of the very reach and detailed information offered by remote sensing imagery over Paraguay (left:“scissors-like” deforestation; right: parallel roads used for wood extraction).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Most of the attendees to the course followed perfectly the lessons given. The most difficult part tofollow was the vector digitizing one and the document georeferencing, because of the lack of time fordeeply explain all the concepts involved.
Nevertheless, the program presented in this paper can be used to cover a primer in GIS in countries
with poor or no digital cartography.
As a practical result of the preparation of the lessons taught, all the materials in terms of reference
maps, satellite images and DEMs are free available to anyone interested in. In order to ease the accessto the Paraguay cartography, a Collection of Favourite Maps of Paraguay has been developed to all
MiraMon users.

Figure 7: Part of the splash screen of the software showing the rapid access to some of the resources used in the course.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to express our gratitude to our respective institutions and to some colleagues (Cristina
Cea, Lluís Pesquer) for helping us in making possible this project. We especially acknowledge UNA
for the initiative and for providing all kind of facilities that highly benefited the quality of the course.
Xavier Pons is recipient of an ICREA Acadèmia Excellence in Research grant (2011-2015).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mugnier C. J., Grids and Datums. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 1305-1306.
December 2007.
Palà V., Pons X., 1995 Incorporation of relief in polynomial based geometric corrections.
Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 61:935-944
Snyder J.P., Map Projections, A Working Manual, U.S. Geological Survey professional paper 1395.
1987
106

GIS Educational Cooperation: Helping from the North andLearning from the South
Fdez-Arroyabe, P. 1, Kankpenandja, L. 2 & Castillo, V. 3
1

Geobiomet Research Group, Geography Department, University of Cantabria, Spain
2
Department of Geography, University of Kara, Togo
3
Geography Department, University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain

INTRODUCTION
The present paper tells the teaching and learning experience that a group of lecturers, researchers andstudents from the University of Cantabria in Santander (Spain) have shared with members andstudents from the University of Kara in Togo for the last three years in relation to accessing and using
Geographic Information Technologies (GITs). The paper shows how sharing knowledge throughteaching and learning GITs can be an excellent way to start, promote and foster inter-institutional
relationships1 between European and African universities.
This article is also focused on showing how cooperation activities based on teaching GITs can be an
good mechanism to counteract actively the existing digital divide at the higher education level in theunderdeveloped countries.
This experience has offered us the chance to reflect on many different aspects: (1) how important
Geographic Information can be in order to promote knowledge society; (2) how technologicalrevolution and digital divide can be a problem or an opportunity to minimize the differences between
developed and underdeveloped countries, knowing how subjective the concept development can be(Lacoste,1978); (3) how GITs courses must be designed considering real needs and the environmental
and socio-economic contexts of those places where they are taught; (4) how diverse the digital gap canbe in two different scenarios such as Africa or Europe.
The article is organized in two different parts. First, it attends to the legal framework of cooperation
among African and European universities. Then, some theoretical concepts are also reviewed inrelation to the new European Higher Education model and digital divide being presented, at this point,
the experience and the contents of the teaching activities in Kara.
The main outcomes of the experience are listed on a qualitative way in the second part of the article
where the lessons learnt from the North are also listed. These lessons are used as an input to rethink
the concept of digital divide traditionally based on the idea of accessing to technologies. A newtheoretical approach is started in this sense showing how relevant concepts such as the level ofawareness of the problem and/or personal attitudes can also be to avoid digital divide and to obtain themost advantage from GITs.

1

This agreement between both universities is the result of a long process and it has been possible thanks to the work
developed by Professor Antonio Rodriguez for many years in the field of Enginery and Cooperation at the University ofCantabria.

107

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COOPERATION
Legal and education context
From a legal point of view, cooperation activities have been developed according to the Spanish
Law Nº 23/1998, July 7th for International Cooperation and Development and taking into account themillennium goals defined by the United Nations which are fully sustained by the University ofCantabria http://www.un.org/spanish/millenniumgoals. This university is also supporting the code of conductof universities in relation to cooperation for development that was signed at the Provosts Spanish
Universities Conference in 2006. Based on this legal background, the University of Cantabria, (Spain)
and the University of Kara (Togo) signed a framework agreement on December 2009 which main aim
was to promote knowledge and the use of technical applications in those scientific areas characterized
by the lack of educational and technological resources. This inter-institutional agreement created thepropitious legal structure for the development of two new courses on Land discovering and water uses
(2009) and Planning and Enginery (2010) where Geographic Information Science and Technologies
became an important part of the full proposal.
From an educational point of view, any new course design and delivery comprises a theoretical andknowledge background based on models to anticipate needs satisfaction. This paper is conceptuallyframed on several concepts such as cooperation and development, information society, technology anddigital divide (Servon, 2002), (Jeffrey 2003), (Warschauer 2004) Lifelong Learning (Griffin 1999),(Chisholm et al. 2004) or knowledge Society which are creating new bases of education for futuresocieties.
At the European level the new model for higher education proposed by the Bologna Agreement has
become the main personal reference in this sense. According to the World Bank Reports (2003),
Lifelong Learning model should promote the following characteristics in the education process: •Educators are guides to sources of knowledge. • People learn by doing. • People learn in groups andfrom each other. • Assessment is used to guide learning strategies and identify pathways for futurelearning. • Educators develop individualized learning plans. • Educators are lifelong learners. Initialtraining and ongoing professional development are linked. • People have access to learning
opportunities over a lifetime.
Psacharopulos and Patrinos (2002) present in Figure 1 how investment on higher education in low
income countries is especially important in relation to private returns.

Figure 1: Private return of investment on education by level of education and country income group108

ICTs, Geographic Information and Digital Divide
The expansion and growth of digital information and communication technologies have become oneof the most relevant issues in the last decades all over the world. This process has been defined byseveral authors as digital revolution. It is well known that access to digital technologies is related todevelopment. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) as a know-how that is the result of an historicaladding of independent technologies, (CAD, DBMS), (Antenucci, 1991) and Knowledge based on
spatial science, generate digital divide too. Figure 2.

Figure 2: GIS and the historical adding of independent technologies.

The organizational setting of GI has changed very fast in last two decades from personal projects andpersonal GIS to societal GIS (Bakker, 2011). In this sense WEB-GIS (Google Earth / Google Map)
and MOBILE-GIS have highly contributed to the socialization of the use of some technologies basedon GI such as GPS-Based navigators or various GIS applied to a wide number of disciplines. The
Internet and mobile phones technologies have become two essential platforms for socializing
geographic information as never before. Being technologies the science of means (Scruton 1982) andbeing GIT one of the technologies that probably most has being socialized for the last decade, we haveto consider the impact that this socializing is producing at all levels. United Nations (Jeffrey, 2003),
has announced that in the new digital era, a person who is not able to use a computer can beconsidered as illiterate.
One of the most known virtual encyclopedia, Wikipedia, describes the term 'digital divide' as “thediscrepancy between people who have access to, and the resources to use, digital information andcommunication tools (e.g. Database technology, Geographical Information Systems, the Internet, Email) and people who do not. The expression is also used to express the discrepancy between those
who have the skills, knowledge and abilities to use (and profit) from the new technologies and those
who do not.
According to this definition, digital divide is clearly happening between Africa and Europe at alllevels. When we focus our attention specifically at the higher education level, GITs seem to be
nowadays one important sources of digital divide at universities in both countries.
One of the main outcomes from the study developed by Fdez-Arroyabe (2006) in relation to the useof GITs and digital divide at European Higher Education Area (EHEA) was that more than 65.5 % of
people who have ever lectured or worked in relation to geo-information, cartographic edition, GIS,
GPS, Remote Sensing, spatial analysis or interpolation techniques considered that the degree in which
this particular group of technologies will generate digital divide within the teaching activities in the109

future is high or very high (Figure 3, left). The same percentage of respondents considered that digital
divide due to GITs will be high or very high also within the researching activities in the future (Figure
4, right).

Figure 3 and 4: Future impact of digital divide on lecturing and researching activities at the EHEA

One point seems to be unanimously accepted. Understanding how digital divide is produced in eachcountry and at each level is the first step to be able to counteract it. Teaching and learning seems to be
an excellent way to reduce the impact of digital divide. Digital gap related to GITs is producing an
increasing gap in both societies at higher education level in different ways. Further education appears
to be one of the best methods available to counteract the digital divide.

Teaching and learning at Kara University
The first teaching/learning activities at the University of Kara took place from May to June 2010 andlasted for five weeks. There were four different courses, one per week: (1) Geographic Information
Systems; (2) CAD and hydrologic models; (3) Classic topography and digital cartography; (4) Natural
hazards management. Last week was dedicated to tutorials and personal work. Courses were attended
by professors and a selection of postgraduate students from the degree on Geography that is taught at
the University of Kara. It is important to mention that accessing to digital technologies such as acomputer or to an Internet connection is very limited in Kara. The agreement between both
universities made possible the creation of the first computers room at the University of Kara. While
University of Cantabria offered the teaching and learning resources, the University of Kara agreed tocreate a computers room to run the courses, Figure 4 and 5.

Figures 5 and 6: Teaching activities in Kara (left) and staff members of both universities (right)

This first teaching and learning experience on GIT allowed us to set up the main theoretical concepts
that are needed to work with geographic data. At this point, different demos were used such as a
Cartalinx (a topological editor from Clark Labs) and Arcview3.2 and ArcGis 9 (ESRI products) in thespecific field of Geographic Information Systems. Some staff of the Geography Department of the
University of Kara traveled to Santander (Spain) in 2011 in order to collaborate in the design of the110second year courses. In this sense, contents were adjusted to their specific needs being the main
requirement to create a map of the city of Kara.
The second year courses (2011) were mainly focused on the disciplines of Territorial Planning andhaving GIT a relevant protagonist on them. They were attended by students from the Geography andfrom the Physics degrees. There were seven different courses from Applied Energetic Systems; Urban
and Rural Development; Rainfall and Hydrologic Models; Urban Planning; Collaborative Mappingand Geodesy; Digital Cartography Applications.
One course focused on creating a cartographic database for the city of Kara (Togo) using an Open
Source GIS Platform (Open Street Map) http://www.openstreetmap.es.

Figures 7 and 8: Fieldtrip (left) and labs activity (right) in the edition of Kara´s map

As usual in the OSM community, it was proposed a Mapping Party in which field trip and lab work
were complementary. The field trip was based on “Walking Papers” in afternoon sessions and lab
activity was developed using JOSM, a free tool to edit information in OpenStreeMap.

Figures 9 and 10: They show how much digital information about the city of Kara there was before the mapping party (left)
and after this course (right).

MAIN OUTCOMES
Main feedbacks from the South
According to the opinions of students and lecturers from the University of Kara, positive impacts ofcourses are numerous.
Indeed, GIS training for teachers and students of the University of Kara have allowed to the
University of Kara to strengthen its relations with the municipality of the town of Kara and progress inachieving its ideal of being more present in people's daily lives through the GIS skills (teachers andstudents) it provides the town of Kara.

111

The development of a GIS for the city Kara was presented to the municipality of the city of Kara bylecturers of the University of Kara to be subject to the grant application by the institutions involved inurban management. Note that this project has reassured the municipality expects a contribution to theuniversity management and planning of the city.
It has to be considered that the students that joined the courses are a very small sample of the total of
the Kara students. Even having several courses per year would not be enough to access most of them.
At this point, on line courses can be a way to enlarge the universe of students who attend the courses.
For this it is essential to access to a basic technological infrastructure and equipment which are notavailable in Togo yet.
The starting of an introductory course on GIS for fourth year students of the University of Kara
which is given by lecturers of the University of Kara. This course is effective since the 2011-2012
academic years and it would not have been possible if the teachers of the University of Kara had notreceived training on GIS in the context of cooperation between Universities of Cantabria and Kara.
The development of thematic maps on different researching areas is also a clear outcome. The GIS
training made possible to map the risk of water erosion in a catchment area of great public interest butvery poor such as Boummong watershed in which is performed the largest water reservoir of northern
Togo.
Two African students have mentioned they were able to get an internship because they took thetraining certificate on GIS. The certificate that they have received at the end of the trainings is a piecethat gives them more opportunities to be selected when they apply for various positions.
About the use of GIS by students, the real problem is the short time of the training that they received
because it does not allow them having a good control of the programs. It can be also cited the case ofa student whose application was accepted by the Department of Planning but he rejected the work
after the interview because considered that he would not be able to perform the tasks to do.

The lessons learned from the North
The process of teaching/learning GITs in a new social and physical environment has opened us to a
new understanding of the concept of digital divide which has traditionally been explained through theidea of access to technology and knowledge to use it. Nevertheless, new factors have become essential
to explain this complex issue now. The lessons learned can be summarized in the following “A cycle”
formed by four concepts: Awareness, Access, Attitudes and Advantages.

Figure 11: The new cycle for digital divide based on levels of awareness and attitudes

112

Awareness
Being aware of the real situation of Kara University has been relevant for action. At atheoretical level, sharing this experience has allowed us rethinking the concept of digital
divide defining different levels of impact. At an institutional level, we have learned thatbuying GITs does not mean avoiding digital divide. The worst type of digital divide is that inwhich you are not aware about that digital divide is taking place. Moreover, knowing how to
use a technology, it does not mean being aware of how the technology is affecting us
personally in a positive and also in a negative way.
AccessAccess to technologies is vital to stop digital divide but it is not enough. We have becomeaware that money can also be wasted when technology is bought and none one is able to use it.
Access to digital technology and the offer of courses to avoid digital gap is very low in Togo
where surviving is the main priority being the economy mainly based on traditional
agriculture.
Attitudes
Nevertheless, access to digital technology and the offer of courses to minimize the digital gap
is very high in Europe where personal attitudes do not fit to the offered opportunities. The
number of students and professors willing to attend a new course in relation to GITs in Africa
is higher than in Europe where having free courses, they can even be cancelled because of few
attendances. This is also a lesson we have learned that shows that attitudes to learn must be
together in the process of avoiding digital divide at all levels.
Advantages
In this sense personal behavior is the main advantage to avoid digital divide. This must be
understood in the A cycle as a result of joining the other three parameters. When awareness,
access and attitude are combined, the digital gap is reduced.
Another important lessons learned from this experience is that, generally speaking, the service
offered by a technology in Europe seems to be more important than the knowledge of how it works.
The consumption of technological services has become more important than the knowledge of thetechnological tool. In Togo, the need to learn how a technology tool works is more relevant than inEurope because substitution is more difficult.

CONCLUSIONS
Educational cooperation can be an excellent way to reduce the existing gap produced by digital
divide between those countries with access to and knowledge of new digital technologies based on
geographic information. Access to the technological instrument, information and software is today
much easier than few years ago. In this context, educational cooperation can show how to use the
GITs applied to specific problems that happen in the countries were the teaching and learning
experience takes place.

113

Transferring of knowledge in the field of applied GITs can make digital divide smaller at different
temporal and spatial scales. The main social outcome of reducing the digital gap should also follow a
reduction of inequalities among living conditions in African countries and European ones. At the sametime, the A cycle is defined as a reference to the European countries in order to remain how importantother factors such personal awareness and attitudes can be in this process of avoiding digital divide atthe EHEA.
In this sense, through educational cooperation, learning becomes a wider concept than something
related to technologies in general or to GITs in particular being and instrument to acquire knowledge,
to develop new skills and competences.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Antenucci J.C., Brown, K., Croswell P.L., Kevany M. J., 1991 Geographic Information Systems: aguide to the technology. Van Nostrand Reinhold-VNR NewYork ISBN 0-442-00756-6
Bakker, M. 2011 Geo-information education: for everyone and/or for the specialist?. LeGIOWORKSHOP, 18th of November, GIS-education in a changing academic environment,
Belgium.
Bessiere, K, Ceaparu, I. Lazar, J., Robinson, J., Shneiderman, B., 2002 “Social and psychologicalinfluences oncomputer user frustration”. Newhagen Book Chapter. University of Maryland
Chisholm L., Larson, A., Mossoux A.,2004. Life Long Learning: citizens’ views in close-up.
CEDEFOP. European Center for development and training, 2004
Drucker, P., 1966 The age of the social transformation. Atlantic Mon. Pages 274.
Fdez-Arroyabe, P. 2006, Bologna Project: Teaching and learning Geographic Information
Technologies in the new higher education model at the European Union
Fdez-Arroyabe, P. 2008, Attitudes and needs of staff and postgraduate students on Geographic
Information Technologies in the new higher education model at the European Union. IADISInternational Conference e-Society 2008
Griffin C. 1999, Lifelong learning and welfare reform. International Journal of Lifelong Learning.
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Volume 18, Number 6 / November 1, 1999. p 431- 452.
Jeffrey, J., 2003, Bridging the global digital divide. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lacoste Y., 1978, Geografía del subdesarrollo. Editorial Ariel. Barcelona, Caracas, México. 3th ed.
Longley, P.A., Goodchild, M.F., Maguirre D.J., Rhind D.W. 2005, Geographic Information Systems
and Science. Edited by John Wiley and Sons.
Merrow, J. 1995, Obstacles to a technological revolution. On common Ground: partnerships inScience and Technology. Number 4, Spring 1995.
Psacharopoulos, G, and Patrinos, H.A. 2002, Returns to Investment in Education: A Further Update.
Policy Research Working Paper, 2881. World Bank,Washington, D.C.
World Bank 2003, Lifelong Learning in the Global Economy: Changing for developing Countries,
Swindon: Washington, D.C
Servon, L. J. 2002, Bridging the digital divide, technology, community and public policy. Blackwell
Publishing.
Warschauer, M. 2004, Technology and Social Inclusion. Rethinking the digital divide. The MIT Press,
Massachusetts.

114Session 5: Effectiveness and quality of
GI S&T-education

Software-independent tutorials and their effectiveness forsupervised self-study of GIS&T
Marianne Hubeau1, Annelies De Meyer2, Thérèse Steenberghen1, Koen Van Balen3 & Jos Van
Orshoven1,2
1

Spatial Application Division Leuven (SADL), KU Leuven, Belgium
2
Division of Forest, Nature, Landscape, KU Leuven, Belgium
3
Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation (RLICC), KU Leuven, Belgium

ABSTRACTThe learning effectiveness of a software-independent “conceptual” tutorial for a bachelor-course on
Geographic Information Science and Technology (GI S&T) was assessed by comparing theperformance of 11 students that followed the software-independent tutorial with the performance of 8
students working through a similar tutorial developed specifically for Quantum GIS 1.7 Wroclaw
software. The knowledge and insight of both groups of students were tested by means of a practicalexam dealing with a vector-based multi-criteria location problem. The exam had to be solved using the
ArcGIS-software which was at that time new for all students. Moreover, the learning experience of themembers of each group was investigated by enquiring about the perceived preparedness for thepractical exam and by comparing the total number of hours spent in the tutorial and exam. The results
revealed no significant differences, neither regarding the effectiveness nor regarding the perceived
preparedness. This suggests the equivalence of the software-independent and software-dependent
approaches. The time spent by the software-independent group was lower though pointing to apossible higher efficiency. More in depth analysis and larger sample sizes are necessary to possibly
confirm these findings. Also student and staff satisfaction must be examined before widespreadpromotion and generalised introduction of the otherwise promising concept of software-independent
tutorials of GI S&T.

INTRODUCTION
At the University of Leuven (KU Leuven), various study programmes include one or more courses
about the science, technology and applications of Geographic Information Systems. Typically, thesecourses encompass a practical part in which students consolidate their theoretical knowledge andacquire practical skills in solving geospatial questions. Until 2009, students were exposed mainly to
Commercial and Closed Source Software (CCSS) such as MapInfo, pcArcInfo, IDRISI and ArcViewGIS. However, the use of CCSS is not in line with KU Leuven’s educational vision, i.e. to prepare
students for lifelong learning through supervised self-study. Supervised self-study (SSS) is a teachingapproach emphasising student’s independent work while having access to thorough advice andfeedback. Obviously, the cost price of CCSS is counterproductive for SSS.
From 2009 onwards, the increased availability and reliability of Free and Open Source Software(FOSS) allowed us to elaborate GI S&T-tutorials for FOSS which is believed to be more compatible
with the SSS-approach. To this end, we opted for QuantumGIS (QGIS)-software in combination withGRASS, R and PostgreSQL/PostGIS. Previous research indicated that the combination of FOSS andweb-based SSS is well accepted by both students and tutors and that the performance level and skills
acquired was equal to what is achieved in more traditional in class GIS-courses (Van Orshoven et al.,2010, Hubeau et al., 2011a, Hubeau et al., in preparation). This result is substantiated by other studies
which indicated no significant difference between student’s performances in web-based learning on117

the one hand and in-class learning on the other hand for the same course (e.g. Detwiler, 2008, Brown& Kulikowich, 2004, Caywood & Duckett, 2003).
All these earlier tutorials were developed for dedicated CCSS- or FOSS-software and contained
exercises with stepwise guidance and illustrated solution pathways. Obviously, such tutorials demand
an update as soon as a new software version comes along. Moreover, the prescriptive nature of theexercises enables students to solve them without necessarily acquiring in-depth knowledge of the GISconcepts behind the software functionalities. Therefore, it can be questioned whether such approach ismost effective for the learning process of the students and for promoting a lifelong learning attitude inparticular.
To date, GIS-software both of the commercial, closed-source and the free, open source types havebecome relatively standardised regarding interface, terminology, functionality, toolbox, etc. This
standardisation was the basis for the idea to develop tutorials without reference to any particular GISsoftware, containing so-called ‘conceptual exercises’. Conceptual GIS-exercises present a geospatialproblem and a generic approach towards its solution. The students are expected to identify and selectappropriate software, typically from the FOSS-domain, encompassing all the required functionality forthe problem at hand. Students need to download and install the software, convert the distributed or
acquired data into the appropriate formats prior to starting the actual problem solving for which
neither a stepwise nor an illustrated solution pathway is available. Hence, a rich palette of learning
activities is at stake, making these tutorials fully compatible with education of the supervised selfstudy type. We developed such a software-independent tutorial and used it in the fall semester of 2011in a Bachelor level course on GI S&T of which the theoretical part was taught in a traditional way
through interactive lectures.
This paper addresses the learning effectiveness of conceptual exercises in GI S&T-courses. To thisend, the performance of two groups of students with regard to the practical and theoretical part of the
GI S&T-course was compared. In line with Sloan Consortium (2002), the hypothesis was that thequality of SSS of GI S&T with software-independent tutorials is at least equivalent to learning throughsoftware-oriented exercises. Also, the students’ perspective concerning the knowledge and skills theyacquired was measured. In particular it was investigated how they felt about how well the type oftutorial taken prepared for the practical exam. The methods section of the paper describes the nature of
the conceptual exercises, presents the virtual learning environment in which these exercises were
offered and describes the set-up used to investigate the learning effectiveness. In the subsequent
sections, the results of this investigation are presented and discussed.

METHODS
Conceptual exercises versus software-oriented exercises
Software-oriented GIS-exercises are exercises developed for a specific GIS-software. For every
exercise a stepwise and illustrated solution is available and all the GIS-functionalities are illustrated
according to the software-specific procedure. Students need to download and install the specificsoftware in line with the described installation procedure and solve the exercises following thesolution pathways. We developed such exercises for Quantum GIS 1.7 Wroclaw software(http://www.qgis.org/).
On the other hand, conceptual exercises are software-independent exercises which can be solved
with any GIS-software containing the necessary functionalities. The objectives of conceptual exercises
118are (i) to enhance acquisition of in-depth knowledge about GIS-concepts by stimulating students to
explore GIS-functionalities without step-by-step explained exercises (i.e. no screenshots, noillustration of buttons etc.), (ii) to force students to choose and select a GIS-software which
encourages them to work with internet-based software user communities and to differentiate between
different GIS-desktop software solutions, and (iii) to develop long-living tutorials requiring limited
maintenance as they are software- and software version-independent.
The standard structure of a conceptual exercise is shown in Figure 1. First, the objectives of theexercise are given in terms of the skills to be acquired. Next, the required GIS-functionalities to solve
the exercise are listed which allows students to verify whether the GIS-software they intend to use
includes the necessary functionalities. Subsequently, the thematic context of the exercise is given, anda generic solution scheme is demonstrated. At the end, a demo-movie is available illustrating theworkflow of the exercise using an arbitrary GIS-software (CCSS or FOSS). This movie illustrates andvisualises all the different GIS-concepts and functionalities so that the students can assess and improvetheir own solution approach. After having worked through a set of exercises, an assignment is
proposed whereby no reference solution is available and for which students receive individual andpersonalised feedback (Hubeau et al., 2011b).

Figure 1: Structure of a conceptual exercise

Virtual learning environmentWeb-based learning is usually embedded in a virtual learning environment, i.e. a software systemdesigned to help tutors to organize learning activities facilitating communication, assessment anddocument sharing (De Lange et al., 2003). The virtual learning environment of KU Leuven is Toledo(http://toledo.kuleuven.be), a blackboard software application. Toledo provides a framework and a setof tools that support and enhance the organisational processes of content creation, storage, transfer,delivery, interaction and application (Coates et al., 2005). It allows tutors to create an active learning
environment by providing learning materials, instructions, assignments, evaluation tests, surveys, andby having the opportunity to give personalised feedback to students. Moreover, students can submit
assignments, share documents, and interact with peer students or the tutor through a discussion board.
Both the conceptual and the QGIS-tutorial were offered through Toledo.

Learning effectivenessIn order to assess the relative learning effectiveness of the conceptual versus the software-specificapproach, 21 students taking the introductory GI S&T-course in the fall semester of the academic year
2011-2012 at KU Leuven, were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The first group of 11
students was offered the conceptual exercises tutorial (the ‘test group’) while the second group (10students) worked through a similar tutorial developed specifically for QGIS 1.7 Wroclaw software (the119‘control group’). The participating students were in the final phase of the Bachelor programme ofeither biology or bioscience engineering at KU Leuven. Whereas the control group worked in a rather
blended learning environment (in addition to Toledo, they had the possibility to interact with the tutor
in class), the test group only had online access to the tutor and hence strictly adhered to distancelearning. The effectiveness was tested through two different take-home assignments, a practical exam
and a theoretical exam. The first assignment consisted of a multi-criteria location analysis problem
while the second assignment aimed at the assessment of the thematic quality of two geodatasets. The
practical exam was also about a multi-criteria location analysis problem. It was organised in class andall students were required to make use of the desktop ArcGIS-software (ArcMap10) which was at thattime new for all of them. Also the results of the written -theoretical- exam accomplished in January
2012 were compared between the two groups.
The differences between the mean scores of the test group and the control group for the two
assignments and the two exams were tested for statistical significance using a Student’s t-test. Only
students that completed both the exams and assignments were taken into account, i.e. all 11 for the test
group and 8 (out of 10) for the control group.

Learning experience
To allow further interpretation of the effectiveness of the students’ learning process, as well as thecontribution of the course to a lifelong learning attitude, the learning experience was measured througha web-based survey hosted by Toledo. Students were asked to self-evaluate their learning process. A
questionnaire was compiled based on the ones developed for previous surveys (Abu el Nasr et al.,2008, Van Orshoven et al., 2010, Hubeau et al., 2011a) and offered to the students in December 2011
immediately after the practical exam but before the theoretical exam. In addition to questions
pertaining to their learning experience (Table 2), the survey also included questions regarding thestudents’ attitude towards the teaching approach and tutorial format. The answers to the latterquestions will be analysed and discussed in a forthcoming publication (Hubeau et al., in preparation).
Student responses were compared between the two groups using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney
U test. This study assumed that a statistically significant difference between rating distributions
associated with the two different tutorials point to a difference (positive or negative) in the students’learning experience. On the other hand, distributions that did not differ significantly were assumed toreflect similar learning perspectives.

RESULTS
Learning effectiveness
Table 1 summarises the results obtained regarding the learning effectiveness. The data indicate thatno significant difference exists between the average learning outcomes of the test group on the one
hand and the control group on the other hand. Whereas the test group scores slightly better on
assignment 1 and the theoretical exam, the control group scores slightly higher on assignment 2 andthe practical exam.

120

Table 1: Comparison of mean scores for the practical and theoretical part of the GI S&T-course

Control group
Supervised Self Study with
QGIS/GRASS(8 students)
18.52/25
19.25/25
16.93/25
20.45/40

Assignment 1
Assignment 2
Practical exam
Theoretical exam

Test group
Supervised Self Study withconceptual exercises(11 students)
19.59/25
18.09/25
15.86/25
22.90/40

p-value

0.432
0.591
0.611
0.522

Learning experience
Table 2 presents the results of the survey. A significant difference was found regarding the numberof hours students spent on the practical part of the GI S&T-course. This number can be interpreted as
an indicator of learning efficiency, i.e. how time-efficient students work through the exercises andassignments. Students of the test group worked fewer hours to complete the conceptual tutorial andassignments in comparison to the control group working with QGIS-software. The reported number of hours
includes all the time spent for the practical part of the course, i.e. the choice, selection (test grouponly) and installation of the GIS-software, the exercise work, the assignments and reporting and - forthe control group only- the attendance to the feedback sessions.
The question concerning the readiness for the practical exam, i.e. an assignment with ArcGISsoftware, did also not yield significantly different response between the groups. However, all studentsof the control group found the concept of the practical exam to be challenging, but also frightening. In
contrast, the opinion of the test group of students regarding their experience to work with an unknown
GIS-software varied from ‘difficult’ (27%), ‘rather difficult’ (9%) and ‘challenging’ (45%), to ‘great
experience’ (9%). One of the test-students reported that the conceptual-tutorial was not a good
preparation for the practical exam. In contrast, all students of the control group answered that the
tutorial prepared well for the practical exam.
Table 2: Learning experience of the test group and the control group

Questions

Number ofhours worked
What was yourexperience towork with an
unknown GISsoftware?

How good did
the Supervised
Self Study tutorial prepare
for the practicalexam?
* Significant result

Control group
Supervised Self Study with
QGIS/GRASS(8 students)<20h
20-40h 40-60h >60h
0%
25%
25%
50%
Difficult0%
Rather difficult0%
At the beginning a100%little bit frightening
but a challenge

Test group
Supervised Self Study with conceptual
exercises(11 students)<20h
20-40h 40-60h
>60h
38%
18%
36%
9%
Difficult27%
Rather difficult
9%
At the beginning a45%
little bit frightening
but a challenge

Great experience

0%Great experience9%

Not so good0%

Not so good

9%

Good

50%

Good

36%

Very good

50%

Very good55%

pvalue0.021*
0.108

1

121

DISCUSSION
One of the arguments underpinning the development of conceptual tutorials is the expectation thatstudents will acquire more in-depth knowledge about GIS-concepts. Therefore, our hypothesis wasthat the test group would more easily adjust to a new GIS-software and would perform better on thepractical and theoretical exam. This hypothesis was not confirmed since the learning outcomes fromthe practical exam of the software-independent and software-dependent approaches were statisticallyequivalent.
However, whereas effectiveness was equal, time efficiency was higher for the test group. The
survey did indeed reveal a significant difference in number of hours worked between the two groups.
Students of the test group have spent significantly fewer hours to complete the conceptual tutorial andassignments, including the choice and selection of a GIS-software. Students of the control group had
the possibility to attend four non-compulsory feedback sessions of two hours which may contribute tothe observed differences. But it seems that the students working with the conceptual exercises used thetime more efficiently than the other students. Since only rather inexperienced bachelor students
participated in this course, it was expected that students of the test group would more easily drop out.
This did not happen, probably because there was enough possibility to interact online with the tutor
and peers through Toledo.
No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding their perceived readiness towork with an unknown GIS-software. The initial hypothesis that students of the test group solving theconceptual tutorial would more easily adapt to using a new GIS-software was not confirmed by thesurvey results. Students of the test group seem to have more mixed feelings though and felt more
precarious in comparison to students of the control group. An explanation may be that some students
learn better the concepts rather than the functionalities of a particular GIS-software while otherstudents are more attached to a particular GIS-software because they had to seek and search for all the
GIS-functionalities on their own and therefore, felt lost when having to tackle an assignment with an
unknown GIS-software.
It was the first time that the conceptual exercises were implemented within a GI S&T-course in a
regular study program at KU Leuven. The reported learning effectiveness, learning experience andefficiency are encouraging for further development, implementation and fine-tuning of the conceptual
tutorials. This is even more true since we believe that the conceptual approach also has secondary
benefits. Students are forced to choose and select a GIS-software which encourages them todifferentiate between different candidate softwares and to worsk with internet-based communities.
Moreover, conceptual tutorials are long-living tutorials with limited needs maintenance since they are
independent of software and software version.
The geodata required by both tutorials were provided through Toledo in a generic format, i.e.
shapefiles for vector-structured data and ASCII-grids for raster data. It is clear that in line with theconcept of software-independent tutorials, also data-independency can be envisaged. This would
imply that students have to make use of facilities provided by available public spatial data
infrastructures to discover, explore and exploit geodata sources. Whereas we expect that this dataindependency will add to the learning effectiveness and experience, we also suspect that this kind of
all-encompassing tutorials are more fit for advanced students, rather than for inexperienced
undergraduate students.

122

CONCLUSION
The effectiveness of a software-independent GI S&T-tutorial was assessed in a supervised self-study
context by comparing the performance of a randomly composed group of 11 Bachelor students taking
this software-independent tutorial (the ‘test group’) with the performance of a control group of 8
students working through a similar tutorial specifically developed for Quantum GIS 1.7 Wroclaw
software. The performance was expressed in terms of the learning outcomes obtained for a theoreticalexam, two practical assignments and a practical exam. Whereas the assignments were of the takehome type, the practical exam was organised in class and consisted of solving a multi-criteria location
analysis problem using the ArcGIS-software which was at that time new for all participants. The
results revealed no significant differences in the performance of the two groups of students suggesting
the didactic equivalence of the software-independent and software-dependent approaches.
The learning experience of both teaching approaches was measured through a web-based survey.
Students of the test group reported to have used significantly less time to complete all different tasksof the practical part of the GI S&T-course indicating a higher time efficiency. The perceived
preparedness for the practical exam was similar although the range of the responses of the students ofthe test group was larger. Although all these results need confirmation through examination of larger
sample sizes, it can be stated that the concept of software-independent tutorials is sufficiently
promising for further development, fine-tuning and implementation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abu el Nasr, A., Van Orshoven, J. CSS or FSS for education in GIS-Proceedings (L. Bernard, A.FriisChristensen, H. Pundt and I. Compte, eds.) of the 11th AGILE International Conference on
Geographic Information Science 2008, Girona, Spain. CD-ROM: 73_DOC.pdf,
http://plone.itc.nl/agile_old/conference/2008-Girona/PDF/73_DOC.pdf.
Brown, S.W. and Kulikowich, J.M. 2004. Teaching statistics from a distance: What have we learned?
International Journal of Instructional Media. 31: 1-17.
Caotes, H., James, R. and Baldwin, G. 2005. A critical examination of the effects of learning
management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary education andmanagement. 11: 19-36.
Caywood, K. and Duckett, J. 2003. Online vs. on-campus learning in teacher education Teacher
education and special education. 26: 98-105.
De Lange, P., Suwardy, T. and Mavondo, F. 2003. Integrating a virtual learning environment into an
introductory accounting course: determinants of student motivation. Accounting education: An
international journal. 12(1): 1-14.
Detwiler, J.E. 2008.Comparing student performance in online and blended sections of a GIS
programming class. Transactions in GIS. 12(1): 131-144.
Hubeau, M., De Meyer, A., Verbeeck, K., Heremans, S., Van Orshoven, J. 2011a. Self-study or inclass-study of geographic information science and technology: the student’s perspective.
Proceedings of EDULEARN11 2011, Barcelona, Spain. ISBN 978-84-615-0441-1.
http://library.iated.org/view/HUBEAU2011SEL: 2872-2881.
Hubeau, M., Steenberghen, T., Vileikis, O., Van Balen, K., Van Orshoven, J. 2011b. Softwareindependent tutorials for supervised self-study of GIS&T. Proceedings of the LeGIOworkshop ‘GIS-education in a changing academic environment, Leuven, Belgium, 2011.
ISBN 978-90-8826-217-3.117-125.
Hubeau, M., De Meyer, A., Steenberghen, T. and Van Orshoven, J. 2012. Student satisfaction towards
software-specific and software-independent tutorials of GI S&T. In preparation.
123

Sloan Consortium. Elements of Quality: The Sloan-C Framework. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for
OnLine Education, 2002.
Van Orshoven, J., Wawer, R. and Duytschaever, K. Effectiveness of a train-the-trainer initiative
dealing with free and open source software for geomatics. Proceedings (J.-H.Haunert, B.
Kieler and J. Milde, Eds.) of the 12th AGILE International Conference on Geographic
information Science 2009, Hannover, Germany. IKG, Leibnitz Universität, ISBN 2073-8013.
CD-ROM: 136.pdf and http://plone.itc.nl/agile_old/conference/2009-hannover/pdfs/136.pdf:
9p.
Van Orshoven, J., Verbeeck, K., Heremans, S. Attitude of Undergraduate and Graduate Students
Towards Free And Open Source Software For Geomatics In A Supervised Self-Study Context.
Proceedings of the 13th AGILE International Conference on Geographic Information Science
2010,
Guimarães,Portugal.
ISBN
978-989-20-1953-6.
http://agile2010.dsi.uminho.pt/pen/PosterAbstracts_PDF%5C90_DOC.pdf: 2p.

124

Measuring Learning Effectiveness of GIS Repetition Units - the
GRAPE project
Niederhuber, M. & Brugger, S.
ETH Zurich, Department of Environmental Systems Sciences, Forest Engineering Group,

Within the project GRAPE (GIS-Repetition using audio-visual repetition units and its learning
effectiveness), the learning effectiveness of newly created multi-media, audio-visual Repetition Units
will be investigated. These Repetition Units have been developed for the geo-information science(GIS) courses at the Department of Environmental Systems Science at ETH Zurich, Switzerland. Each
Repetition Unit consists of a recorded and spoken slide show (max. 5 min.), one or two relevant
exercises, and solutions for the exercises.
We will investigate the learning effectiveness of the Repetition Units over a period of 5 years (2009– 2013) and focus on the following two aspects:
Regarding our main GIS bachelor course, we want to investigate whether the Repeating Units helps
to consolidate the basic GIS knowledge and thus improve the results in the final exam.
B) Regarding our master course, we will analyze whether the Repetition Units help to better refreshthe basic knowledge in comparison to, a quick group repetition within the first two hours of the mastercourse. A repetition is necessary as there is usually a time gap of at least 14 months, and in some cases
up to three years between the bachelor and masters course. Subsequently we have observed a low andheterogeneous level of GIS knowledge at the beginning of our master course.
For the learning effectiveness study, we have chosen the statistical approach of longitudinal studies.
For all tests, we have divided the students into two statistically independent and unbiased groups; atest group and a control group. The test group has access to the Repetition Units while the control
group has to use the conventional materials, such as lecture notes or workbooks.
Aspect A has been investigated by carrying out a test one week before the final exam. The test
results from 2010 and 2011 have statistically been analyzed using a Wilcoxon two-sample test. The
results show that in both years the test group scored significantly higher (p=0.0013 resp. p=0.0121)
than the control group. These results are very encouraging and suggest that the Repetition Units help
to improve test results.
To answer Aspect B, two tests were given to the master students during the first two weeks of themaster course in 2011. Within the first test, we analyzed if there is a significant difference between thetest and the control group before repetition, using a Wilcoxon Two-Sample test (two-sided). The pvalue of 0.5566 indicates that there is no significant difference between these two groups. The second
test shows that the scores were better for all students and we could not measure a significant difference(p=0.1169, Wilcoxon Two, Sample test (two-sided)). However, when using the one-sided Wilcoxon
Two Sample test, the results indicate that there may be a slight improvement in the test scores of thetest group (p=0.0586) compared to the control group. It must be noted that the sample size is rather
small and that the repetition for the students is optional, these aspects must be taken into consideration
when interpreting the results of these statistical tests.
We will repeat the tests with our bachelor and master students in 2012 and 2013; this will enable us
to compare results for the three years, and hopefully a final conclusion may be drawn, regarding thelearning effectiveness of our new medium and its possibility to measure it.
125Personal Learning Styles of Students in GIS Distance Education
as a Success Factor
Aneta Szablowska-Midor
Department of GIS, Cartography and Remote Sensing, Institute of Geography and Spatial Management,
Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland
aszablowska@gis.geo.uj.edu.pl

ABSTRACT
Learning GIS in an e-learning environment is quite common, because there is some evidence that it
can be as successful as learning in the traditional on-campus environment. The identified boundaries
for the successful participation in a distance course are determined by a good course design andsupportive course instruction. On the side of a course participant, his or her personal learning style isone of the success factors next to relevant professional background, strong motivation and e-learningcompetences.
The personal learning style may either correspond with the course design and instruction,
strengthening the learning outcomes or it can be in opposition to both mentioned above, leading to
weak performance. Some neutral or in-between effects are possible as well. From this perspective it
seems quite useful to know personal learning styles of the target student group. It allows to evaluate
how well they are suited to a given course design and instruction, enabling to provide effective support
in cases where the styles are not relevant enough.
The research was carried out in 2011 on a group of more than forty students taking part in the
Postgraduate Studies in Geographic Information Systems UNIGIS offered via the distance mode at the
Jagiellonian University in Kraków (Poland) in cooperation with the Paris Lodron University in
Salzburg (Austria). To identify students’ personal learning styles the Kolb’s questionnaire was used.
The results showed that the identified dominant basic styles were: theorists and pragmatists. Thesestyles seem to suite quite well to the following course design characteristics: focus on GIScience (incase of theorists) and GIS projects implementation (in case of pragmatists). Taking into account the
UNIGIS course instruction, theorists benefit mainly from the systematized learning path and quite well
prepared learning content, while the pragmatists may follow the course instruction at homeindependently from the group.
Possible ways of more effective support could include providing the theorists with additional
systematized data and the pragmatists with more GIS software-based exercises, which solve theproblems of practice. Theorist-friendly instruction may consider more direction of instructor, while
pragmatist-friendly instruction may focus on discussion in several small (instead of one big) groups
within the discussion board forum. However, further research is needed to find out what is the exact
relationship of the support proposed above and the given learning style of a student and its impact on
the learning effectiveness.
KEYWORDS: GIS, e-learning, learning styles

INTRODUCTION
Learning GIS in an e-learning environment is quite common, because there is some evidence that it
can be as successful as learning in the traditional on-campus environment (Clark et al., 2007; Mooney127and Martin, 2003). The identified boundaries for the successful participation in a distance course aredetermined by a good course design (Brown and Voltz, 2005) and supportive course instruction(Swan, 2003; Kanuka, 2007; Buchanan et al., 2005). On the side of a course participant well known
success factors are: relevant professional background (Detwiler, 2008), strong motivation (Lynch and
Dembo, 2004) and e-learning competences (Peters, 2000; Berge, 2007; Tallent-Runnels et al., 2005).
Student’s personal learning style is another factor, which may either correspond with the course
design and instruction, strengthening the learning outcomes or it can be in opposition to both
mentioned above, leading to weak performance (Sadler-Smith, 1996; Healey and Jenkins, 2000). From
this perspective it seems quite useful to know personal learning styles of the target student group andto know which learning style the course is aimed at. It allows to evaluate how well the identified
learning styles are suited to a given course design and instruction, enabling to provide effective
support in cases where the styles are not relevant enough.

LEARNING STYLES
One of the well-know learning styles classification is the Kolb’s learning style inventory (LSI),
which was modified by Honey and Mumford (Learning and Teaching, 2011). On the basis of theirclassification it is possible to identify four different learning styles: activists, reflectors, theorists andpragmatists.
Activists engage totally and without any prejudice in every new situation. They enjoy the current
moments and direct experiences, are open-minded, not skeptical, people who enthusiastically welcome
any news. Their live motto is “Try everything at least once”. Activists love to act and in case of crisis
situation temporary extinguish fire. They solve the problems by use of “brain storming” method, whatmeans spontaneous finding many possible solutions. When they are not any more enthusiastic with
one task, they are looking for another one. That is why they work best when challenged by newexperiences and are rather not interested in process of implementation and consolidation of solutions.
The constant engagement in solving problems of others people is for them the opportunity to be in thecentre of attention. Being the soul of the company they try to concentrate the action aroundthemselves.
Reflectors are analytical people who like to think about the events on distance and observe themfrom every possible perspective. They collect data, directly and indirectly and want to analyze themcarefully before making any conclusion. The process of data collection and analysis of phenomenonand events is very important for them, that is why they put the conclusion to the very last moment.
Their live philosophy is sense and methodical approach , their motto: “Check the basis” and “Put thedecision until the morning”. Reflectors are very sensible people, who like to think of every possible
aspect and consequences before they decide. During the meetings they keep at side, as they areinterested in observing others in action. They just hear and try to observe the general direction of
discussion, before they stand to speak. Tending to stay in the background, reflectors make an
impression of distant, tolerant and unmoved people. Their action is planned within the frame ofgeneral vision, which consolidates past, current and future events, own and others results ofobservation.
Theorists acquire and integrate results of observations and build complex but logic and indisputable
theories. They solve problems on the way of logic and step by step approach by linking seemingly
divergent facts and building cohesive theories. Theoretically oriented people tend to be perfectionists,
who work as long as every element is classified. They like to analyze and synthesize facts, are128

interested in basic concepts, principles, theories and models. Their live philosophy is based on rational
and logic assumptions, so their motto is: “If something is rational has to be good”. They often ask:
“Does it make sense?”, “What is the relation of…?, „What are the basic assumptions?”. Being rather
rational objectivist than subjective thinkers and solving problems on the way of consistent logicalthinking are their main characteristics. They prefer to maximize the level of certainty, that is why they
feel unsteadily in face of subjective statements and nonchalant approach to problem solving.
Pragmatists like to try up theories and techniques and test how they work in practice. They arelooking for new ideas and take first possibility to experiment with them. Pragmatists are this kind ofpeople who return from training and workshops full of new concepts and want to test them
immediately. They like to act without any unnecessary delay and use in practice the ideas they
perceive as good. Pure talk and long disputes which are not leading to concrete solutions are notinteresting for them, as they are practical and like to make practical decisions and solve problems.
Being challenged by problems and opportunities, they believe that: „There is always a better solution”
and “Everything what works has to be good”.

UNIGIS STUDIES IN KRAKÓW (POLAND)
The research was carried out on a group of 44 students of Postgraduate Studies in Geographic
Information Systems UNIGIS (Studia Podyplomowe UNIGIS, 2011) at the Jagiellonian University in
Kraków (Poland). The studies have been organized each year since 2004 by the Institute of Geography
and Spatial Management in close cooperation with the Centre of Geoinformatics of the University ofSalzburg (Austria). Both institutions belong to the UNIGIS International Association (UNIGISInternational Association, 2012), which aims to educate GIS professionals all around the word in
Geographic Information Science and Technology on distance.
Students in the UNIGIS centre in Kraków take part in the two-year blended learning program,
however the majority of classes is on distance and only twice a year they meet on campus during twoday workshops. The online part is supported by an e-learning platform, where the course content isdelivered and the social process of the studies is taking place. The course content is divided into nineobligatory modules (Table 1), which are accessed by students sequentially after completing theprevious ones, and some additional activities, which cover the main themes of the „GIS&T Body ofKnowledge” (University Consortium for Geographic Information Science, 2006). The idea of such acomposition is to give the students as broad view of GIScience as possible and to equip them withsome skills useful in case of taking management positions. The emphasis is put rather on thetheoretical knowledge including understanding of concepts and ideas behind GIS than on the training
in using given GIS software. The communication tools of the e-learning platform support the social
needs of the learning group, what include the possibility to communicate with other students andinstructor by use of discussion forums and e-mail and to cooperate with each other by use of blogs andwiki tools. To compete successfully the postgraduate studies, students are obliged to prepare
assignments for each module, send them to the course instructor and gain a positive grade.
The group of students which took part in the research started the studies in February 2010 and incomparison with other intakes was the biggest one and selected in a special way due to therequirements of the “UNIGIS 2010” project supported by the European Union within the European
Social Fund (PO KL/2.1.1/S - WND-POKL.02.01.01-00-650/09). Students of 2010 intake were theemployees of Polish enterprises working on the positions where the GIS skills and knowledge were129

required. That is why on the beginning of their studies they were experienced professionals, whowanted to broaden their knowledge and acquire some additional skills.
Table 1: Obligatory modules in the UNIGIS curriculumNo
Title of the module
Module 1
Introduction to Geographical Information Science
Module 2
Data Modelling and Data Structures
Module 3
Data Sources and Data Acquisition
Module 4
GeoDBMS
Module 5
Spatial Statistics
Module 6
OpenGIS and Distributed GI Infrastructures
Module 7
Geographical Analysis
Module 8
Visualisation and Cartography
Module 9
GIS Organisation and Project Management

IDENTIFICATION OF LEARNING STYLES: APPROACH AND RESULTS
The research was carried out in December 2011 during the last on-campus workshop. Students filledin the Kolb’s questionnaire, which was based on 10 multi-choice questions. The sum of given answers
indicated the dominant learning style of each person who took part in the research (Figure 1). The
results showed that the identified dominant basic styles were: pragmatists (57% of students), theorists(36%) and reflectors (7%). Activists were not identified. As the results of style identification showed,
the group of 2010 intake was dominated by students with the pragmatic learning style. This dominancemay be caused by the selection procedure which allowed admission to the studies only for enterprises’
employees, who had practical experience with GIS. Students with such professional background may
be more likely to represent pragmatic learning style.
Dominant learning styles (%)
activist
60
40
20
pragmatist0

reflector

theorist

Figure 1: Dominant learning styles of UNIGIS students –2010 intake

To identify impact of identified learning styles on students’ performance further analysis was carriedout with the use of information regarding modules completion rates. This measure of performance was
identified as more diverse than quality of results, therefore was chosen for the analysis. In December
2011 students of 2010 intake took part in nine obligatory and at least in one optional modules. Someof them have completed every module, some of them some of modules. There were a few students
who have made no progress in these terms (Figure 2).
130

Students' performance
modules
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1

4

7

10

13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43

students

Figure 2: Students’ performance

Depending on their perseverance (number of completed modules) the group of students was divided
into four categories: excellent, good, satisfactory and weak performance (Table 2). Both in terms ofnumber of modules completed and number of students the categories were equal size.

performance
modules completed
number of students

excellent>=8
11Table 2: Performance categories
good
6-7
13

satisfactory
4-5
10

weak
<=3
10

Then the learning styles of students falling into each category were analyzed. In each category
except for satisfactory, each of identified dominant learning styles were represented (Figure 3).
Students, who manifested the excellent performance were mainly these who were identified astheorists (55% of students in this category). Following categories with good, satisfactory and weak
performance were dominated by students with pragmatic learning style (respectively 54%, 70% and
70% of students in these categories). As the reflectors were represented only by three students in thegroup being researched it was decided not to analyze their presence in the performance categories.
Due to a very small number of cases, their appearing in a given performance category could be rather
accidental.
%

Students' learning styles and performance

80
70
60
50

reflectors

40

theorists

30

pragmatists

20
100
excellent

goodsatisfactoryweak

performance
category

Figure 3: Students’ learning style and his/her performance131

It is evident that the number of students with a given identified learning style in a given performance
category is not as important as the change of their percentage between categories, which could beobserved (Figure 3). The highest number of pragmatists in three categories can be the result of thedominance of this type of students in the researched group (Figure 1). Differently, the distribution ofpragmatists percentage among the categories can be the result of the UNIGIS course and instruction
relevance for this style of learning. The percentage of pragmatists is the lowest in excellent category(36%), higher in good category (54%) and the highest in satisfactory and weak category (70% inboth). Contrary, the percentage of theorists in the following categories decreases: the highest is thepercentage of theorists between students with excellent performance (55%), lower in category of good
performance (38%), and the lowest in categories of satisfactory (30%) and weak performance (20%).

STYLES RELEVANCE AND POSSIBLE SUPPORTThe results of the research presented above give some basis to state that learning style may serve as a
success factor in learning GIS on distance. The learning style of a student may correspond more or lesswith the course mode of delivery, course design, course focus and instruction or be even in opposition
to mentioned above. This relation may give a positive or negative impact on the students performance.
In case of 2010 intake taking part in the UNIGIS studies in Kraków it was rather evident that students
with theoretical learning style presented generally better performance than students with pragmaticlearning style. The performance of students with reflecting learning style was not analyzed due to the
low number of cases. Activists were not identified. Taking into account the e-learning mode used in
majority during the course and the characteristics of the GIScience and Systems discipline as well as
the course focus it was possible to assess the benefits, which could be gained during the studies by
students representing each of the identified learning styles, together with some difficulties which infuture may require some instructional (or organizational) support.
Pragmatists, who choose the e-learning form of the studies benefit mainly from the possibility towork independently at home, what gives them the chance to test some ideas and implement learnt
solutions. They could be deeply interested in GIS project management topic, which is discussed in oneof the obligatory modules. Another possible advantage of choosing e-learning in their case is theopportunity to talk to other GIS professionals and to compare practical experiences. Such communities
of practice should be rather small and thematic oriented, what in case of this intake was not officiallypracticed. Due to the course focus on GIS theoretical background, the practical side of the course is in
the minority. For the pragmatists this proportion may cause lower engagement in studies and worst(than in case of theorists) performance. Possible support should be oriented on providing pragmatists
with the opportunity to build rather smaller than bigger communities of practice and giving them often
a chance to implement GIS solutions.
Theorists, as mentioned above, pay much attention to the GI theory, which in case of UNIGIS course
is on the first place. Students, who represent this learning style demand an ordered and well-structured
approach to the course material, both in the relation to the learning path and e-learning content designand quality. This requirements are rather fulfilled in the UNIGIS course. Additionally, theorists need
constant guidance from the course instructor. They could be less likely to ask their colleagues for help
and hints, when working on assignments. This may result in their absence in the discussion forums andin overloading the instructor or lack of progress in case, when instructor is not easily accessible(Morgan, 2003). In most cases instructors are easy accessible and helpful during UNIGIS studies,
what satisfies theorists needs, but in case these needs are on the high level it is recommended to132

engage, especially for big groups, a course moderator or mentor, who could provide additional support
to the learners.
Reflectors, in contrary to theorists rather often visit the discussion forums, but not like pragmatists toshare experiences. They would prefer to observe the discussion threads and to construct their own
opinion taking into account information found on forums. Access to many sources of different
information is the main advantage, which may encourage students with this style of learning to takepart in the e-learning studies. The UNIGIS content perfectly fulfills that need. Every lesson in eachcourse module is based on many internet sources. As the course is focused on GIS theory, it does notoffer many examples of GIS applications in form of case studies. This is the main disadvantage, which
is often highlighted by students with reflecting learning style. Supporting them in this part of learning
could be beneficial for the their learning performance. Even, easy intervention in form of GIS casestudies repository should give some positive results.
Activists, although they were not identified in the researched group, can also benefit from some
UNIGIS studies characteristics. First of all the possibility to share experiences on discussion forums,
offered during the whole period of the course and in case of every module learnt, are most probably inthe centre of their interests. Secondly, communication with teacher, who demonstrates some studentcentered approach, which in majority of modules takes place, is very valuable for them. They arelooking for the news from the GIS discipline and for a lot of practical but rather easy exercises withthe use of GIS software. These two activities are not extensively practiced during the UNIGIS course,
so eventual support for activists could be based on taking into account these needs and providing
students with news and exercises.
Recognition of the learning style may bring some benefits to students, instructors and organizers of
the e-learning course in GIS (Bach et al., 2007). From the student perspective it is useful to know hisor her strong and weak sides in the context of the learning mode and the course focus. This awarenessmay help in using the opportunities connected with a given organization of the GIS e-learning course.
The learning style awareness helps as well to minimize threats of eventual irrelevance with the course
concept. From the instructor and organization perspective it is useful to know which learning style thegiven course is the most friendly and which styles are represented in a given group of students. In caseof less-favored learning styles some support policies could be prepared and implemented, if necessary.
Such approach addresses the learner-centered paradigm in GIS learning, which requires to prepare
different learning, organizational and business models for different group of learners (Strobl, 2008).

CONCLUSIONS
The results of the research related to personal learning styles of UNIGIS students in Kraków(Poland) showed that three out of four dominant learning styles were identified in the group. The
majority of students was classified as pragmatic learners, then theoretical and reflecting learners. Most
likely, it was the specific recruitment procedure that influenced the distribution of styles. The analysisof the relation between the learning style and the students performance proved that students who
represented the theoretical learning style presented better performance than students with thepragmatic learning style. Although course content and delivery can be useful for students of eachlearning style, it seems that theorist take more benefits from the course than learners with otherlearning styles. According to this finding, some solutions which could help students with other thantheoretical learning style to improve their performance were proposed. These solutions may beprovided either by organizers or course instructors. However, further research is needed to find out the133relationship between the support proposed, given learning styles of students and their joint impact on
the learning effectiveness.

REFERENCES
Bach S., Haynes P., Lewis Smith J., 2007 Online Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Open
University Press Berkshire England
Berge Z.L., 2007 Students’ Expectations & the Online Educational Experience. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning vol. 8, no 2.
Brown A.R., Voltz B.D., 2005, Elements of Effective e-Learning Design. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning vol. 6, no 1.
Buchanan E.A., Myers S.E., Hardin S.L., 2005 Holding your Hand From a Distance: Online
Mentoring and the Graduate Library and Information Science Student. The Journal of
Educators Online, vol. 2, no 2.
Clark A.M., Monk J., Yool S.R., 2007, GIS Pedagogy, Web-based Learning and Student
Achievement. Journal of Geography in Higher Education Vol. 31, no 2, pp. 225-239.
Detwiler J.E. 2008, Comparing Student Performance in Online and Blended Sections of a GIS
Programming Class. Transactions in GIS, vol.12 no. 1, pp. 131-144.
Healey M., Jenkins A., 2000, Kolb’s Experimential Learning Theory and Its Application in Geography
in Higher education. Journal of Geography, vol.99, pp. 185-195.
Kanuka H., 2007 The Influence of Instructional Methods on the Quality of Online Discussion. British
Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 260-271.
Learning
andTeaching,
2011
The
Experiential
Learning
Cycle.
on-lineat:
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/experience.htm, accessed: May 2012
Lynch R., Dembo M., 2004 The Relationship Between Self-Regulation and Online Learning in a
Blended Learning Context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, vol. 5, no 2.
Mooney K., Martin A., 2003 The potential of distance e-learning in the spatial information sciences –an evaluation of a pilot programme at the Dublin Institute of Technology. Sixth International
Conference on Computer Based Learning in Science 5-10 July 2003, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Morgan Ch. K., 2003 Is Enough Too Much? The dilemma for online distance learner supporters. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning vol. 4, no 1.
Peters O., 2000 Digital Learning Environments: New Possibilities and Opportunities. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning vol.1, no 1.
Sadler-Smith E., 1996 Learning styles: a holistic approach Journal of European Industrial Training nr
20/7 pp. 29-36.
Strobl, J., 2008, Reaching out to Distant Learners: Learner-Centered Design and Management of
Online Programmes. Proceedings of the Second GIS Central Asia Conference, Kyrgyz State
University of Construction, Transportation and Architecture (KSUCTA), Bishkek, Kyrgyz
Republic.
Studia podyplomowe UNIGIS, 2011 on-line at: www.unigis.uj.edu.pl, accessed: May 2012
Swan K., 2003 Learning effectiveness: what the research tell us. [w:] Elements of Quality Online
Education, Practice and Direction (red.) J. Bourne, J.C. Moore Sloan Center for Online
Education, pp. 13-45.
Tallent-Runnels M.K., Lan W.Y., Fryer W., Thomas J.A., Cooper S., Wang K., 2005 The relationshipbetween problems with technology and graduate students’ evaluations of online teaching
Internet and Higher Education Vol 8, pp. 167-174.
UNIGIS International Association, 1993-2012 on-line at: www.unigis.net, accessed: May 2012134

University Consortium for Geographic Information Science, 2006, Geographic Information Scienceand Technology Body of Knowledge 2006.

135

POSTERLeGIO Tutorial in Cultural Heritage of Monuments and Sites:
open GIS e-learning
Ona Vileikis1, Marianne Hubeau2,Veronica Heras1, Koen Van Balen1 & Aziliz Vandesande11Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation (RLICC), KULeuven Kasteelpark Arenberg 1 - B
2431, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium
2
R&D Division SADL, (Spatial Applications Division Leuven) Celestijnenlaan 200 E, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium,
KULeuven.

INTRODUCTION
Courses dealing with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have been available to the students at
the KULeuven since more than 20 years (Hubeau et al. 2011). However, it was not until last year that
due to the increasing demand from the students of the Master of Conservation of Monuments and Sites(MCMS) to become familiar with GIS, the Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation(RLICC) has been exploring the ability to teach GIS in a conservation heritage environment throughthe use of an online learning platform. Supported by the KU Leuven office for educational affairs andtogether with the LSUE-members (Leuven Sustainable Earth Research Centre), i.e. SADL (Spatial
Applications Division Leuven) and the FNL (Division of Forest, Nature and Landscape) under the
LeGIO (Leuven Geographic Information Distance Education) project, the RLICC offered a noncompulsory tutorial to graduate students of the MCMS to gain a better understanding of theapplicability of GIS within the heritage field. The tutorial ‘Introduction to GIS in Cultural Heritage’ ishosted by Toledo, a blackboard software and the educational online platform of the KU Leuven.
Students can get familiar at their own pace with both the most important GIS-concepts and theapplication in Build Cultural Heritage (CH) in a relatively short period of time. Moreover, they areable to use GIS-software to support their study projects and thesis. This paper presents the scope of thetutorial and an example of its results is illustrated by the application of GIS to map the values of the
Petra Archaeological Park in Jordan developed by a MCMS student, who has followed the course in
2011. Until now the course has not been integrated into the university credit system nor is there any
evaluation of the students. However, during the first year 40% of the students completed the courseand evaluated it as successful (Vileikis et al. 2011). This year the course is open again and a higher
number of students is expected.

GIS IN A BUILT CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
GIS is not a new tool in CH management, but it is a tool with a gallery of applications to be further
explored. Nowadays, GIS is part of the dynamics of our daily lives helping to take decisions, e.g. tofind the nearest location of a restaurant by using a smart phone, or to look for the fastest and shortest
way to go to work avoiding traffic jam by using a real-time feed GPS. Moreover, GIS is also
answering scientific questions and operations to better protect, manage and understand heritage sites
by the support in many decision-making processes (Longley et al. 2011). As an example of the latter
application, World Heritage cities such as the colonial city of Cuenca in Ecuador or the Ancyra Projectin Turkey, already count with a GIS system as a data repository. In Cuenca the GIS aims to visualize
typologies or perform data analysis that can e.g. inform stakeholders where additional conservationbased investigations are necessary (Heras et al. 2010). In Ancyra, metadata, data structure and content
were designed allowing accurate querying, maps visualization and the location of damages of different
heritage monuments (Gabrielli & Malinverni 2007). Other common applications of GIS in CH can befound in the management of archaeological sites, e.g. in field work to record data of excavations, inmodelling to create surface models to locate archaeological remains, or in data management to prepare139data for future field survey. Further approaches less frequently used are the integration of intangible
heritage and participatory mapping. For instance, the Troina GIS project shows the integration of
spatial knowledge of the local communities and diverse forms of oral information in a GIS in order torepresent and interpret the various significations of Troina, a small town in Sicily (Fitzjohn 2009). GIS
is an important and useful tool in cultural heritage because the characteristics and differences of each
cultural heritage site could be linked with the explicit spatial location and therefore supporting todefine site conservation strategies and protection.

THE LEGIO PLATFORM
The LeGIO educational platform is linked to Toledo, the e-learning platform of the KU Leuven.
Therefore, students and external registered participants have the opportunity to access this supervised
self-study distance course. Toledo gives the opportunity to exchange information, personalized
feedback, assignments and documents between tutors and students. Moreover, tutors are able to follow
up the progress of the students and evaluate them. Because the module is designated as supervised
self-study, it allows students to complete the course trajectory on their own pace during the first or
second year. It also gives students the opportunity to apply the learned concepts in their own projectwork or thesis in the field of cultural heritage. Due to the multidisciplinary and international group of
the MCMS students this GIS&T course potentiates the use of GIS in different research fields withdifferent perspectives, requirements and user needs.
The course contains a specific tutorial on cultural heritage. This tutorial aims to work inline with thepractical use of GIS and the activities of the MCMS. Figure 1 shows an example of the structure of themodules on the Toledo platform.

Figure 1. Toledo Platform. Introduction to GIS: Cultural Heritage.

At the beginning of each module there is a theoretical introduction on GIS common to otherintroductory GIS tutorials. This is followed by seven exercises and two assignments specificallycreated for the Cultural Heritage tutorial with the geographic datasets of the city of Cuenca (Heras etal. 2010) and California (Plant n.d.). For example, after collecting cultural heritage data, e.g. about
historical buildings, and heritage elements, the students are able to explore its content and structure
allowing them to carry out further and more complex analysis.

140

TEST RESULTS
The e-learning GIS&T course was voluntarily tested in 2011 and is tested in 2012 by first andsecond year MCMS students achieving good but different results regarding the participation. In 2011,
the course was recommended as preparation for the work carried out during the study trip and Risk
Mapping project in Petra in Jordan. 22 students registered for the online course and 40% finished itcompletely, which is a positive equivalent to the average of students that normally finish an online
course. After finishing the GIS& T course in less than one month on their own pace, the students wereable to both have a basic understanding of and be able to work with the GIS tools for management
strategies and risk mapping of the Petra World Heritage Property. (1) For data collection: As apreliminary assessment the tracks or points of significant heritage places and visitor facilities wererecorded together with panoramic photos. These points were taken by GPS and later inserted into the
GIS. (2) For planning: Knowing the places and their location could assist the authorities, e.g. to decideon the location of visitor’s facilities or detect areas at risk. This will lead later to determine protection
areas and management zones. (3) For Value Mapping: Illustrated in the example below. In 2012, 21
students showed interest, 8 students started the course and 5 students already finished the course whileat this moment it is not closed yet. However, the first result reveals a higher dropout rate, probably
because no specific aim such as Petra fieldwork was given.

Value Mapping
As part of the Risk Mapping project in Petra, a value mapping methodology was foreseen. Its
outcome could benefit the management of the Petra World Heritage Property, in relation topreservation priorities and the required level of integrity to preserve this outstanding site. In order toshow the risks identified and relate them to the values of the site, a GIS project was designed where
the information will be easily visualized and analysed. Therefore, it was opted to revert to the elearning GI S&T course. Given that the course is designed for learning with non specified software,
the digitization of the fieldwork results was implemented by using a FOSS, the Quantum GIS version
1.7.2, an Open Source GIS-software as depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2: the preliminary risk assessment project was created in Quantum GIS version 1.7.2

141

CONCLUSION
The application of GIS in Cultural Heritage has been most of the time related to land use analysis,
land evaluation, spatial distribution of survey data, and its visualization. However, other applications
such as value mapping and risk assessment have proved the enormous potential of GIS in this field,
opening new channels to protect as well as communicate to the public the values of the heritage sites.
Moreover, applications illustrating intangible values displayed by, for instance, multimedia, could befurther explored.
In the example of the LeGIO platform, the opportunity of the graduate students to learn GIS as partof their training in Conservation of Monuments and Sites with an specific course where they could
easily relate to their field of work, has moved the students to see the application of GIS far more thanjust as a tool for documentation of cultural heritage but also, for instance, to encourage stakeholders toactively participate at different levels in the management and monitoring processes of the heritage
sites or as the Petra Case Study showed, how to capture the values of the site linked to their specificlocation. The nature of the LeGIO as a software-independent learning platform, allows the students towork with commercial as well as license free software according to the needs of the students and thecapability offered by the different systems. An advanced GIS encompassing 3D build heritage isunderdevelopment. Regardless the scope of the GIS technology development and its widespread use inother fields such as in environmental analysis, both GIS and GIS e-learning, is becoming a successful
and necessary tool in the field of cultural heritage.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fitzjohn, M., 2009. The use of GIS in Landscape Heritage and Attitutes to Place: Digital Deep Maps.
In M. L. Stig Sorensen & J. Carman, eds. Heritage Studies: Methods and Approaches.
London: Routledge, pp. 237–252.
Gabrielli, M. & Malinverni, E., 2007. Multimedia Database for the Heritage Information System of theAncyra Project. In XXI International CIPA Symposium. XXI International CIPA Symposium
Proceedings. Athens.
Heras, V. et al., 2010. Plan de Conservación Preventiva y Monitoreo para el Centro Histórico deCuenca. In Vlir IUC Project: ‘World Heritage City Preservation Management’. UCuenca.
Hubeau, M. et al., 2011. Software-independent tutorials for supervised self-study of Geographic
Information Science and Technology. In GIS-education in a changing academic environment.
LeGIO-Workshop. Leuven, pp. 117–125.
Longley, P.A. et al., 2011. Geographic Information Systems and Science Third., John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Plant, R.E., QGIS Labs. Available at: http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/plant/qgislabs.htm[Accessed January 20, 2012].
Vileikis, O. et al., 2011. A case study: GIS-education applied in the study field of cultural heritage
conservation. In GIS-education in a changing academic environment. LeGIO-Workshop.
Leuven, pp. 147–149.

142

AMENDMENT

Structured or non-structured doctoral programmes? A bottom-up
approach for third-cycle Bologna implementation
Christoph Brox and Werner Kuhn
Institute for Geoinformatics, University of Muenster, Germany

ABSTRACTIn 2003, doctoral education was included in the Bologna Process as the third cycle.
Recommendations, but no binding regulations, for “Bologna-conformant” doctoral programmes haveemerged. However, in parallel to the political processes we already have de facto standards: European
and national funding organisations pay millions of Euros for structured doctoral programmes with setsof rules, which they think achieve excellent doctoral education. This paper evaluates the state-of-theart of structured doctoral programmes in the context of the Bologna process. It asks how a single
research institute can deal with these developments and maintain excellence in research. The Institutefor Geoinformatics, University of Münster, Germany, runs both models in parallel, the traditional
German non-structured PhD and a structured PhD programme funded by the national science
foundation. Against this background, we highlight advantages and disadvantages and discuss thefeasibility of the two models. Our preliminary conclusion and recommendation is to give up thetraditional German model and to switch entirely to Bologna-conformant structured doctoral
programmes.

KEY WORDS
Doctoral programme, structured doctoral programme, PhD, third cycle, Bologna process

INTRODUCTION
With (Berlin_Communiqué, 2003), the Bologna Process began to focus on doctoral education as thethird cycle. Since then, many improvements and concretizations have been made at the EU level. The
European Joint Doctorate Programmes within the Erasmus Mundus Programme of the European
Commission (European_Commission, 2010) can be considered an implementation of the current stateof-the-art of structured doctoral programmes at the EU level.
Structured doctoral programmes emerged in many European countries, even before the Bologna
Process, e.g., in the UK twenty years ago (Denicolo, 2010). Also in Germany, the “Graduiertenkolleg”(Research Training Groups) came up at that time (Schmidtmann, 2010) and was subsequently
extended with an international version. The traditional doctoral education in Germany was – and is
still, for most universities – following an “apprenticeship model”: The responsibility for the PhD
student is exclusively a matter of the supervising professor, called “doctor father” (or “doctor mother”)
due to the close relation between doctoral candidate and professor (Greisler, 2007).
Although German PhD students studying in structured programmes are still a minority of 15%(Greisler and Hendriks, 2008), the number is increasing. Furthermore, the pressure to introduce
structured doctoral programmes is increasing:
After implementing the Bologna Process for the first and second cycle in most European
countries (with a deadline to finalise the implementation in 2020), the third cycle is thelogical next step. Yet, one should not expect regulations for the third cycle as detailed as
for the reform of the Bachelors and Masters programmes. The (London_Coummuniqué,145

2007) states that “we recognize the value of developing and maintaining a wide variety of
doctoral programmes”. On the other hand, “Ministers consider it necessary to go beyond
the present focus on two main cycles of higher education to include the doctoral level as
the third cycle in the Bologna Process” (Berlin_Communiqué, 2003).
At the European level, as well as in many EU member states, structured doctoral
programmes can be considered de facto standards for excellence in doctoral education. In
Germany, “Graduiertenkollegs” (Research Training Groups) and “Graduiertenschulen”(Graduate Schools) attract excellent students and provide attractive scholarships.
How can research institutes handle this situation? An easy top-down approach would be to wait for
new regulations and implement them gradually when they are established. Our bottom-up approach,instead, is to ask: What is the better model for the doctoral candidates and the institute? We currently
run both models, a traditional German doctoral education (with ad hoc funding from projects) and afunded structured doctoral programme. The goal of this paper is to evaluate strengths and weaknessesof both models and to come to a preliminary conclusion from the perspective of a modern research
institute whether togo back to the traditional German “apprenticeship model”,
switch entirely to a structured doctoral programme,
run both modes in parallel after the end of the funding period of the structured doctoral
programme.
The following section describes the developments and the current status in the European Bologna
Process. The next section will compare key features of structured vs. non-structured doctoral
programmes and will discuss pros and cons – in general and from the perspective of our research
institute based on experiences with both models. The paper will conclude with a summary of theresults as well as a preliminary conclusion on which model will be appropriate for the future ofresearch institutes.

“BOLOGNA-CONFORMANT” DOCTORAL EDUCATION
Most Bologna Process member countries have adopted new higher education legislation to introduce
and regulate elements of the Bologna Process, although there are different speeds in theimplementation of the Bologna Process action areas. In 2010, 90 % of students in 30 higher education
systems were in two cycle degree structures. Percentages lower than 100 either reflect ongoingtransition to the new structure or the fact that certain study fields are exempted from the two-cycle
model, e.g., medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, and architecture (Westerheijden et al., 2010).
The Bologna Process also has a global effect, positive or negative, e.g., in the USA, more and moreprestigious universities recognize European three-year Bachelor programs for accessing postgraduate
programs; China is looking at the Bologna Process due to its interest in student mobility to Europe;and Australia is said to have perceived the Bologna Process as a threat to their market shares ofinternational students (Westerheijden et al., 2010).
After the “official” start of the Bologna Process with the Bologna Declaration in 1999, focusing on
Bachelor and Master programmes, and the inclusion of the third cycle in (Berlin_Communiqué, 2003),(Bergen_Communiqué, 2005) declared in more concrete terms:

146

Doctoral level qualifications need to be fully aligned with the European Higher Education
Area (EHEA) overarching framework for qualifications using the outcomes-based
approach.
The core component of doctoral training is the advancement of knowledge throughoriginal research.
The normal workload of the third cycle in most countries would correspond to 3-4 years
full time.
Universities are urged to ensure that their doctoral programmes promote interdisciplinary
training and the development of transferable skills, thus meeting the needs of the wider
employment market.
Overregulation of doctoral programmes must be avoided.
Also in 2005, the European Commission provided a further consolidation regarding the role ofdoctoral candidates in its “European Charter for Researchers” and “The Code of Conduct for the
Recruitment of Researchers” (European_Commission, 2005). “All researchers engaged in a research
career should be recognised as professionals and be treated accordingly. This should commence at the
beginning of their careers, namely at the postgraduate level…” and provide adequate salaries including
social security provisions as well as appropriate conditions during their training phase, e.g., structured
and multi-faceted supervision, career advice and career development opportunities, and mobility
measures.
The (London_Coummuniqué, 2007) emphasised the overall goal to strengthen Europe’s research
capacity. Again, one can observe the balancing act between regulation and flexibility: “We recognize
the value of developing and maintaining a wide variety of doctoral programs linked to the overarchingqualifications framework for the EHEA, whilst avoiding overregulation.” New specific objectives
were to focus on learning outcomes, including “transferable skills”, and ways to enhance
employability.
The (Leuven_Communiqué, 2009) focused on overall topics such as social dimensions, life-longlearning, mobility, employability, and organizational structure of the future Bologna Process.
The next high-level Bologna meeting took place in Vienna and Budapest in 2010. Although theintroduction of Bologna-conformant Bachelors and Masters programmes is now daily business all over
Europe, third-cycle education is comparably little affected by the Bologna Process. “Variety in
doctoral studies continues to exist, as intended by ministers” (Westerheijden et al., 2010). However,doctoral degrees have become more structured than before the Bologna Declaration in many countries(Westerheijden et al., 2010). A diversity of models continues to exist as agreed, and a length of 3-4
years is the most common duration. In 16 countries, a PhD has duration of 3 years, in 9 countries, 3-4
years, and in 6 countries 4 years. In 6 countries, there is a duration of 3-5 years, and some countries
are out of this range, e.g., Cyprus (3-8 years), Lithuania (2-6 years), and Russia (3+3 years)(Westerheijden et al., 2010). For comparison, note that top research universities in the US, which
typically has no structured PhD programmes, but substantial course requirements, often have medianthesis completion times of 5 or more years.
At the most recent European Higher Education Area Ministry Conference at Bucharest, few progress
was made regarding the third-cycle education, rather “Taking into account the “Salzburg II
recommendations” and the “Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training“ (Bucharest_Communiqué,2012). These principles published by the European Commission (European_Commission, 2011) rather147

focus on economic needs and that “it is important to focus on doctoral training as this is thequalification that should enable researchers to move into a wide range of employment sectors”.
Furthermore, general principles (recommendations) for improving the quality of doctoral programs(still basing on the Salzburg II recommendations) are provided. The report clearly votes for “doctoral
schools” with structured doctoral programmes and “collaborative research with other institutions (joint
programmes, which may lead to joint or double degrees)”.
In the context of the Bologna Process, there are no official regulations so far. Therefore, the term
“Bologna-conformant doctoral education” does not refer to a fixed set of rules, but to the state-of-theart of an on-going discussion, which is driven by European stakeholders such as the (Conference ofthe) European Ministers for Education and the European University Association (EUA).
Key features of a Bologna-conformant third cycle can be summarized as follows:
Value of excellent doctoral education: The European Charter for Researchers identified a potential
shortage of researchers, which “will pose a serious threat to EU’s innovative strength, knowledge
capacity and productivity growth in the near future” (European_Commission, 2005). “Within thiscontext, particular priority should be given to the organisation of working and training conditions in
the early stage of the researchers’ careers, as it contributes to the future choices and attractiveness of acareer in R&D” (European_Commission, 2005).
Learning outcomes: The core component of the third cycle is the advancement of knowledge
through original research (EUA, 2007), (EUA-CDE, 2010). According to the European Qualifications
Framework, the “learning outcomes relevant to Level 8 are knowledge at the most advanced frontierof a field of work or study and at the interface between fields” (EU, 2008). The “most advanced andspecialised skills and techniques” will be acquired as well as competences in terms of “responsibility
and autonomy” (EU, 2008).
Structured programmes: The (Bergen_Communiqué, 2005) considered the need for structured
doctoral programmes and installed a follow-up group for the further development of their basic
principles. According to the EUA (European University Association), 30% of European higher
education institutions surveyed say that they have established some kind of doctoral, graduate or
research school (Crosier et al., 2007). “Some kind of” should be highlighted, because it shows adilemma: Not having official regulations or not even a clear definition of a Bologna-conformant
structured doctoral programme makes it hard to evaluate how many fulfil these criteria.
Duration: “Doctoral programmes should operate within appropriate time duration (three to four
years fulltime as a rule)” (EUA, 2005). Another quality aspect of doctoral education are acceptablecompletion rates (Sursock and Smidt, 2010).
Status as professionals and funding: The statements are ambiguous. On the one hand: “We consider
participants in third cycle programmes both as students and as early stage researchers”(Bergen_Communiqué, 2005), on the other hand, the European Charter for Researchers(European_Commission, 2005) sees it a bit differently: “All researchers engaged in a research careershould be recognised as professionals and be treated accordingly. This should commence at the
beginning of their careers, namely at postgraduate level”. “This includes fair and attractive conditionsof funding and/or salaries with adequate and equitable social security provisions (including sickness
and parental benefits, pension rights and unemployment benefits) according to national laws”(European_Commission, 2005), which is implemented in the Erasmus Mundus programme for Joint
148

Doctorate Programmes (European_Commission, 2010). Also in reality, there are different
perspectives: In 2007, 22 of 37 participating Bologna countries considered the status of doctoralcandidates as “mixed” (students and employees), 10 countries only as students, and 3 countries only as
employees (EUA, 2007). Another aspect of a professional attitude is “documented responsibilities andduties”. In the Erasmus Mundus programme, the EC requires a “Doctoral Candidate Agreement”,
which amongst others requires a definition of “the nature of the supervisory/monitoring/assessment
procedures and the criteria used to assess the candidate’s performance” (European_Commission,2010).
Recruitment and selection: In a non-structured doctoral education the “process is more like this: A
professor knows a good student from her university and asks her if she wants to write a PhD thesis”(Thaller, 2006). According to the Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers(European_Commission, 2005), “employers and/or funders should establish recruitment procedures
which are open, efficient, transparent, supportive and internationally comparable”. The advantage isthat “broader channels of advertisement are used” (Baschung, 2010); consequently more potential PhD
students apply, so the choice is bigger. A selection committee (vs. a single professor) is supposed tomake more substantial selection decisions, and the process is more transparent, being structured in abetter way and publicly documented. US universities, again for comparison, have had such selection
processes for a long time, with ambiguous results. A broader participation in the selection can reduce
the weight of the scientific potential of candidates.
Multiple supervision complements the traditional one-to-one apprenticeship model (Sursock andSmidt, 2010). “Supervision must be a collective effort with clearly defined and written responsibilitiesof the main supervisor, supervisory team, doctoral candidate, doctoral school, research group and theinstitution, leaving room for the individual development of the doctoral candidate” (EUA-CDE, 2010).
The most important aspect is that of supervision by a group of supervisors vs. a single professor.
Another aspect is informal supervision, leading to the next issue of research environment. The(Bergen_Communiqué, 2005) urges universities to ensure that their doctoral programmes promoteinterdisciplinary training. The Erasmus Mundus programme for Joint Doctorate Programmes requires
inter-sectorial and inter-organisational collaboration (EACEA, 2010). All of these aspects are fulfilled,
almost by definition, in structured doctoral programmes. The environment of a structured programme
is interdisciplinary, inter-sectorial, and inter-organisational per se and fosters informal supervision
through the feedback of PhD colleagues, other professors in the programme, and feedback onpresentations and publications. As such, a research environment is supposed to be stimulating andevoke the best-possible results from the PhD students. The “environment” also includes student
services (Sursock and Smidt, 2010), e.g., accommodation, visa information, and organization ofadministrative issues.
Employability is a key concern of structured doctoral programmes. It is stressed quite often that
more than half of PhD earners do not choose careers in academia (Huisman and Naidoo, 2006). So it
makes sense for the European Ministers for Education to “invite our HEIs to reinforce their efforts toembed doctoral programmes in institutional strategies and policies, and to develop appropriate career
paths and opportunities for doctoral candidates and early stage researchers” (London_Coummuniqué,2007). A first approach is to teach soft skills (transferable skills) such as time management, project
proposing and management, writing and communication skills, copyright regulations, risk
management, and research ethics (Peers, 2010). This helps doctoral candidates targeting both,academic or non-academic careers. Nevertheless, “if the non-academic labour market becomes thedestination of an increasing number of Doctoral candidates, are the generic skills sufficient to meet149

employers’ expectations?” (Sursock and Smidt, 2010). A radical answer to this question isProfessional Doctorates, particularly found in the UK. “Collaborative doctoral programmes, with their
exposure to non-university environments, are seen as an excellent way to improve candidates’ ability
to relate abstract thinking to practical applications and vice versa, as required for the development of
new knowledge, products or services” (Borell-Damian, 2009). The European Commission, in its
Erasmus Mundus Programme for Joint Doctorate Programmes, requires the participation of associatedindustrial and government partners (EACEA, 2010). It exceeds the scope of this paper to further
discuss advantages and disadvantages and whether these developments shift doctoral education
towards an industry-oriented third cycle or new emerging alternatives.
Internationalisation and mobility: “International students, especially at the graduate level represent
a huge part of the knowledge creation workforce in many universities of industrialized nations” (de laFuente, 2010). “Doctoral programmes are a key component of the discussion on European higher
education in a global context, while at institutional level, attracting the best doctoral candidates fromall over the world, encouraging mobility within doctoral programmes and supporting European andinternational joint doctoral programmes and co-tutelle arrangements, are central to the development of
any international strategy” (EUA, 2007).

STRUCTURED VS. NON-STRUCTURED DOCTORAL PROGRAMMES –PROS AND CONS
This section picks up the key features of Bologna-conformant doctoral education and examines pros
and cons of structured and non-structured doctoral programmes – theoretically as well as from thepoint of view of a research and teaching institute with experience in both models.
Value: At the European level, (doctoral) education is considered as a valuable economic and societal
resource. There is no contradiction to this in Germany. Doctoral education is highly appreciated – asGermany has one of the “highest proportions of doctorates in relation to the number of graduatesworldwide” (Kehm, 2007). There is also no contradiction between structured and non-structured
doctoral programmes. Both models target excellent doctoral education and there is no need to ask a
research institute about the value of either.
Learning outcomes: The German and the European Qualifications Frameworks are compatible(Greisler and Hendriks, 2008). However, they are so abstract that they are hardly usable as guidelines
for an institute. Probably most professors would agree that graduates with doctorates must haveacquired the “most advanced and specialised skills and techniques, including synthesis and evaluation,required to solve critical problems in research” (EU, 2008) or “can be expected to be able to promote,within academic and professional contexts, technological, social or cultural advancement in aknowledge based society” (Greisler and Hendriks, 2008). At this abstract level, there are hardly any
differences between structured and non-structured doctoral programmes.
If we are looking at learning outcomes in terms of knowledge, skills, and competences in moredetail, we can observe differences between structured and non-structured doctoral programmes:
Bologna-conformant doctoral education provides transferable skills (soft skills) and supports careerdevelopment. Both, “research skills for the discipline and career management skills have their place ina doctoral training programme” (Schäffner, 2008).
Already in the traditional doctoral education, doctoral candidates presented their research atconferences, attended courses in scientific writing or career building, organized international events,
150

taught classes, and cooperated with international partners, thus acquiring transferable skills such ascommunication skills, English language proficiency, writing and presentation skills, multi-culturalcompetencies, and building up professional networks. The difference is: the structured doctoral
programme reliably conveys all these skills to all doctoral candidates due to a mandatory course
programme of 30 ECTS credit points, mandatory milestones such as journal and conference
publications, and a mandatory external semester in the USA.
A second aspect is the mediation of interdisciplinary knowledge. Especially “German doctoralcandidates are known for being schooled in great depth in their specific fields, but often lack a broader
orientation” (Baftiri, 2010). In order to avoid such an “over-specialisation”, the mandatory course
program of our structured doctoral programme contains field-specific and interdisciplinary courses.
Structured programmes: This key feature will be discussed in the following section summarising
the results.
Duration: Bologna-conformant doctoral education should last 3 to 4 years (EUA, 2005). In
Germany, an average duration of 5 years is estimated overall (Gerhardt et al., 2005), with structured
doctoral programmes achieving 3 to 4 years (Greisler and Hendriks, 2008). Another aspect of durationis completion rates. Estimates show that only a third of German candidates starting a PhD complete it(Baftiri, 2010).
At our institute, we estimate an average duration of 4 to 5 years for the traditional doctorates anddrop-out rates of markedly below one third. The structured doctoral programme started at the end of
2009, so it is too early to evaluate duration and completion rates, though at this time they look verystrong. So far, we have one drop out amongst 18 doctoral candidates (with no further drop-out insight). One can estimate that the duration for fully funded doctoral candidates will be 3 to 3.5 years,
for candidates with partly or no scholarships closer to 4 to 4.5 years.
It would be too early and too easy to claim this as a success of the structured doctoral program. First,
we are talking about a group of selected students with high motivation and excellent backgrounds.
Second, many students of the programme receive a scholarship. Nevertheless, there are strong
arguments that the structured doctoral programme supports shorter duration, higher completion rates,and better outcomes:
Doctoral candidates started in cohorts. Instead of “working alone (if not lonely)”(Huisman and Naidoo, 2006), candidates are in a group, which not only provides support
in research issues, but creates a motivating and personal environment.
Schedule and milestones provide a structure. Instead of facing a huge endeavour, doctoralcandidates have clear and achievable goals and, step by step, feelings of success.
Improved supervision facilitates quicker progress (see respective sub-section below).
Status as professionals and funding: As described above, there is an ambiguous attitude in theEuropean context whether to see doctoral candidates as students or as professionals. However, themost important factor in this regard is the situation a single doctoral candidate is in:Doctoral candidates should be well prepared for the professional life after the PhD, which
will be discussed in the sub-section “employability”.
“Having fair and attractive conditions of funding and/or salaries with adequate andequitable social security provisions” as stated in the European Charter for Researchers(European_Commission, 2005).
151

The European Commission is implementing this approach in its Erasmus Mundus Programme for
Joint Doctoral Programmes, requiring working contracts vs. regular scholarships wherever possible
according to national regulations (EACEA, 2010). Also in Germany, the German Research Foundation(DFG) switched to granting scholarships or working contracts (DFG, 2010a).
Apart from “what is best”, there is also the question of financial realities. In the above-mentioned
Erasmus Mundus Programme, the funding for a working contract of a doctoral candidate is twice as
expensive as for a regular scholarship. Twice as many doctoral candidates could be funded, if all
candidates would “only” receive regular scholarships (which are not taxed!). Furthermore, many
doctoral candidates do not even profit by working contracts. If, for example, a Brazilian or Nigerian
candidate has a working contract in Germany for a 3-year doctoral programme and afterwards goesback in his/her home country or to the USA, payments for pension or social security are essentiallylost (although one might argue that the payments remain in the German social system).
The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) increased the number of doctoral
scholarships from 2.300 to 3.000 within the past eight years; further scholarships are provided by the“Pact for research and innovation” and the “Excellence Initiative” of the German and Federal State
Governments (Greisler, 2007). Nevertheless, the majority of doctoral candidates are working, either
within institutional positions at the universities (51,4 %) or in third-party funded projects (28,2 %)(Gerhardt et al., 2005).
Being just one research institute, our influence is obviously limited. We try hard to acquire research
projects with the goal (amongst others) of securing salaries for doctoral candidates. We try equally
hard to acquire funded doctoral programmes and to provide information about individual funding
opportunities to have scholarships for doctoral candidates. Although being quite successful with both,
we are far from having full scholarships in terms of working contracts with full social security for all
doctoral candidates. It would not even be ideal to have funded doctoral candidates only. A research
institute should not only do research in funded graduate schools. It is dependent on running research
projects as well in order to ground its research to relevant and real-world challenges and to develop
teaching materials for the first and second cycles. The scope of research institutes like ours is rather
pragmatic, trying to achieve the best possible situation for the doctoral candidates, which is trying toassure secure financing for the duration of the PhDs in some way, either by scholarships or by secure
working contracts in on-going research projects.
Considering the question of structured vs. non-structured doctoral programmes in terms of funding,there are no advantages for structured programmes per-se. There is rather a potential advantage,
because structured programmes often go along with scholarships.
But apart from the question of working contract vs. regular scholarship, one can observe a clear
advantage of a Bologna-conformant doctoral programme: a contractual basis between doctoralcandidate and university. Assuming this as an effect of a “more professional attitude” (of both,students and advisors!) within structured doctoral programmes, one can regard the regulation of rights
and duties as a substantial advantage – for both parties.
Recruitment and selection: An ethical, fully supported requirement within the Bologna process isthe conduction of fair and transparent recruitment and selection procedures, e.g., see Code of Conduct
for the Recruitment of Researchers (European_Commission, 2005). Our experiences show that the
Bologna-conformant procedures also have practical advantages, for the research institute as well as forthe doctoral candidates.
152

Due to the central role of the “doctor father” or “doctor mother”, in the traditional model recruitment
and selection are bilateral, based on personal contacts, very often within the same institution. The
biggest advantage of our recruitment and selection procedures in the structured doctoral programme
was to find the best-possible candidates:
By a public call for applications, we could reach a much higher number of applicants.
The percentage of international applicants (and also selected doctoral candidates) was
significantly higher.
Many applicants were not only external in terms of institution or nationality, but also interms of research fields. Applicants with different (although of course linked) researchbackground have been selected, thus contributing to the interdisciplinarity of the doctoral
group and finally of the institute.
Single professors can make mistakes. A selection committee instead provides a broader
view of an applicant, thus avoiding the selection of less-qualified applicants.
Also, for doctoral candidates applying to a programme (vs. applying to a single professor) there areseveral advantages:
By public calls for applications, he/she becomes aware of specific research fields andopportunities he/she has never heard of before.
A structured doctoral programme is typically well described. Due to publicly available
programme information, the applicant can get a much better picture if his/her expectations
are matched and by knowing what his/her personal PhD could look like.
An application procedure requires some effort, thus forcing the applicant to think about
the advantages and disadvantages of the doctoral programme and to re-think his/her
motivation.
Multiple supervision and research environment: Traditional doctoral education in Germany relies“more on self-organization of the doctoral candidates and peer supervision than of defined
responsibilities for supervision by senior researchers or research teams as for example, “graduate
schools”” (Merkt, 2008). Key words are senior researchers (plural!) / teams and defined
responsibilities.
In the context of supervision, it is important to emphasise that the duties of the supervisors are also
documented - so a controlling concept also includes the control of the supervisors (Osterwalder, 2007).
In our traditional doctoral programme, we have already conducted elements of multiple supervision.
The difference is once again more (supervision) reliably provided to all doctoral candidates. In our
structured doctoral programme, supervision consists of a set of formal and informal procedures andtools. Rather formal are:
The main supervisor plays a key role in the formal assessment by evaluating anddiscussing quarterly progress reports and other milestones.
The co-supervisor ideally has different background than the supervisor and is from theUSA, where the doctoral candidates go abroad for an external semester.
In the structured doctoral programme we could engage a postdoctoral researcher, who is
the ideal contact point and consulter on a day-to-day basis.
In public defences of advanced thesis proposals, doctoral candidates receive feedback
from the research institute members.
The first mandatory publication has to be presented at an international conference in orderto get feedback from international experts.
153

Informal supervision procedures and tools are created by the research environment:
Research is organized in so called research initiatives. In this way, a doctoral candidate
has access to a group of professors involved.
The structured doctoral programme is group-based rather than based on the individual
approach in the traditional model. For example, the doctoral candidates organized aresearch retreat, they presented results in an online seminar with colleagues from otheruniversities, they came up with a joint case study covering all theses topics – so there aremany opportunities to talk to and to receive feedback by other doctoral candidates.
Doctoral candidates are encouraged (and funded) for attending international conferences,
workshops, research visits or summer schools, where they get external feedback.
Maybe most important is the idea of an “environment”. Within an “environment” (vs. single entry
points in the traditional model), doctoral candidates can build up personal networks and have access tomany other researchers, who might be of interest to them. High numbers of cross-thesis publications
are just one example of the significant benefits. Another aspect of “environment” is services for
doctoral candidates. Through the introduction of the structured doctoral programme, we achieved thecritical mass for better organised and standardised services such as German language courses,
accommodation, visa support, pre-arrival information, etc.
Employability: Today, on average two thirds of the doctors in developed countries must find aprofessional position in commerce and industry (Bonnaud and Hoffmann, 2009). These numbers madeemployability a major topic in the Bologna Process. One solution is to re-think the general concepts
and contents of doctoral education. Another solution is to teach additional transferable skills andcompetences in order to support career development.
As for the concepts of doctoral education, there is a consensus that the core component of the third
cycle is the advancement of knowledge through original research (EUA, 2007),(Bergen_Communiqué, 2005), (Sursock and Smidt, 2010). However, we can observe specialisations ofdoctoral programmes, e.g., in the UK “The professional doctorate (PD): is a taught doctorate but thefield of study is a professional discipline, rather than the academic discipline…. Although researchbased, the focus is normally more (or also) on application within the student’s professional practice(reflexive practitioner)” (Huisman and Naidoo, 2006). This approach is only briefly discussed here,
because for an institute clearly committed to research, it is not attractive. One could claim that the ongoing discussion has neglected that academia is still a big market for doctoral candidates and each
institute has to position itself in an increasingly competitive market.
As for mediation of additional transferable skills and competences to support career development,
the need can be claimed for both, research-oriented and professional doctorates. “The European
tradition of the Doctorate – as the production of a piece of original research under the supervision of
one professor, with very little emphasis on taught courses – has been increasingly questioned in recent
years. Discussions have focused on the need to make Doctoral degree holders more competitive
internationally” (Sursock and Smidt, 2010).
At our institute, the structured doctoral programme improved transferable skills among graduates.
The international research environment alone increases English language proficiency and multiculturalcompetences. Doctoral candidates communicate, present and write more than in the traditional model.
The course program includes courses in project management, proposal writing, and scientific writing154

as well as a mandatory organization of an international research event. The programme includes a onesemester mobility measure to the USA. There are more opportunities to create professional networks.
Again, one can come to the same conclusion as before: We have already done similar things in the
traditional model, but the structured programme provides more (transferable skills) reliably to all
doctoral candidates.
Internationalisation and mobility: By a higher percentage of international doctoral candidates,weachieved the critical mass to move from “well, we can speak English and we have five international
staff members, most of them speak German” to a truly international research environment, where
English is the working and teaching language. In addition, improved mobility at all levels is a
substantial advantage of our structured doctoral programme:
On the German side, the structured programme is a cooperation of the Universities of
Münster and Bremen. There is constant short-term exchange between these groups.
All German doctoral candidates go for a one-semester period to the University at Buffalo,USA.
US doctoral students visit Germany. The programme also attracted doctoral candidates
from other countries, in South America, Africa, and China, for example.
The programme includes funding for international guest researchers giving classes anddiscussing with the doctoral candidates.
Doctoral candidates conduct short-term mobility measures such as visits to researchgroups at other universities and attending workshops, conferences, and summer schools.

STRUCTURED VS: NON-STRUCTURED DOCTORAL PROGRAMMES –SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSThe evaluation of key features of Bologna-conformant doctoral programmes against the backgroundof our parallel experiences with both models, structured and non-structured, can be summarized asfollows:
Table 1: Evaluation of structured vs. non-structured doctoral programmes
Key features of doctoral programmes

Evaluation*

Value

+/-

Learning outcomes+

Duration+

Status as professionals and funding+

Recruitment and selection+

Multiple supervision and research environment+

Employability+

Internationalisation and mobility+* + = pro structured doctoral programmes; +/- = no advantages for one of the models; - = contra
structured doctoral programmes

155

Seven of eight key features of doctoral programmes show significant advantages of the structured
doctoral programme compared to the traditional German PhD. One can consider multiple supervisionand research environment as the most important improvements, because they affect the daily life of thedoctoral candidates and significantly contribute to research excellence.
At our research institute, most elements of a structured doctoral programme had already been
implemented in the traditional non-structured doctoral education. However, the difference is: more(supervision, soft skills, internationalisation, etc.) is reliably provided to all doctoral candidates. In thecase of our research institute, conducting a structured programme is not necessarily a different
concept, but a more successful way of implementation.
Maybe the “secret” behind the improvements can be seen in the term “stronger institutional
responsibility” (Baftiri, 2010). Doctoral education should not only be the responsibility of a single
professor but should also be seen as a task of a faculty community (Greisler, 2007). A structured
programme provides for the critical mass in order to be able to fulfil such an institutional
responsibility (EUA, 2005).
Although the evaluation shows clear advantages for structured doctoral programmes, two issues
have to be discussed before coming to a conclusion: change of concepts in doctoral education andfeasibility.
Change of concepts in doctoral education: There is an on-going discussion of depth vs. breadthorientation in doctoral education. It is obvious that one cannot expect both, depth as claimed for theGerman system (Baftiri, 2010) and breadth as claimed for the US system (Osterwalder, 2007), without
extending doctoral education to five or six years. Taking into account the experiences of our structured
programme, a mandatory course programme of 25-30 ECTS credit points, handled in a flexible andindividual way so that the doctoral candidates substantially profit from it, and a mobility measureabroad seem to be an appropriate compromise between depth and breadth within an acceptable
duration.
Feasibility: Our current structured doctoral programme is funded, but even in this “comfortable”
position, the research institute invests additional resources into the programme, e.g., for moreorganisation, more supervision, and additional courses for the course program. So there will be a
problem after the end of the funding period.
On the level of a research institute, we have no influence on the provision of funding programmes ingeneral, and limited influence on writing successful proposals. Internal resources are also limited anddependent on external funding. The only reasonable strategy seems to be to run a structured doctoral
programme with limited resources – with lower quality than in a funded programme, but with higher
quality than in the traditional doctoral education. For example, with internal resources, we would not
be able to hire a postdoctoral researcher to support supervision of doctoral candidates, but otherfeatures such as recruitment procedures, services for doctoral candidates, course program, and multiple
supervision could be maintained. The approach of a research institute can only be: to try to implement
as many Bologna-conformant features of doctoral programmes as possible.
Feasibility is not restricted to institutes, but affects doctoral candidates as well. Despite an institute’s
attempts to acquire institutional funding with scholarships and doctoral candidates’ attempts to acquire
individual funding, there will always be a high percentage of doctoral candidates, who will need toearn money for living expenses. Consequently, quite often the question arises: How can I write a PhD
156

thesis and attend a one-semester course programme and work in a project at the same time? The
answers might be as follows:
The institute has to accept a change of concepts as described above. Supervisors cannot
expect doctoral candidates to broaden their horizons in a course program in the same depth
as in traditional German doctoral theses.
Project work does not equal project work. Research institutes should target research
projects, where doctoral candidates can work primarily on their thesis topic. Sadly, EU
projects are putting more and more emphasis on deliverables for shelves and softwaredevelopment, rather than scientific insights. A doctoral student in an EU project today is
kept busy with project meetings, software development, and deliverable writing, whichmakes it hard to focus on research.
Different financial situations already existed in the traditional model – some doctoralcandidates had scholarships, others did not. The consequence is “only” a matter of time. Ina structured doctoral programme, the duration of fully funded doctorates should be limited
to 3 years. According to a German survey among 10.000 doctoral candidates, grantholders spend 71.9 % of their working time on their dissertation, working doctoralcandidates 51.7 % (Gerhardt et al., 2005). Mathematically, the working commitment
extends the doctorate from 3 to 4.17 years. In a structured doctoral programme, working
doctoral candidates should have a flexible duration of 4-5 years.
Coming back to the introductory question, we can conclude the following: The evaluation of key
features of doctoral programmes clearly shows advantages for Bologna-conformant structured doctoral
programmes. Conducting a structured doctoral programme after the end of the funding period is – withsome restrictions – feasible for both parties, the institute and the doctoral candidates.
Running both models in parallel is not feasible for an institute of our size. We would not achieve
critical mass at all levels (students, teachers, organisation, and resources). Therefore, a preliminary
recommendation had been to switch entirely to a structured doctoral programme.

OUTLOOK
A continuing discussion at the European and national levels regarding the Bologna-conformant third
cycle education suggests that, despite some lack of clarity of the outcomes, structured doctoral
programs will become more common, but a high degree of flexibility will remain. For the discussion it
is not too important whether or not a research institute is in the field of GI S&T/GeoInformatics. Oneof the driving forces for structured doctoral education will be funding programmes such as Erasmus
Mundus in Europe, DFG research training groups in Germany, or the recently published goal of theGerman Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) to focus individual PhD funding on applicants instructured programmes.
After a substantial discussion of the results and suggestions described in this paper within thedepartment and the university, the Institute for Geoinformatics entirely switched its doctoral education
to the structured program. The most important motivation has been to increase the quality of thedoctoral education, because doctoral researchers are the main “capital” of a research institute. In April
2012, the “Graduate School for Geoinformatics” has been founded (http://gradschool.ifgi.de/), and thefirst doctoral candidates have started. It will be an ongoing task to monitor the progress of the new
Graduate School and to improve its concepts according to internal evaluations and to new
developments in the third-cycle Bologna process.
157

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper has been written in the context of the International Research Training Group (IRTG) on
Semantic Integration of Geospatial Information, http://irtg-sigi.uni-muenster.de/, funded by theGerman Research Foundation (DFG), GRK 1498.

BIBLIOGRAPHYBAFTIRI, J. (2010) Promovieren leicht(er) gemacht? ID-E Berlin, International Dialogue on
Education Berlin . Exploring Difference: Recruitment, Selection and Admission of Doctoral
Candidates. (Berlin, DAAD).
BASCHUNG, L. (2010) Changes in the Management of Doctoral Education. European Journal of
Education, 45, pp. 138-152.
BERGEN_COMMUNIQUÉ (2005) The European Higher Education Area - Achieving the Goals;
Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education,
Bergen, 19-20 May 2005. (European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Bergen, 1920 May 2005).
BERLIN_COMMUNIQUÉ (2003) “Realising the European Higher Education Area” - Communiquéof the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education in Berlin on 19 September
2003 (Berlin communiqué).
BONNAUD, O. & HOFFMANN, M. (2009) New Trends of Doctoral Studies in Europe: Special
Considerations for the Field of Electrical and Information Engineering. (EIE-Surveyor).
BORELL-DAMIAN, L. (2009) Collaborative Doctoral Education: University-Industry Partnerships
for Enhancing Knowledge Exchange (DOC-CAREERS Project). (Brussels, Belgium, EUA(European University Association)).
BUCHAREST_COMMUNIQUÉ (2012) Making the Most of Our Potential: Consolidating theEuropean Higher Education Area. (EHEA Ministry Conference).
CROSIER, D., PURSER, L. & SMIDT, H. (2007) Trends V: Universities shaping the European
Higher Education area. (Brussels, Belgium, EUA (European University Association)).
DE LA FUENTE, J. R. (2010) Building the global knowledge society: Systemic and institutionalchange.
DENICOLO, P. (2010) Gute Betreuung - gute Doktoranden. ID-E Berlin, International Dialogue on
Education Berlin . Exploring Difference: Recruitment, Selection and Admission of Doctoral
Candidates. (Berlin, DAAD).
DFG (2010a) Exzellenzinitiative des Bundes und der Länder zur Förderung von Wissenschaft und
Forschung an deutschen Hochschulen - Zweite Programmphase. (Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG (German Research Foundation)).
EACEA (2010) Application Form (Provisional Draft) - ERASMUS MUNDUS Call for proposals
EACEA/41/10. (European Commission).
EU (2008) RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 23 April 2008 on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong
learning. Official Journal of the European Union, 6.5.2008.
EUA-CDE (2010) Salzburg II Recommendations: European universities' achievements since 2005 in
implementing the Salzburg Principles. (Brussels, European University Association - Council
for Doctoral Education).
EUA (2005) Bologna Seminar on “Doctoral Programmes for the European Knowledge Society” Conclusions and recommendations. (European University Association).
EUA (2007) Doctoral Programmes in Europe's Universities: Achievements and Challenges. (Brussels,
Belgium, European University Association).
158

EUROPEAN_COMMISSION (2005) The European Charter for Researchers - The Code of Conduct
for the Recruitment of Researchers. (European Commission).
EUROPEAN_COMMISSION (2010) Erasmus Mundus 2009-2013 - Programme Guide. (European
Commission).
EUROPEAN_COMMISSION (2011) Report of Mapping Exercise on Doctoral Training in Europe
Towards a common approach. (Brussels, European Commission).
GERHARDT, A., BRIEDE, U. & MUES, C. (2005) Zur Situation der Doktoranden in Deutschland Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Doktorandenbefragung. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 27.
Jahrgang, pp. 74-95.
GREISLER, P. (2007) Forschungspolitisches Statement. IN E. BOSBACH & B. MICHALK (Eds.)
Beiträge zur Hochschulpolitik. (Bonn, HRK (Hochschulrektorenkonferenz)).
GREISLER, P. & HENDRIKS, B. (2008) BOLOGNA-PROZESS - Nationaler Bericht für
Deutschland 2007-2009. (BMBF and KMK).
HUISMAN, J. & NAIDOO, R. (2006) The Professional Doctorate: From Anglo-Saxon to European
Challenges. Higher Education Management and Policy, 18.
KEHM, B. (2007) Doctoral education in Germany: Between tradition and reform. IN S. POWELL &H. GREEN (Eds.) The Doctorate Worldwide. (Maidenhead, Berkshire, England, Open
University Press).
LEUVEN_COMMUNIQUÉ (2009) The Bologna Process 2020 - The European Higher Education
Area in the new decade. (European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Leuven andLouvain-la-Neuve, 28-29 April 2009).
LONDON_COUMMUNIQUÉ (2007) London Communiqué - Towards the European Higher
Education Area: responding to challenges in a globalised world. (Ministers responsible forHigher Education in the countries participating in the Bologna Process).
MERKT, M. (2008) The Situation of Post-Graduate Formation in Germany and New Tasks for Higher
Education Centers in it. Researching Japanese Higher Education, 8.
OSTERWALDER, K. (2007) Aufbau strukturierter Promotionsprogramme in der Schweiz. IN E.
BOSBACH & B. MICHALK (Eds.) Beiträge zur Hochschulpolitik. (Bonn, HRK(Hochschulrektorenkonferenz)).
PEERS, D. (2010) Soft Skills stärken. ID-E Berlin, International Dialogue on Education Berlin .
Exploring Difference: Recruitment, Selection and Admission of Doctoral Candidates. (Berlin,
DAAD).
SCHÄFFNER, C. (2008) Doctoral training programs - Research skills for the discipline or career
management skills? IN G. HANSEN, A. CHESTERMAN & H. GERZYMISCH-ARBOGAST(Eds.) Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research. (Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
John Benjamins B.V.).
SCHMIDTMANN, A. (2010) Strukturiertes Promovieren made in Germany: Die Graduiertenkollegs
der DFG. ID-E Berlin, International Dialogue on Education Berlin . Exploring Difference:
Recruitment, Selection and Admission of Doctoral Candidates. (Berlin, DAAD).
SURSOCK, A. & SMIDT, H. (2010) Trends 2010: A decade of change in European Higher
Education. (Brussels, Belgium, European University Association).
THALLER, N. (2006) Standards for Doctoral Programmes: Are there Organizational Determinants to
Successfully Support Doctoral Candidates? IN G. GORZKA & U. LANZENDORF (Eds.)
Europeanising Doctoral Studies - The Russian Federation and Germany on the Way to
Bologna. (Kassel, Germany, kassel university press).

159

WESTERHEIJDEN, D. F., BEERKENS, E., CREMONINI, L., HUISMAN, J., KEHM, B., KOVAÉ,
A., PREDAG, L., MCCOSHAN, A., MOZURAITYTE, N., SOUTO OTERO, M., DEWEERT, E., WITTE, J. & YADCÝ, Y. (2010) The Bologna Process Independent Assessment- The first decade on working on the European Higher Education Area - Volume 1 Detailed
assessment report. (cheps (Center for Higher Education Policy Studies)/Directorate Generalfor Education and Culture of the European Commission).

160