Search for: All records

ABSTRACT GIS and GIScience education have continually evolved over the past three decades, responding to technological advances and societal issues. Today, the content and context in which GIScience is taught continue to be impacted by these disruptions, notably from technology through artificial intelligence (AI) and society through the myriad environmental and social challenges facing the planet. These disruptions create a new landscape for training within the discipline that is affecting not onlywhatis taught in GIScience courses but alsowhois taught,whyit is being taught, andhowit is taught. The aim of this paper is to structure a direction for developing and delivering GIScience education that, amid these disruptions, can generate a capable workforce and the next generation of leaders for the discipline. We present a framework for understanding the various emphases of GIScience education and use it to discuss how the content, audience, and purpose are changing. We then discuss how pedagogical strategies and practices can change how GIScience concepts and skills are taught to train more creative, inclusive, and empathetic learners. Specifically, we focus on how GIScience pedagogy should (1) center on problem‐based learning, (2) be open and accelerate open science, and (3) cultivate ethical reasoning and practices. We conclude with remarks on how the principles of GIScience education can extend beyond disciplinary boundaries for holistic spatial training across academia. 

There are newer efforts from funding organizations and agencies incentivizing collaborative research. I refer to collaborative research as research that requires the engagement from more than one institution, community, and/or economic sector, for example: participatory research, reciprocal research, convergence science, research-practice partnerships, university-industry partnerships, cross-disciplinary research and more. Compared to more traditional research, the formation of collaborative research ideas, roles of collaborators, and budgets alone take longer to develop before they are ready to present to funders. And if funded, research outcomes are harder to control and predict and the level of communication required across collaborators is higher in terms of keeping the vision forward (e.g., goals, roles, timeline) and in terms of effective research administration (e.g., budgeting, ethical reviews, documentation, compliance).Then, to broaden perspectives and participation in research, newer efforts also encourage non-traditional researchers to engage or lead collaborative research. I refer to a non-traditional researcher as someone who earned a PhD but for whom research is not a part of their current role, and who is at an institution that does not have research enterprise infrastructure to support them in accessing research funding easily or at all (e.g., a grants office). In this paper, I discuss a case study of collaborative research I lead for eight years, involving K-12 teachers, community college faculty, university researchers, and non-academic organizations in terms of the planning and coordination required compared to traditional research. I will also provide suggestions to lower barriers to access funding for and deliver on this type of research. 

This paper demonstratesPynapple-G, an open-source library for scalable spatial grouping queries based on Apache Sedona (formerly known as GeoSpark). We demonstrate two modules, namely,SGPACandDDCEL, that support grouping points, grouping lines, and polygon overlays. TheSGPACmodule provides a large-scale grouping of spatial points by highly complex polygon boundaries. The grouping results aggregate the number of spatial points within the boundaries of each polygon. TheDDCELmodule provides the first parallelized algorithm to group spatial lines into a DCEL data structure and discovers planar polygons from scattered line segments. Exploiting the scalable DCEL, we support scalable overlay operations over multiple polygon layers to compute the layers' intersection, union, or difference. To showcasePyneapple-G, we have developed a frontend web application that enables users to interact with these modules, select their data layers or data points, and view results on an interactive map. We also provide interactive notebooks demonstrating the superiority and simplicity ofPyneapple-Gto help social scientists and developers explore its full potential. 

Mobility data captures the locations of moving objects such as humans, animals, and cars. With the availability of Global Positioning System (GPS)–equipped mobile devices and other inexpensive location-tracking technologies, mobility data is collected ubiquitously. In recent years, the use of mobility data has demonstrated a significant impact in various domains, including traffic management, urban planning, and health sciences. In this article, we present the domain of mobility data science. Towards a unified approach to mobility data science, we present a pipeline having the following components: mobility data collection, cleaning, analysis, management, and privacy. For each of these components, we explain how mobility data science differs from general data science, we survey the current state-of-the-art, and describe open challenges for the research community in the coming years. 

In the U.S., the geography course subject is typically incorporated in social studies classes. Yet, geography has slowly lost its prominence in the U.S. over the years. Social studies teachers reported spending only 10% of their time teaching geography. History, civics/government, and economics are often prioritized (GAO, 2014). As of 2021, there are only three states (Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Utah) that require a standalone geography course for high school graduation (Zadrozny, 2021). The declining prominence of geography in the U.S. curriculum is clearly reflected in student outcomes (see Solem, 2023; GAO, 2014). If we want to better prepare the next generation, we can work to ensure the geography curriculum finds its place. This could mean ensuring sufficient space for geography in social studies, but it would also be relevant for geography to find space in the new computer science curriculum. An assessment about the rollout of the new CS curriculum reveals persisting disparities in terms of access and participation (Code.org, CSTA, & ECEP Alliance, 2020). Exposing students to both geography and computer science may have benefits in terms of broadening participation. The Geospatial Semester, for example, helps K-12 students master geospatial technologies and the authors describe spatial thinking skills as a gateway to STEM careers. Their curiculum has shown that their use of geographic information systems augments student problem solving, particularly for females (Kolvoord, 2021). Therefore, we should test more integration of course subjects (e.g., geography in computer science curriculum, and vice versa). 

AG is organizing a series of roundtable discussions to prepare the outline for an “AAG Education Summit” at the 2025 Annual Meeting in Detroit (MI) that will offer networking, mentoring, and professional development for educators covering geography in K-12 and/or higher education. WHY THIS ROUNDTABLE? Part of AAG’s JEDI Strategic Plan is to hold roundtable discussions to foster collaboration between AAG, K-12 teachers, community college educators, and post-secondary geographers. Based on recommendations from the Encoding Geography Initiative and the National Center for Research in Geography Education, building “bridges” between K-12 and higher education should be a key strategy moving forward. Depending on who you ask, however, you will hear a different idea on what that "bridge" could look like, and to what level AAG should or shouldn't be involved. The goal of these roundtable discussions is to bring all these "bridge" ideas together. WHO DO WE WANT AT THE TABLE? We are open to anyone who would like to contribute to these conversations, but among those who we would like to see represented during at least one of our Roundtable Discussions are (in no particular order): Geography educators in K-12 and community colleges, the AAG Community College Affinity Group, the AAG Geography Education Specialty Group, representatives from the National Council for Geographic Education (NCGE), representatives from the National Center for Research in Geography Education (NCRGE), representatives from the AAG Healthy Department Committee, representatives from the AAG JEDI Committee and its TLC GRAM Working Groups, representatives from former or active Geography State Alliances, representatives from Esri's education team, representatives from OSGEO, AP teachers or graders, Code.org teachers and teacher trainers, etc.