Curriculum Development and Pedagogy for Teaching Web Mapping By Carl M. Lemke Oliver Sack A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Geography) At the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN–MADISON 2018 Date of final oral examination: 7/27/2018 The dissertation is approved by the following members of the Final Oral Committee: Robert E. Roth, Associate Professor, Geography Kristopher N. Olds, Professor, Geography Ian A. Muehlenhaus, Associate Faculty, Geography Leema K. Berland, Associate Professor, Curriculum and Instruction Creative Commons Attribution License Carl M. Lemke Oliver Sack 2018 i Table of Contents Acknowledgements iii List of Figures iv List of Tables v I. Introduction: Teaching Cartography in the 21st Century Abstract 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Changes in Cartographic Practice 3 1.3 Changes in Higher Education 5 1.4 Challenges to GIScience Education 8 1.5 Research Questions and Dissertation Outline 8 II. Background Review Abstract 13 2.1 Web Mapping Definitions and History 13 2.2 Principles of Web Map Design 19 2.3 Approaches to GIScience Education 28 2.4 Why Learning Web Mapping is Unique 34 2.5 GIScience and Online Learning 39 III. Current State of Web Mapping Education: An Interview Study with Educators Abstract 43 3.1 Motivation 43 3.2 Interview and Qualitative Analysis Methods 45 3.3 Qualitative Analysis Results 48 3.3.1 Vision 48 3.3.2 Scope 49 3.3.3 Topic 51 3.3.4 Tool 53 3.3.5 Motivation 56 3.3.6 Pedagogy 58 3.3.7 Challenge 61 3.4 Discussion: Common Practices and Challenges 63 3.5 Conclusion 67 IV. Lab Curriculum Development and First-Round Evaluation Abstract 69 4.1 Web Mapping at UW–Madison 69 4.2 Transitioning to the Open Web Platform 72 4.3 An Interactive Web Mapping Curriculum 74 4.4 Evaluation Methods 77 4.5 Results 80 4.5.1 Instructor Observation Log 80 4.5.2 Student Feedback Compositions 82 4.5.3 Exit Survey 86 4.6 Discussion: Threshold Concepts and Learning Outcomes 90 ii V. Blending the Curriculum Abstract 95 5.1 The Problem of Online Learning 95 5.2 Curriculum Scope and Sequence Adjustments 100 5.3 Evaluation Methods 102 5.4 Results 104 5.4.1 Entrance Survey 104 5.4.2 Exit Survey: Competence 106 5.4.3 Computational Thinking and Confluence 110 5.4.4 Exit Survey: Sequence, Challenges, and Student Feedback 115 5.4.5 Weekly Feedback Submissions 116 5.5 Lab Outcomes and Barriers to Learning 120 VI. Findings and Applications Abstract 127 6.1 Research Findings 127 6.2 Disciplinary Contributions 134 6.2.1 Contributions to Cartography 134 6.2.2 Contributions to GIScience Education 135 6.2.3 Contributions to Online Education 138 6.3 Synthesis: A ‘Zero-to-Map’ Web Mapping Curriculum 139 6.3.1 Unit 1: ArcGIS Online Web Map 142 6.3.2 Unit 2: Web Map Story 147 6.3.3 Unit 3: Leaflet Slippy Map 149 6.3.4 Final Project and Assessment 153 6.4 Future Directions 154 6.4.1 Addressing Diversity in Web Mapping Education 154 6.4.2 Developing a Scoping Framework for Web Mapping Curriculum 156 6.4.3 Evaluating Fully Online Web Mapping Curricula 157 6.4.4 Expanding the Domain of Web Mapping Education 158 6.5 Finale 159 Glossary 160 References 165 Appendix 1: Interview Study Protocol 176 Appendix 2: 2014 Curriculum Evaluation Exit Survey Questions 181 Appendix 3: Interactive Cartography and Geovisualization Lab Curriculum Module 1 197 Appendix 4: 2016-17 Curriculum Evaluation Entrance Survey Questions 205 Appendix 5: 2016-17 Curriculum Evaluation Exit Survey Questions 207 Appendix 6: A Model Web Mapping Syllabus 215 iii Acknowledgements I am most grateful to Dr. Robert Roth for his steadfast and superb advising, feedback, encouragement, and flexibility, all of which enabled this dissertation to come to fruition. The dissertation has also benefitted from the contributions of my other committee members, Dr. Ian Muehlenhaus, Dr. Kristopher Olds, and Dr. Leema Berland, as well as the helpful feedback of Dr. A-Xing Zhu and Dr. Qunying Huang on the proposal. My gratitude further extends to Tanya Buckingham for providing a stimulating and supportive work environment in the UW Cartography Lab, to Robin Tolochko for enabling and supporting the collection of data for this project while instructing the lab component of the Interactive Cartography and Geovisualization course, and to Dr. Rich Donohue for teaching me how to code in the first place and providing the initial inspiration for this dissertation. Thanks also to Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College, and especially to Dr. Anna Fellagy, for supporting my pursuit of the dissertation’s completion while a faculty member there, and to my wife, Zee Lemke, for spousal support. Finally, thank you to my interview participants, and to all of the students who took Interactive Cartography and Geovisualization at UW–Madison between 2014 and 2017, without whom this dissertation would not have been possible. iv List of Figures 2.1: Web map taxonomy tree. 14 2.2: An illustration of client-server architecture for web maps. 18 2.3: The Cartography3 framework. 20 2.4: The Web Map Continuum. 21 2.5: Data, representation, and animation & interaction within client-server architecture. 22 2.6: The Stages of Action model for cartographic interaction. 25 2.7: Spiral curriculum and scaffolding in the zone of proximal development. 31 2.8: Topical versus spiral curriculum sequencing. 32 2.9: Commonly used Open Web Platform web mapping technologies. 35 2.10: The Web Mapping Workflow. 37 3.1: Four disciplinary approaches to web mapping curriculum. 63 4.1: The GIScience curriculum at UW–Madison 71 4.2: Students’ overall emotional experiences while completing each lab unit in 2014. 88 5.1: Beginning of Interactive Cartography and Geovisualization online lab Module 1 98 5.2: Example code blocks and graphics in online lab Module 5 98 5.3: Lesson Self-Check quiz and Module Deliverables for online lab Module 8 99 5.4: Word clouds of students’ learning goals for Interactive Cartography and Geovizualization. 105 5.5: Comparison of computational thinking and confluence valences for 2016 and 2017 classes. 110 5.6: 2016 students’ assessments of computational thinking and confluence skills. 111 5.7: 2017 students’ assessments of computational thinking and confluence skills. 112 5.8: Comparison of students’ overall emotional experiences and difficulties for each lab unit. 113 5.9: Graph of each module’s mean challenge rating and mean student grade in 2016 and 2017. 115 6.1: The curriculum spiral of the proposed Web Mapping course. 142 6.2: Screenshots of the ArcGIS Online platform demonstrating data, representation, and interaction. 144 6.3: GeoServer layers preview interface. 150 6.4: A CodePen screenshot demonstrating Leaflet’s integration of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. 150 v List of Tables 2.1: OGC geospatial web services. 23 2.2: Common map interaction operators. 26 2.3: Learning objectives from the GIScience & Technology Body of Knowledge Web Mapping entry. 29 2.4: Dimensions and components of computational thinking. 38 2.5: Recommendations regarding instructional design for online distance education. 40 3.1: Interview coding scheme. 47 3.2: VISION themes. 48 3.3: SCOPE themes. 50 3.4: TOPIC themes. 52 3.5: TOOL themes. 54 3.6: MOTIVATION themes. 57 3.7: PEDAGOGY themes. 59 3.8: CHALLENGE themes. 61 4.1: Outline of 2014 web mapping curriculum topics. 76 4.2: Total number of student feedback themes in each thematic category. 82 4.3: Extensiveness of difficult concept themes. 83 4.4: Extensiveness of other problem themes. 84 4.5: Extensiveness of ‘aha!’ moment themes. 84 4.6: Extensiveness of other positive experience themes. 85 4.7: Student-reported increase in expertise with Open Web Platform mapping tools. 87 4.8: Students’ mean difficulty ratings for Open Web Platform mapping tools. 88 4.9: Topic sequence with order means from exit survey. 89 4.10: Threshold concepts encountered by students. 91 4.11: Four learning outcomes for a web mapping course using Open Web Platform technologies. 93 5.1: Interactive Cartography and Geovisualization online lab units and modules. 97 vi 5.2: The revised 2016-17 topic sequence. 100 5.3: Comparison of prior expertise with Open Web Platform tools in 2016 and 2017. 107 5.4: Comparison of final expertise with Open Web Platform tools in 2016 and 2017. 107 5.5: Comparison of normalized percent change of mean expertise in 2014, 2016, and 2017. 109 5.6: Mean emotional experience and challenge valences for each curriculum unit. 114 5.7: Successes and challenges reported by students in weekly feedback submissions. 119 6.1: Focused learning objectives to support web mapping outcomes 137 6.2: Web Mapping topic and activity sequence. 141 I. Introduction: Teaching Cartography in the 21st Century Abstract This chapter introduces the subject matter of web mapping education. Section 1.1 outlines recent changes to the discipline and craft of Cartography, especially those driven by the advancement of internet technologies. Section 1.2 provides a more detailed explanation of the sweeping changes that have taken place in cartographic practice due to the expansion of online media since the early 2000s. Section 1.3 presents the parallel web-driven changes occurring in higher education. Section 1.4 explores possible reasons for the lag in adoption of web development skillsets within cartography and GIS curricula. Finally, Section 1.5 presents the research questions and outlines the remainder of the dissertation. 1.1 Overview Cartography is changing. In the 20th Century, Cartography was: • Scientific and objective; • Used for presentation of information; • Based on centralized, authoritative datasets curated by institutions; • Conducted by draftsmen (and a very few women); • Done using drafting tools, film, and (in the final decade of the century) desktop graphic design software; • The production of maps on durable media.