Incentives for interoperable GIS education.

DRAFT by Derek Reeve, June 26, 1998

The IMS and ESRI virtual campus projects described at the meeting make it evident that the technological platforms necessary to facilitate web-based, interoperable education are presently being developed and that very shortly interoperable education will be technically feasible.

Participants at the meeting, however, were clear in their view that interoperable education is not simply, or perhaps even primarily, a technology issue. For interoperable GIS education to succeed, incentive models need to be developed that will encourage stakeholders in GIS education - academics, universities, vendors, employers and students - to see benefit in participating. What will motivate academics to author GIS educational objects? Why might students look upon GIS educational objects as enhancing their learning experiences? Why should university authorities conclude that they can see advantage in encouraging faculty to become involved?

Early, anecdotal, evidence suggests that developing appropriate incentive models will be controversial. Indeed, within the meeting there appeared to be differences among participants in their views about what might motivate individual academics to contribute and about how their university authorities would view this new area of academic endeavour. Stepping back from our immediate focus upon GIS teaching, it is clear that there is already widespread apprehension about Web-based learning: There have been strikes at North American universities recently by faculty concerned at the implications for themselves and their students of Web based teaching. (Noble 1997, Todd 1998,Weiss 1998). Should web-based teaching ever become a dominant mode of delivery, it will change the working lives of academics, redefining their relationships with their students and their university employers. Universities might find it difficult in future to enrol students for conventional three or four year courses as students become accustomed to creating their own, bespoke study programmes from the 'best value' educational objects available online. Universities may well find that they begin to lose their conventional pre-eminence as providers of higher education as vendor companies and industry practitioners begin to contribute high quality educational objects. (In the meeting, it was noticeable that the GIS project which seemed the most quickly advancing towards providing online GIS educational objects was vendor based, the ESRI 'virtual campus'). Moving towards interoperable, web-based delivery obviously raises big issues about the future of higher education.

Clearly, there needs to be an urgent consideration of the institutional frameworks which will emerge around interoperable educational. On what basis will educational objects be published on the Web? Which institutions will gain and which lose? What impact will Web based teaching have on the lives of academics? Will 'courses' and degree programmes they are conventionally conceived begin to erode? Will students actually benefit?

Beyond GIS these issues have begun to be addressed, and indeed, there is already a neat phrase, the 'Educational Object Economy (EOE)', available to describe the economic aspects of this new area of activity (Apple,1997). We need to understand more clearly what the mechanisms within the EOE generally will be and, more particularly, how these mechanisms will work in GIS education. Possibly the EOE will be a mixed market structure. Within the software market, freeware and shareware co-exist with commercial products. Similarly, bookshops do not drive libraries out of existence. Perhaps the GIS EOE will similarly accommodate a range of incentive models. At the meeting, however, the directors of two of the foremost GIS web-based educational programmes hinted at the limitations of relying upon purely voluntary contribution. Kemp reports that the progress of the NCGIA Core Curriculum has been slower than anticipated, and Foote refers to the lack of monetary rewards in the Virtual Geography Department project. Altruism and enthusiasm it seems might take projects only so far. Although there will probably always be a role for voluntary contributions to the GIS EOE, it seems clear that as the GIS EOE develops beyond its present experimental stage, a majority of academics will expect explicit incentives, in terms of citation, career progression and/or direct monetary return, to be available. At the institutional level, university authorities may need to consider how they might generate income from the GIS EOE.

Researching something which has not yet happened and about the shape of which even enthusiasts are still unsure, presents particular challenges. The Delphi method of futures research, however, offers a methodology for investigating opinions about future events in a controlled manner. The participants at the meeting agreed to pursue a Delphi based approach to research opinions about the likely shape of the future GIS EOE, with particular reference to the incentive models which will emerge.

Project stages

1. Research and synthesise present opinions about the benefits and dis-benefits about the emerging Educational Objects Economy : Identify and review existing literature without regard for disciplinary boundaries to obtain the widest spectrum of experience and opinion. Within geography, canvass the views of academics who have already participated in online/CBL projects, including NCGIA Core Curriculum, Virtual Geography Department, the UK CTI GeographyCAL project etc. in order to determine whether participation in such initiatives has so far been regarded as being worthwhile, both personally and in terms of the pedagogic value of the materials produced. This will be done via an email questionnaire survey and interviews with key academics.
• Personnel needed : one graduate researcher.
• Time frame : begin as soon as possible, six months duration.
• Expected result : a paper summarizing present opinions with regard to the likely shape of the future EOE, informed particularly by the views of those geographers who have already participated in GIS, and similar, online/CBL educational programmes. The results would be posted initially on the IGE website but would also warrant broader dissemination as an NCGIA technical report and through GIS and educational conferences and journals.
• Funding required : six months @ 100% for a graduate researcher plus benefits. Travel expenses to interview relevant academics
2. Research and execute a Delphi analysis into expectations about the future GIS EOE : Conventionally Delphi analyses have required the following sequence a) prepare an initial position statement and set of propositions, b) invite a panel of experts to comment, c) revise the statement and propositions in the light of expert comment, d) iterate until stability of opinion is reached. Previous examples of Delphi analysis will be researched. A panel of relevant experts will be assembled. An initial position statement and propositions will be prepared, based on material from stage1. Email will be used to quicken the iteration process.
• Personnel needed : One graduate researcher. Panel of 'experts'
• Time frame : Six months beginning immediately after the conclusion of the first phase
• Expected result : A report describing the scenarios embedded within the opinions discovered and making recommendations about how best to achieve a GIS EOE which maximises potential benefits.
• Funding Required : Six months @100% for graduate researcher plus benefits
 
3. Disseminate results : It will be necessary to disseminate the results of the research both within GIS and to the broader educational community. Conference presentations and papers in GIS and pedagogic journals will be appropriate outlets for the research.
• Personnel needed : IGE authors and participating experts.
• Time Frame : Dissemination can begin immediately after the completion of stage 1 and should continue for six months after the completion of stage 2
• Expected result : To simulate discussion about the incentives which will be necessary to ensure that the GIS EOE develops appropriately
• Funding required : Not essential, but support for conference and workshop attendance throughout one year will help to stimulate debate.

Total time required: One year, plus six months for further dissemination and workshops

Total personnel required :
RA : 100% for six months (Stage 1)
RA : 100% for six months (Stage 2)
Participating panel of experts and respondents

Total funding required :
RA : 100% for six months (Stage 1)
RA : 100% for six months (Stage 2)
Travel : Interviews with relevant experts $4-5000 (Stage 2).
Dissemination at conferences $4-5000 (Stage 3).

References

Apple Corp (1998) Educational Objects Economy (EOE) web site, http://www.trp.research.apple.com

Noble D. F. (1997) Digital Diploma Mills : The automation of Higher Education, http://www.journet.com/twu/deplomamills.html

Todd W (1998) Academics rebel against an online future. CNN Online, 16/6/98.

Weiss K R. (1998) A Wary Academia of Edge of Cyberspace The Los Angeles Times, Home Section, A-1