1 / 14

Possibilities with EduMapping

Possibilities with EduMapping. Frans I. Rip, Sept. 2010. Overview of this presentation. Problem statement / why EduMapping? EduMapping = Referencing Course Content GI BoK? (22%) Possibilities & deployment (review, compare) Obstacles Future Summary. 2. Problem 1: description diversity.

cyma
Télécharger la présentation

Possibilities with EduMapping

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Possibilities withEduMapping Frans I. Rip, Sept. 2010

  2. Overview of this presentation • Problem statement / why EduMapping? • EduMapping = Referencing Course Content • GI BoK? (22%) • Possibilities & deployment (review, compare) • Obstacles • Future • Summary 2

  3. Problem 1: description diversity GI education and training comes in many shapes and sizes. The ways to describe their contents are diverse too. • Some parameters of content and description: • From 1 day course to 270 ects curriculum (= 4.5 years) • Focus on GI or embedded in application field • Language of teaching and description • Organization-prescribed format 3

  4. Problem 2: subjectivity by role When reading a course description, • Involved teaching staff may • see other content than uninvolved staff (example RvL-FR_GIMA) • have multiple individual views on the content of a course (example?) • Students before participation may see different content in the course description than intended by teaching staff(no example) • Students after participation • may have changed their view from before participation (no example) • may have a different view on course content than involved staff or uninvolved staff (example MdJ/Alex-RvL_GIMA) • GI-skilled outsiders may see different content in the course description than intended by teaching staff (example Painho/Orshoven-HB_GRS20306) 4

  5. projection metaphor: imagine movie projection: - out of focus - without screen http://www.beachhutmedia.com.au/news_2006.html Summarized: variety in sources and reception: a communication obstacle Describing GI courses with ‘free’ text is like the projection of an image through a bad lens and without a screen EduMapping can help by providing a screen 5

  6. EduMapping EduMapping relates course content to an external reference and creates a LABEL ASSESSMENT 6

  7. GI BoK as a reference • BoK: UCGIS 2006 • Hierarchy of KA’s, Units and Topics • Masik 2010: 22% users of BoK in Europe (N=100 (113?)) • USA (origin): no known survey 7

  8. A label for GI-content This label, added to course descriptions, should make GI education more transparent 8

  9. Possibilities & deployment • Review your course or curriculum • the BoK taxonomy as a checklist for teaching subjects • Quantified assessment: how is available time spent?makes attention distribution visible, comparable and debatable between all involved staff (requires only local application of EduMapping) • Compare courses or curricula • easier comparison by students between educational offerings by different organizations (assuming they understand & come for content) • find out what the other organizations specialize in • finding a niche for your curriculum in your region: we cover subjects A, B and C, but we are THE specialists for subjects D & E → helps curriculum marketing (possible when EduMapping is widely applied) 9

  10. Review options • check intended content against GI BoK items (KA, Units, topics) • check quantitative profile against overall concept as formulated in the description (assessment by course / curriculum manager) • use assessments of the description by involved staff to identify points for discussion (bring hidden differences of opinion to the surface) • use assessments by post-participants and by GI-skilled but uninvolved outsiders to identify sources for different interpretations of the description. 10

  11. Comparison options • compare total course/curriculum time spending to 4 subject categories: In-BoK, GI-but-not-in-BoK, Generic GI, not-GI • compare the profile of the In-BoK category of C/C: how much time for each Knowledge Area? 11

  12. Obstacles for EduMapping • EduMapping: mapping between 2 fuzzy sets • content descriptions are free format regarding GI-content • BoK-book : taxonomy on paper, no clear criteria, little RS, little geodesy, almost 5 years old 12

  13. Future 13

  14. Thank you • Frans I. Rip, Lab. of Geo-Information Science and Remote Sensing • Wageningen University and Research centre, the Netherlands • frans.rip @ wur.nl – http://www.grs.wur.nl/UK/ Reference: Rip, F. I. and R. J. A. van Lammeren (2010). Mapping Geo-Information Education In Europe. ISPRS 2010, Mid-Term Symposium Commission VI - Cross-Border Education for Global Geo-Information, Enschede, the Netherlands, International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. 14

More Related