Reflections on GIS Curriculum Writing as GIS Evolves

I found that my modern GIS lessons and curricular items are?shorter?than my GIS lessons in the past for several reasons.? And they should be for reasons I articulate below.

The first reason is that the workflows in modern GIS such as ArcGIS Online and ArcGIS Pro are so much more logical and straightforward than in older GIS such as ArcGIS Desktop (ArcMap).? In ArcMap, for example, when you needed to georegister an unprojected historical map or aerial photo, you are cast into a zone that sometimes left students wondering, “what step do I do first?” whereas with ArcGIS Pro, you are placed into wizard-driven “Step 1–do this, make these choices, satisfied?? If not, here are some adjustments you can make.? OK – on to Step 2…”? Ditto for hundreds of other tools and processes:? These are much easier to follow and learn from using ArcGIS Pro.

The second reason is?that I believe you don’t?need?to screen shot everything any longer, and in fact, I implore you to?please?not screen shot very much, because: (1) There are many good existing resources for use if a student gets stuck on a certain section.? In the past, I admit that all of us?did?have to create our own graphics and screenshots because these were by and large all the students could use as instructional resources, but no longer!? (2) Students, being the resourceful people they are, will not read your precious screen shots very much if at all.? They know there are other resources and will find them if they have difficulty.? Of course you can provide guidance as to where these resources are, but just like anything else these days that people want to learn, such as fixing a faucet or playing the?ukulele, there is a video, a graphic, a tutorial, on everything from?geocoding?to?writing Arcade expressions?and more.?

(3) If you?do?screen shot to excess and make your lessons consequently long, you will remain in a frustrating continuous cycle of always having to update and curate your lessons.? Please, don’t do this!? Rather, spend less time updating curriculum, and that new-found time creating new curricular ideas, teaching techniques, and furthering your own research. I hope these are helpful reflections and I look forward to your thoughts.

Now, I want to be clear that when I say "shorter lessons" I am not advocating for less rigor, thought, and analysis than in the past. Au contraire! Even if the lessons are shorter because of fewer step-by-step instructions, they can and should still include ample room for analysis, mapping, spatial thinking, and effective communication of results. In fact, I know many colleagues in education who give very short but thought-provoking, inquiry-driven assignments to students.

For a video version of these comments, see my video here: https://youtu.be/wllHyRj_LJ4?si=TSIQMhfgEav9u9vh

--Joseph Kerski