In the summer of 1998, Esri and partner organizations sponsored a two-week residential GIS training institute for 32 elementary and secondary educators on the campus of Southwest Texas State University. The purpose of the training was to prepare a cadre of teachers to (a) use GIS to teach geography and related environmental topics; and (b) train other teachers to teach with GIS. This paper presents a formative and summative evaluation of the Institute. Participants were pleased with the Institute itself but faced serious challenges to implementation of the skills learned there due, in part, to external forces (inadequate hardware, insufficient access to computer labs, hardware and software installation issues, uncooperative school district technology personnel, unsupportive school administration, and disinterested colleagues). Major strengths of the Institute included the availability of post-Institute training opportunities, excellent on-line technical assistance, and a WWW-based support network of fellow participants. Recommendations for future training institutes include providing teachers with explicit experiences in teaching with GIS (modeling classroom teaching strategies), and developing a slower paced training curriculum and regimen that features periodic opportunities for additional training, support, and shared problem-solving.

Preparing elementary and secondary school educators to use technology, specifically geographic information systems (GIS), to teach is an issue of significant concern in geography and science education today (Audet and Paris 1997, Bednarz and Ludwig 1997). Few universities or colleges include instruction in GIS as part of the educational technology component of their teacher preparation and certification programs (Bednarz and Audet 1999). As a result, most instruction in GIS for teachers must come through inservice staff development. Typically, staff development in technology such as GIS occurs in one or two day workshops with little follow-up or on-going technical or instructional support. As a result the diffusion of GIS into K-12 education has been slow.

In an attempt to ‘jump start’ GIS in geography and science education, Esri and partner organizations (Southwest Texas State University, the National Council for Geographic Education (NCGE), and GENIP, the Geography Education National Implementation Project) sponsored a two-week residential institute for teachers from across the United States and Canada in the summer of 1998. This paper describes the salient features of the GIS Institute for Teachers and evaluates its success in preparing educators to use GIS to teach. The paper consists of five sections. First I describe the origin of the institute, its goals, staff, participants, and activities. Second, I explain the evaluation questions that guided this study and the methodology used to collect and analyze data. Third, I present the results of the data collected, emphasizing the long term, summative effects of the Institute more than participants’ immediate and short-term perceptions and reactions. Finally, I conclude with a discussion of the results of the Institute and major conclusions about training teachers to use GIS to teach.

The GIS Institute for Teachers was initiated by Charlie Fitzpatrick, K-12 Schools and Libraries Manager for Esri, in cooperation with Richard G. Boehm, Grosvenor Professor of Geography at Southwest Texas State University. The idea of an extended residential training opportunity for teachers to learn to teach with GIS came from a similar training initiative, the Educational Technology Leadership Institutes, sponsored by the National Geographic Society and IBM a decade before (Bednarz 1994). The success of those institutes, directed by Fitzpatrick, suggested that a similar kind of intensive educational experience was necessary to prepare classroom teachers to use GIS. Several years of discussion with NCGE, GENIP, and other geography associations culminated in this Institute.

Financial support for the Institute came from three primary sources: 1) grants from two professional geography associations, NCGE and GENIP, 2) donations of space and equipment by the Grosvenor Center and Department of Geography, Southwest Texas State University, and most importantly, 3) contributions of software and personnel from Esri.

The primary goal of the Institute was to train participants to use GIS to teach geography and geography related topics, including science. A second goal was to prepare this group to train additional teachers, a model of staff development termed the ‘trainer of trainers’ model.

An extensive participant recruitment process began in January 1998. Institute announcements were distributed through the national Geography Alliance network, through science and technology listservs, and through mailing lists developed by Esri. Institute Director Fitzpatrick, working with his team (see Appendix 1: Staff), developed an innovative and ‘authentic’ application to select participants with strong technical skills, a teaching style favoring inquiry and problem based learning, a solid background in either geography or environmental science, and expertise in delivering effective inservice and staff development. Interested teachers were presented with a series of computer tasks to complete as part of the application process. For example, the application had to submitted on a disk, zipped, and included, among other things, a screenshot saved as a .gif or .jpg image and a tab delimited database.

Thirty-two participants from 26 states and Canada were accepted, 16 women and 16 men (See Appendix 2: Participants). The majority of the participants were classroom teachers: 12 high school teachers, nine middle school teachers, two middle and high school teachers (grades 6-12), three elementary school teachers and one K-12 teacher. The remaining five had significant leadership positions: three college professors with extensive responsibilities in teacher preparation, a school district technology supervisor, and state educational outreach officer.

The staff was directed by Charlie Fitzpatrick and included two Esri employees (George Dailey and Angie Lee), three experienced classroom GIS users (Reinhold Friebershauser, Kathryn Keranen, and Kate Collins-Dailey), and two GIS consultants with extensive backgrounds in teacher training, technology, and geography (Joseph Kerski and Holly Lerner). They developed an intensive, two-week experience for participants that began with simple GIS concepts and ended with participants presenting projects developed in pairs.

The Institute was held on the campus of Southwest Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas. Participants were housed in a dormitory two to a room and held their GIS training in a lab set up especially for the training in the Department of Geography. The Institute was held during a record breaking hot spell; temperatures exceed 100 degrees each of the 13 days participants were in-state. This placed some strain on participants as well as on the facilities. The dormitory was unable to air condition adequately, particularly to control humidity. In addition, the GIS lab was warm. Participants noted their discomfort on daily evaluations but spent little time focused on these conditions.

The training took place in a room set up as a GIS training lab especially for the Institute. Space was constrained in the room; participants worked three to a table sharing two computers. Partners were encouraged to switch mousing responsibilities and partners periodically. When I observed the Institute, conversations with participants indicated some displeasure at the arrangement and difficulty with sharing equipment. Much of this strain was relieved during the second week of the Institute when additional computer facilities were made available for individual work and practice.

The daily schedule began at 8:30 a.m. Most sessions began with the introduction of a new GIS skill, concept, or software. This skill, concept, or software was then modeled in a curriculum-based lesson. Detailed, step-by-step lessons outlined procedures for all lessons. Lunch was provided for participants and there were frequent breaks. Sessions ended at 4:00 with time to complete a daily evaluation. Participants were free until 7:00 p.m., at which time the evening session began. Participants worked toward two major deadlines. At the end of the first week, pairs presented a project summarizing simple GIS skills and tools. At the end of the second week, teams of teachers prepared a more elaborate curriculum project that used a greater range of GIS skills and tools. These final projects were collected on a CD ROM and distributed. In between the first and second week participants took a brief regional field trip.

This study included both a formative and a summative component. In a formative evaluation the purpose of research is to assess the effectiveness of on-going Institute activities. Two primary questions were addressed in this phase of the research. They were:

1. Was the Institute conducted as planned?

2. What was the impact of the activities and strategies on participants?

In order to answer the Question 1, Institute staff were interviewed following the Institute to determine if:

• the application was successful in identifying participants with a strong technical facility? With a pedgogical style favoring open-ended activites? With geographic competence and vision? With a commitment to in-service and staff development?
• Institute activities and strategies matched the original plan?
• the appropriate staff was selected?
• appropriate materials and equipment were obtained? and
• activities were conducted according to the proposed timeline?

The second question focused on progress made in meeting Institute goals and served as an interim measure of Institute outcomes. In order to answer Question 2, I conducted two day long observations of the Institute. Two independent observers accompanied me. Their role was to check the validity and reliability of my observations. The notes collected were analyzed and organized to address these questions:

• Were participants moving toward anticipated Institute goals?
• Which of the activities and strategies were aiding the participants to move toward goals?
• What was the physical setting of the Institute?
• What were the characteristics of the participants?
• What were the actual activities and messages delivered?
• What was the nature of the interaction between participants and staff?
• What was the quality of instruction?
• What, if any, unanticipated events occur?

In addition daily evaluations were collected and carefully scrutinized by staff and later by me. As noted before, this paper does not report the results of this stage of the research.

A summative evaluation assesses Institute processes, outcomes, and eventual success, that is, the extent to which each goal was achieved. This research is conducted after the impact of Institute has had a chance to be realized. The specific questions addressed here included:

• Was the Institute successful?
• What were the strengths of the Institute?
• What were the weaknesses of the Institute?
• To what extent did the Institute meet overall goals?
• Did participants benefit? In what ways?
• What were the most effective components of the Institute?
• Is the Institute replicable and transportable?
• Were there any unintended outcomes to the Institute?

Three information gathering techniques were employed to answer these questions. First, each Institute participant completed a Mental Self Government (MSG) Thinking Styles Inventory during the Institute. The results of this questionnaire were correlated to a staff ranking of achievement to measure interaction between thinking style and success in learning and teaching with GIS. Second, I held a focus group at the NCGE meeting approximately 3 months after the Institute. During this discussion each Institute attendee able to participate was asked to reflect and comment on these questions.

• What were the strengths of the Institute?
• What were the weaknesses of the Institute?
• What recommendations would you make to improve the Institute?
• What were your perceptions of Institute implementation, e.g., was the workshop staffed appropriately? Were the presentations suitable for all participants? Were participants chosen correctly?
• What are your perceptions of the longer-term impact of the Institute, e.g., have you continued to communicate and share with your fellow Institute attendees? How? How successful have you been in implementing GIS in your classroom. What changes have you made in your curriculum? Teaching strategies? Assessment strategies? Do your students appear to be more interested in class work? Do your students appear to be learning more geography?
• What barriers have you encountered in applying what you learned at the Institute?

The discussion was taped, transcribed, and analyzed.

Third, a random sample of six Institute attendees was interviewed by phone in June 1999. The same question protocol used in the telephone interviews was posted on the GIS Institute listserv. This elicited seven additional responses. Extensive notes were taken during the phone conversations. These were analyzed and compared to the email responses. Careful monitoring of the GIS Institute listserv has provided additional supporting evidence.

This research is limited in that not all Institute participants are included in the sample of respondents. Several did not respond to either email or direct phone inquiries. Thus, the findings reflect the beliefs, perceptions, and opinions of only a portion of Institute attendees.

Was the GIS Institute for Teachers successful? Did it prepare a cadre of teachers able to use GIS to teach their own students as well as to train other teachers to use this technology? What factors affected individual teachers' successes or failures? In this section I present the results of the data collected with special emphasis on long term, summative effects of the Institute. First I report on the results of the MSG Thinking Styles Inventory, then issues raised at the focus group discussion I held at NCGE. Finally, I report on the results of the phone interviews and email correspondence gathered at the conclusion of the first school year post-Institute in June 1999.

In previous research I have explored the relationship between thinking style and success in learning and using GIS, derived from Robert J. Sternberg’s theory of mental self-government (Bednarz 1997). Sternberg, a psychologist, uses the metaphor of government to describe intellectual (thinking) styles. Governments have three major functions, legislative, executive, and judicial. Carrying out each of these functions requires different types of mental processes. Each function is most suited to, and deals most effectively with, particular kinds of problems or situations. Sternberg argues that individuals are like governments; they favor one or another function which shapes their thinking style. They also tend to prefer the mental processes required by each function. He describes it this way.

A thinking style is a preferred way of thinking. However, individuals do not have one single style but usually exhibit what Sternberg terms a "profile" or pattern of styles (Sternberg 1997). However, one or more style usually dominates mental self government. Sternberg’s research on mental self-government has confirmed (1) that individuals’ thinking styles affect choice of and success in occupations as well as success in learning, and (2) the match between student and instructor thinking style can be a predictor of student performance in a course. The question driving this portion of the research is whether there is a relationship between thinking style and success in learning GIS and using it to teach.

Sternberg and Wagner have developed an instrument, the MSG Thinking Styles Inventory, to measure styles of thinking (Sternberg and Wagner 1991). It is a 105-item questionnaire that produces scores on 13 different dimensions of thinking. The questions relate to the different strategies people use to solve problems, complete projects, and make decisions, thus are meaningful in the context of learning and using GIS. For the purpose of this study three scores were analyzed to determine if an Institute participant preferred a legislative, executive, or judicial style of thinking.

All Institute participants took the Inventory. The results are displayed in Table 1.

Eight participants were categorized as legislative for receiving a score in that domain that indicated they exhibited many of its learning style characteristics. Six participants exhibited an executive thinking style; five participants a judicial style. Interestingly, the GIS Institute group contained participants who scored equally high in more than one domain. Eight participants showed many of the characteristics of both a legislative and judicial style of thinking. Three participants crossed between being judicial and executive and two participants scored high enough to claim many of the characteristics of all three styles. Four participants showed no clear preference, that is, their scores in all three domains fell below the level indicated by Sternberg and Wagner as significant. However, each of these individuals did show a preference in one style, although that relationship was weak. For this analysis, they were included in the category of their strongest preference.

Next, at my request approximately 10 months after the training, Institute staff divided participants into three levels of attainment. Level of attainment was determined by two factors: 1) level of achievement of Institute goals (learning GIS) at the end of the Institute, and 2) progress through the year in implementing GIS in their classrooms. Descriptors for each level are found in Table 2.

A little more than half of the Institute participants (18 or 56 percent of all participants) were judged to be at Level 2, that is, fair at using GIS themselves, making progress in expanding their GIS ability, and implementing GIS in their classroom. A quarter (8 or 25 percent of participants) were placed at Level 1 (see Table 2) while the remainder of attendees were judged to be at Level 3 (6 or 18 percent of participants).

Although the MSG Thinking Styles Inventory is considered a reliable and valid assessment, normed to many different populations, it is difficult to prove a clear relationship between thinking style and level of attainment in achieving Institute goals. However, a relationship does appear to exist between participants with a legislative style of thinking, (either dominant or combined with other thinking styles) and success in learning and implementing GIS. Each of the Level 1 Institute attendees showed a strong legislative thinking style. A multiple regression conducted on the data (see Appendix 3: Table 3) indicated that having a legislative thinking style was highly significant in predicting success, providing basically one level of attainment advantage over other styles. Thinking style explained 42 percent of the variance in predicting level of attainment.

This result may be explained in two ways: 1) Institute staff had a legislative style and legislative thinking style participants were advantaged by the match in preference, or 2) the style matches the skills required for success in GIS and teaching. Either answer is feasible. Two of the Staff who completed the Inventory exhibited a strong preference for the executive thinking style, one was legislative, and one showed no clear preference although had the highest score in the legislative domain making the staff-student connection less strong. Preliminary results in related research are ambiguous on this issue.

The three styles are contrasted in Table 4. It appears that GIS type tasks capitalize on legislative and judicial thinking styles.

Three months after the Institute, nine participants met in a focus group at NCGE. I moderated a discussion based on the summative evaluation questions listed in Part II. The teachers were still fresh from their training experience and just beginning the school year when we talked. The discussion began with a request for suggestions on ways to improve a second GIS Institute. Participants made these recommendations:

1. Provide more time for social interaction and networking among participants.

Rationale: Participants felt that one of the strengths of residential institutes was the chance to network with teachers from other places, to share ideas, and to develop relationships. The hectic pace of the GIS Institute and lack of planned social events impeded this.

2. Provide a greater range of field-based experiences in the local region.

Rationale: Although some fieldwork was included in the schedule, participants said they felt a longer, more detailed experience would have modeled for them how to manage field-based data collection and processing with their students.

3. Provide more opportunities for re-teaching and practice.

Rationale: Time was a recurring theme in the conversation. The discussants felt that they needed more time to master difficult concepts before moving on to the next subject or set of skills. Suggestions included using the evening sessions for review and practice, not instruction.

4. Offer more opportunities to interact socially with the staff.

Rationale: One staff member was able to 'hang' with participants more than others. This relationship was considered so valuable that the sentiment to get to know other staff closer was expressed. Participants perceived that the staff was busy in meetings or preparing the next day's activities and thus unavailable. They wished for more contact and communication, individual and in groups.

Additional suggestions related to clearer pre-Institute instructions (what kinds of lessons to bring to develop into GIS-based materials) and conditions of learning issues. These failed to excite or interest the majority of discussants as did the above-mentioned topics.

The remainder of the discussion focussed on four major issues:

1. The training curriculum. Participants had varied views on the optimal way to sequence the training experience. Some felt that the instruction should have begun with the relatively simple software ArcVoyager and ArcExplorer, then progressed to full ArcView. Others felt that beginning with ArcView was appropriate. One attendee said that she needed to see what GIS could do (ArcView) before she was ready to do it through ArcVoyager/ArcExplorer but several other attendees disagreed. Another attendee wanted the instruction focused around a single problem, much as it would be in a typical classroom. The conversation was rich and heated, with no consensus. It was clear, however, that this was a topic of great importance to the group.

2. Instructional materials. A second issue was the nature and explicitness of the lesson plans used to teach key concepts in the Institute. Some attendees wished for more explicit, step-by-step lessons, with a great deal of narrative and explanation. Others expressed a preference for brief, more iconic and visually rich instructions. Again, there was no consensus but the form and format of the instructional materials appears to be an area in which more research is required.

3. The teaching lab set up. At Southwest Texas participants felt cramped and uncomfortable in the lab. There were a number of comments and discussion about learning difficulties related to sharing a computer, sharing a mouse, and not being able to see the front of the room and the teaching station situated there. Further, the physical lay-out of the lab encouraged a lack of attentiveness on the part of some participants. It was reported that many times, while one attendee was listening to instruction, the partner was working through a lesson, causing a serious disjunct for the individual not in control of the mouse. Gender differences were mentioned in the context of this issue as well. Several women reported that wresting control of the mouse from their male lab partner was a challenge. I observed some of these difficulties during the two days I visited the Institute. Once again, there was no consensus of solutions to these potentially problematic issues.

4. Communication. The fourth area of concern in the October focus group was communication. Participants wanted an Institute venue to share ideas and request assistance. They were reluctant to post requests to the general Esri-sponsored on-line help page and uncomfortable constantly sending comments and questions to the Institute staff, particularly Charlie Fitzpatrick. One attendee said, "I should have learned how to do this at the Institute. I don’t want to disappoint Charlie that I didn’t."

Following NCGE a listserv was established just for GIS Institute participants.

To summarize, participants were enormously enthusiastic about GIS, very pleased with the Institute and their experience there, and had concrete suggestions to make to improve future trainings.

At the end of the first school year following the Institute, approximately 10 months after the training, I randomly selected participants for a personal interview, conducted by phone. Further, I posted the interview protocol questions (see Appendix 4) on the GIS Institute listserv and asked for general comments from all participants. These conclusions are based on the interviews and emailed comments from 11 participants. The respondents represented all three levels of attainment.

Responses to questions were surprisingly similar. The conversations pointed to four issues of concern affecting GIS use in the classroom. They are time, training, institutional support, and pedagogy (curriculum, instruction, and assessment).

1. Time. Time was the topic of greatest concern to Institute attendees. They identified two primary time-related issues, first, the need for personal time to learn how to do GIS themselves (practice/learning time) and second, the time needed to carry-out GIS-based instruction in the classroom (instructional time). Three respondents mentioned they wish they had had the time to practice and maintain their GIS skills following the Institute in July 1998 but that they had been distracted from that by other tasks and responsibilities. Other respondents talked about the amount of time needed to master key skills prior to implementation in the classroom. One participant wrote:

Another offered this piece of advice for teachers learning GIS, "Practice, and more practice for yourself. Be comfortable with the software. This takes time." GIS was deemed by all interviewees as challenging to learn, "a steep climb."

Finding instructional time for GIS was a concern. One interviewee commented, "However long you think it will take (to do a GIS project), replace that time with the next available unit, i.e., two HOURS takes two DAYS." A major barrier to implementation was the time limitation of the typical 45 minute to 55 minute class period. Block scheduling was cited as a requirement for successful GIS-teaching. One teacher, working with a colleague, has arranged her teaching schedule in order to team-teach science and social studies in a block to allow for GIS lab time.

Because of these time issues, all respondents reported that "next year" they would be better able to implement GIS in their teaching. This was because they were now able to do GIS well enough themselves, to set up their hardware and software, and to conceptualize how to teach with GIS (see related issues in the following paragraphs).

2. Training. On-going training, support/technical assistance, and inter-group communication were mentioned as needs and issues of concern by each respondent.

On-going training. The two follow-up training opportunities sponsored by Esri (NCGE and GeoTech) were viewed as enormously important to continued growth and learning. Nineteen out of 32 Institute graduates attended the GeoTech training in April at their own expense. All interviewed wished for more training (characterized as ‘hand-holding’) and at a variety of venues. Several reported taking university-based courses or seeking other kinds of additional training.

Support and technical assistance. The continuous on-line support provided by Institute staff was essential to all respondents. As one teacher wrote:

Inter-group communication. This was perceived as important. "The listserv has been very helpful to me as an inspiration to keep at it and explore new ideas as well as a great way to follow the travels of others." Another teacher stated, "This listserv has kept me in touch with what is going on with the others as they are using GIS. It sort of inspires me to continue. This list also enables me to ask questions because I feel comfortable with people I know." Several participants expressed some regret at not being more communicative with other attendees and less helpful in responding to individual’s requests for help and advice. This behavior was explained by one person as typical of a group of people more actively doing than reflecting. All participants wished for more listserv activity.

3. Institutional support. All Institute participants interviewed expressed some degree of frustration in implementing GIS in their schools due to institutional barriers. Those barriers most frequently mentioned were inadequate hardware, insufficient access to computer labs, hardware and software installation issues, uncooperative school district technology personnel, unsupportive school administration, and disinterested colleagues. For many GIS Institute graduates, a good portion of their time in the past year has been spent negotiating with various powerful school entities. As one interviewee said, "Now I am ready this next school year to take off." Not being alone in working with GIS was mentioned several times as a goal. "Networking is the key. You can’t work alone; you have to help other teachers on your team learn about GIS" said one interviewee.

4. Pedagogy. Once teachers were able to overcome the institutional barriers mentioned above, they faced a plethora of implementation issues related to curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In a variety of ways, all respondents reported changing their teaching styles, curriculum organization, and assessment strategies in order to teach with GIS. Most common was a shift to some form of project based or problem based learning and authentic, performance based assessment. These reforms are consistent with contemporary educational reform. They require teachers and students to take on new roles and responsibilities. Such changes are challenging and take time to understand, process, and put into place.

Those teachers reporting the greatest success in implementing GIS in the first year following the Institute did so in the context of technology courses, not science or social science classes. They are teaching GIS, not with GIS. Teachers in science and social studies reported greatest success in commencing GIS instruction with a relatively simple exploration of a community-based issue that fit naturally with their curriculum. Incorporating GIS throughout the curriculum was judged " difficult." As one respondent said, "You just can’t stick GIS into the curriculum. You have to find a way to improve the delivery of your curriculum with GIS." This same teacher said her goal was to "problematize" all of her units in the next year or two to allow the use of GIS and other technologies.

Several teachers admitted that they were not able to integrate GIS instruction into their everyday teaching. Instead, they used it in a "club" setting either before or after school, with a special sub-population of students. Two respondents expressed the feeling that this was a first step for them and felt confident that they would soon be able to use it with all of their students. One teacher wrote, "Most (students) only started projects that they wanted to finish in the fall during science club which meets twice a week after school. I hope to use these students to help train teachers when I do my workshops this year."

Uniformly, interviewees agreed that teaching with GIS was beneficial to students. As one respondent wrote:

In the same vein, another participant contributed:

Finally, when asked what lessons she had learned in the year since attending the Institute, a participant wrote:

In this section I draw major conclusions about training teachers to use GIS to teach. These conclusions are followed by recommendations developed to guide planning future GIS training institutes for teachers. These are generalizations and do not necessarily apply to the GIS Institute for Teachers.

Recommendation: In planning evaluation and in terms of expectations for participants’ performance, think on a longer time scale. In order to fully evaluate the success of the GIS Institute for Teachers for example, data needs to be collected for an extended period. One year is simply not a realistic amount of time for many teachers to institute complex technology. Some may be amazingly quick in instituting innovation but many may take two or even three years to fully integrate GIS into their classroom.

Recommendation: Time is one of the most important issues in learning and implementing GIS. The training experience needs to be paced so that there is time for repetition, practice, deep processing, and understanding by all participants.

Conclusion: The "bell curve" describes levels of participant attainment. A small number of teachers in an institute will learn GIS under any circumstances. The majority of participants find the user interface a challenge, have insufficient experience with technology, and do not have a well developed understanding of geography, thus only learn a modicum of GIS skills.

Recommendation: Aim training at the "B" students. Visualize institute participants as a normal distribution (the ‘bell curve’). About 12-15 percent of participants, the "A" students, will excel in any case; about the same number of attendees will learn almost nothing no matter what you do ("Ds" and "Fs"). About 35 percent will do reasonably well (the "B" students) while approximately an equal number (35 percent) will master only an average amount—and need on-going assistance to implement GIS. Instruction in an institute should be designed to jump-start above-average teachers while at the same time building mechanisms to support the less stellar participants in their on-going quest to learn GIS.

Recommendation: Consider thinking style, technology background, and gender when planning institute experiences. Men and women approach technology differently and this needs to be taken into account in situations where participants are required to share hardware. Institute curriculum should be examined to ensure it provides all thinking styles an opportunity to learn. Participants need to be teamed in many ways to assist in learning, that is, expert with novice (teacher-learner), novice with novice (learning together), expert with expert (accelerated learning together).

Recommendation: Research indicates that how one learns plays a very important role in what one learns. Plan social experiences so that participants have many opportunities to interact with each other and with staff. This builds trust and a sense of community, helps in developing a strong inter-participant network, and makes learning GIS more memorable and pleasurable. Although time spent in social interaction may be perceived as "off-task," it is key to the success of an institute in the long run.

Recommendation: Participants need to be taught with GIS in the same manner as they will teach their students. This means attendees need to be presented with real world problems to solve through spatial analysis and GIS so they can experience for themselves how this model of learning works. They also need explicit instruction on how to manage teaching with GIS, particularly developing GIS-appropriate curriculum, instructional and classroom management strategies, and assessment practices. Finally, participants need opportunities to digest, discuss, and internalize what they have experienced in preparation for applying their new-found teaching strategies on their students.

Recommendation: Participants need to learn about potential barriers to implementation of GIS and strategies to overcome these stumbling blocks.

Recommendation: Two kinds of support are vital to ensure success: external and internal. All GIS institutes should include repeated training opportunities following the initial institute. This might take the form of weekend refresher courses, follow-up trainings, or extensive on-line offerings. Whatever arrangements are made, repetition is key. Clearly it is impossible to offer teachers all the training they require to learn GIS and how to teach with GIS in one institute. This makes additional training a necessity. Another form of external support vital to implentation is the availability of fast and easily obtained technical assistance.

Internally, teachers need personal support as they implement GIS in their classroom. This is a very difficult, risky, and complex task that can require a teacher to challenge school culture, to change teaching style, and to negotiate new relationships with students. Working with a partner can make this task less daunting. Thus a second recommendation is:

Recommendation: Build collegiality through a team approach to training. Invite teams of teachers to an institute when possible. There are teachers who are truly amazing pioneers able to leap small buildings on their own (the top 12-15 percent). But in order to institutionalize GIS, building teams of teachers is a more successful strategy than relying on ‘the lone teacher’ to be a significant agent of change.

I wish to thank the staff of the GIS Institute for Teachers, especially Charlie Fitzpatrick. I would also like to thank the participants of the Institute who responded so honestly and richly to me, particularly Ann Thompson, Anita Brooks, Marc Dastous, Connie Mark, Lyn Malone, Gerry Bell, Denis Dubay, Roger Palmer, Carl Addington, Mary Braccili, Judith Painter, Mary Sacavage, Dawn Willis, Jacqui Wilson, and Al Lewandowski. Conversations with Joseph Kerski and Angie Lee were also helpful. Hyang Mee Lee and Paul Vincent contributed in keying in the Institute observations and scoring the Thinking Styles Inventories.

Charlie Fitzpatrick, Esri

George Dailey, Esri

Angie Lee, Esri

Kate Collins Dailey, Master Teacher, Dallas, Texas

Reinhold Friebershauser, Master Teacher, Chagrin Falls, Ohio

Katheryn Keranen, Master Teacher, Great Falls, Virginia

Holly Lerner, Consultant

Joseph Kerski, Consultant, USGS, Denver, Colorado

Tom Abbott, Ashford, CT

Carl Addington, Fairbanks, AK

Brad Baker, Dallas, TX

Gerry Bell, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada

Mary Braccili, Allentown, PA

Anita Brooks, Carson City , NV

Karen Butler, Loganville, GA
Don Cressal, Logan, UT

Marc Dastous, Phoenix, AZ

Denis Dubay, Cary, NC

Rita Haberlin, El Cerrito, CA

John Howell, Chagrin Falls, OH

Tom Lamb, Trussville, AL

Al Lewandowski, Crosswell, MI

Greg Lundvall, Eden, WY

Lyn Malone, Barrington, RI

Connie Mark, Pearl City, HI

Charlie McRorie, Morristown, TN

Greg Nelson, Lincoln, NE

Jim Newton, Clarksville, TN

Judith Painter, Christiansburg, VA

Roger Palmer, Grand Forks, ND

Chris Pratt-Consoletti, Columbus, GA

Kathryn Robinson, Baltimore, MD

Mary Sacavage, Pottsville, PA

Betty Scoopmire, Greenville, NC

Ann Thompson, Raleigh, NC

Christine Voight, McKinney, TX

Dawn Willis, Milford, DE

Jacqui Wilson, Smyrna, DE

Robert Woolner, Hillsboro, NH

Rebecca Young, Caratunk, ME

1. How important has long term support and communication with the Institute staff been to you in implementing GIS in your classroom?

2. What changes have you made to your curriculum?

3. What changes have you made in the way you teach and structure learning opportunities for your students?

4. Has implementing GIS changed your assessment strategies, that is, the ways you evaluate student learning?

5. How has implementing GIS affected students’ learning of geography (or ability to think spatially if you teach science/environmental studies?)

6. What are the barriers you have encountered in applying what you learned in the Institute?

7. What are the most important lessons you have learned about learning to use GIS yourself and about learning to teach with GIS?

Audet, R.H. and and J. Paris. 1997. GIS implementation model for schools: Assessing critical concerns. Journal of Geography 96:14-21.

Bednarz, S. W. 1994. Using technology to enhance geography education: The Educational Technology Leadership Institute. In Technology and teacher education annual. ed Bernard Robin. Boston: Allyn Bacon.

Bednarz, S.W. 1997. Seeing the world in spatial terms: Applying cognitive science to understand how students learn GIS. In Papers and Proceedings of the Applied Geography Conference ed. F.A. Schoolmaster, 20:195-203.

Bednarz, S.W. and G. Ludwig. 1997. Ten things higher education needs to know about GIS in primary and secondary education.Transactions in GIS, 2(2): 123-133.

Sternberg, R.J. 1997. Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R.J. 1994. PRSVL: An integrative framework for understanding mind in context. In Mind in context, eds R.J. Sternberg and R.K. Wagner, 218-232. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R.J. and R.K. Wagner. 1991. MSG thinking styles inventory manual. New Haven, CT: Yale University Department of Psychology (unpublished).

Sarah Witham Bednarz, Assistant Professor of Geography, Department of Geography, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. 409.845.1579; FAX 409.862.4487; s-bednarz@tamu.edu