1 / 18

GIS Vocational Education: Lessons Learnt

GIS Vocational Education: Lessons Learnt. Ahmed Abuelnasr & Jos Van Orshoven Spatial Application division Leuven (SADL) Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. VESTA -GIS Workshop – Salzburg “Training on GI , a challenge in a new European context” July 1 st 2008. Outline.

mickey
Télécharger la présentation

GIS Vocational Education: Lessons Learnt

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. GIS Vocational Education:Lessons Learnt Ahmed Abuelnasr & Jos Van Orshoven Spatial Application division Leuven (SADL) Katholieke Universiteit Leuven VESTA-GIS Workshop – Salzburg “Training onGI, a challenge in a newEuropean context” July 1st 2008

  2. Outline • Introduction / Background • Objective • (P)CSS4G Versus (F)OSS4G • Material & methods • Peculiarities Of The FOSS4G-Course • Analysis Of The Questionnaire Data • Results & Discussion • Conclusions & Recommendations

  3. Introduction / Background • Recently FOSS started to challenge the established PCSS in the geomatics sector; • The demand for FOSS4G-related education is also growing; • Students are demanding such training to give them an edge in the marketplace while teaching staff are looking for ways to broaden student experiences; • At the current moment there is little experience/research regarding teaching methods adapted to (F)OSS4G within academic education or vocational training. • In addition to general discussion on the establishment and maintenance of infrastructure needed to effectively incorporate (F)OSS4G into the academic environment; • The introduction of (F)OSS4G in education should go along with a change in teaching methods.

  4. Reaction/Development • These evolutions have not remained unnoticed to the EC. • The EC has launched research and dissemination projects with the aim to inform and educate professionals and even the general public about the potential of (F)OSS in general and (F)OSS4G in particular. • The Cascadoss project (www.cascadoss.eu) is an example of an EC-supported project on how to encourage end-users of geospatial data in adopting FOSS: • by setting up a trans-national cascade training programme on OS GIS&RS software with an emphasis on env. applications: • The programme aims at training, on an international level, small groups of 'high-end’ geospatial data users who will be expected to transfer on; • the national or regional level, the knowledge and abilities they have learned to 'low-end' geospatial users who could support each other in finding OSS-solutions for env. related problems.

  5. PCSS4G Versus FOSS4G

  6. Material And Methods • PCSS4G- and FOSS4G-courses were intended to provide the participants with an update regarding: • The evolving concepts of physical land evaluation and land use planning; • The concepts and functionality of GIS; • The principles of earth RS. • PCSS: ArcGIS 8.2 & ERDAS Imagine 8.6 • FOSS: OSS4G Quantum-GIS 0.8.1 Titan & GRASS 6.2 • At the end of each week of each course, participants were requested to answer a questionnaire and to express their appreciation and identify strong & weak points. • Post-Questionnaire (6-month later), follow up & assessment.

  7. Material And Methods • Pre-Questionnaire questions pertained to: • (i) fulfilment of course objective; • (ii) status of course materials; • (iii) teaching practices; • (iv) future use of the course materials. • Post-Questionnaire questions pertained to: • (i) the effective use; • (ii) extent of their benefit of the course; • (iii) subjects they recommend to include/exclude from the course; • Questionnaire: For 2005, 14 / 15 (93%) were returned. For 2007, 18 / 22 (81%), Post Questionnaire 10/22 (0.45%) • PCSS4G-course was dispatched in a more traditional way in which theoretical lectures and demonstrations were alternated with individual hands-on exercises, the FOSS4G-course was conceived in a ‘Train the Trainer’ spirit and focused on self- and group learning

  8. Methodological Peculiarities Of The FOSS4G-Course

  9. Analysis Of The Questionnaire Data Summary of all common statements used in both questionnaires

  10. Results / Discussion The most pertinent common statements were used in the assessment

  11. Results / Discussion • A too strict interpretation of the observed differences between the responses to the two questionnaires must however be avoided: • Not only did we change different types of software (PCSS versus FOSS), but also the teaching practice was different. • The range of PCSS4G and FOSS4G is of course much wider: • The user base in the PCSS- and FOSS-communities of the packages we used, are however far from negligible. • The adopted teaching practice was partly imposed by the nature of FOSS but was also implemented because of its inherent value.

  12. Pre vs Post Matrix

  13. Results / Discussion • Almost 80% used PCSS only prior to the FOSS course for different reasons: academic, maintain database, etc… • After the introduction of FOSS, 60 % continued using both, 10% remained using PCSS, 30% shifted to FOSS only: better understanding, get confident, ease to use, strength work position!, etc… • Provided course material (re-sued and distributed) 85%

  14. Conclusions • Comparable interest for PCSS4G and FOSS4G. However, FOSS4G-course is likely to have a larger impact on the educational and professional communities in the future. • The combination of PCSS and FOSS in education must be taken into consideration for undergraduate and graduate students. • PCSS is closer to the employment market while FOSS provides the opportunity to study in detail the algorithms behind the software interfaces and their software implementation. • The results show a continuous use of the open source software and the “freely-distributed” course material. This emphasizes the continuous need for FOSS-trainings.

  15. Conclusions • The adopted didactic approach for the FOSS4G-course is probably as useful for a PCSS4G-course: • The zero-measurement assessment to establish balanced groups and organise group work; • The quizzes to assess progress/understanding and provide feedback can be applied in both contexts. • The availability of FOSS-tutorial is of course a strong point which is not always true for PCSS. • Self-installation of software, participating to and finding help in the web-based user community certainly is more important for the FOSS.

  16. Recommendations / Future Use?! • Advise for further development of FOSS courses: • Include basic methods in collecting geographical data and its use in FOSS (Data collection, digitization, and programming) • A possible approach to combine PCSS and FOSS in GIS & RS is to use FOSS4G in more basic courses while Advanced courses may benefit from a combination of both types. • A second edition of the FOSS4G course (www.sadl.kuleuven.be/sadl/VLIR_KOI_en.htm) is planned for August 2008. with 4 modules (basic/advanced) in 2 weeks.

  17. Thank you for your attention Questions?!

More Related