This claim made by a colleague from the 1980s still echoes in my mind. How many teachers do you know who hold firmly to this point of view today - whatever the discipline; who would deny any advantage in treating learning as a social, not simply an individual, activity? There most certainly are times when students benefit from learning alone. Absorbing a teacher’s video lecture, engaging in drill and practice with a newly acquired skill, or writing an essay come to mind. There are, however, benefits gained from acknowledging that we are social beings and that there are highly effective teaching strategies that exploit this fact - strategies that are particularly well suited for students using GIS software.

David Jonassen (1996) has described software tools like GIS as mindtools:

One of the principle advantages of software of this sort - be it spreadsheet, visualization, database, concept mapping, or GIS software - is that when used in the social context of cooperative groups in the classroom it becomes a catalyst for inquiry and student shared, teacher moderated construction of meaning about new content and ideas. Concept learning - as opposed to procedural learning - is essentially a process of language development. We learn new ideas best by assimilating them into existing knowledge; that is, by attaching new vocabulary to both the new concepts and to the links between old and new ideas, sensations, and emotions. We build meaning, or gain fluency, largely by trial and error as the vocabulary and grammar of the new idea evolve through trial use, revision, and eventual assimilation into existing knowledge and language patterns. While writing - largely an individual activity - serves this purpose well in the latter stages of building meaning and, indeed, helps to build deeper understanding, structured conversation - a social activity - is particularly effective in the early stages of learning new material. Learning with GIS fits well into this model.

Working with student teachers over the years I encouraged experimentation with different strategies for teaching the same material. Use a lecture, use an inquiry activity, use group work, etc. Just teach to the same content and see how things go. This is a particularly effective way of getting prospective teachers to be more aware of their preferred style(s), their personal strengths and weaknesses, and, most importantly, to realizing that students have different learning styles and that a diversity of approaches is a necessity if you want to reach as many as possible. A variant on this experiment is a contest of sorts. Use different approaches to using computers and software like GIS in the classroom: one-on-one computing vs. students working in groups of two or three at one computer station. I have had student teachers try this experiment with two different sections of the same high school class and I have conducted the experiment myself with classes of pre service teachers and in workshop settings with inservice teachers. The goal in all cases is a pair of simple object lessons:

Presentation 1 - Group Work Click to open Presentation

The lesson suggested in the plan outlined at right and featured in the slide presentation provides an example of both the logistics of managing a group based lesson using GIS and exploring new content. Graphic links to specific lesson materials are included. The lesson is part of a unit in environmental history that looks at the impact of gold mining in the Mother Lode region of California and follows on a lesson about another toxic residue of the gold mining era: mercury. Having students work in small, cooperative groups is a key to the success of the assignment. Questions coming from individual students working independently about computer and software use, about lesson directions, and about what is expected tend to fly furiously and can easily overwhelm the most patient teacher. Most such questions, though, are ones that groups of students can usually take care of by themselves freeing you to focus on dialog around the actual content of the lesson. Ideas in the presentation are based primarily on the personal experience of the author and on research by Radinski (2008) and Hammond (2009).

As you review the lesson plan it is worth keeping in mind the variety of factors that contribute to effective cooperative learning. Johnson & Johnson (1994) identify five significant characteristics. Their relevance to the Arsenic lesson is noted: