on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability bJournal of ... · geodesign, Miller (2012) revealed how Frank Lloyd Wright (1867–1959), Richard Neutra

This article was downloaded by: [105.225.132.234]On: 26 August 2013, At: 10:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Urbanism: International Researchon Placemaking and Urban SustainabilityPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjou20

Geodesign meets curriculum design:integrating geodesign approaches intoundergraduate programsThomas Paradis a , Melinda Treml b & Mark Manone ca Department of Geography , Planning & Recreation, Northern ArizonaUniversity , NAU Box 15016, Flagstaff , AZ , 86011-5016 Phone:928-523-5853b Office of Curriculum, Learning Design, and Academic Assessment,Northern Arizona University , NAU Box 4091, Flagstaff , AZ , 86011-4091Phone: 928-523-8679c Department of Geography , Planning & Recreation, Northern ArizonaUniversity , NAU Box 15016, Flagstaff , AZ , 86011-5016 Phone: Ph:928-523-9159Published online: 23 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability(2013): Geodesign meets curriculum design: integrating geodesign approaches into undergraduateprograms, Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, DOI:10.1080/17549175.2013.788054

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2013.788054

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjou20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2013.788054

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Geodesign meets curriculum design: integrating geodesign approachesinto undergraduate programs

Thomas Paradisa*, Melinda Tremlb and Mark Manonec

aDepartment of Geography, Planning & Recreation, Northern Arizona University, NAUBox 15016, Flagstaff, AZ; bOffice of Curriculum, Learning Design, and Academic Assessment,Northern Arizona University, NAU Box 4091, Flagstaff, AZ; cDepartment of Geography, Planning& Recreation, Northern Arizona University, NAU Box 15016, Flagstaff, AZ

The recent emergence of geodesign elicits broad questions about what to teach ourstudents, and how to teach it. Geodesign bridges the geospatial sciences and geograph-ical information system (GIS)-related techniques with the design professions to informbetter land-use decisions. With its emphasis on real-world applications, informationtechnologies, and cross-disciplinary problem-solving, geodesign lends itself to a vari-ety of experiential, active learning strategies collectively known as learner-centerededucation (LCE). This paper explores how LCE, outcomes assessment, and curriculumdesign can together support geodesign-oriented undergraduate programs. Lookingspecifically at a new degree program at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, theauthors view geodesign education as a platform for promoting learner-centeredapproaches that at once transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries and are becomingincreasingly important for employment opportunities. The example discussed hereinillustrates how promising practices in curriculum design and LCE can informgeodesign education, thereby enabling other faculties to discover their own educationalopportunities in geodesign.

Keywords: Geodesign; geodesign education; learner-centered education; outcomesassessment; curriculum mapping; curriculum design; geodesign framework

The new place-makers: geodesign as an interdisciplinary approach

The idea of designing land uses within the contexts of geographic space and naturalenvironments is not new. Recently dubbed geodesign, this interdisciplinary process ofplace-making can be traced back thousands of years, whereby design has been variablyinfluenced by surrounding geographies and natural conditions (McElvaney 2012). Morerecently a sequence of innovative thinkers during the 20th century were intent on consid-ering natural conditions as inputs to design decisions. In his introductory White Paper ongeodesign, Miller (2012) revealed how Frank Lloyd Wright (1867–1959), Richard Neutra(1892–1970), Warren Manning (1860–1938), and Ian McHarg (1920–2001) consideredgeographic contexts and existing environmental conditions to inform various designinitiatives. They were all ‘geodesigners’ in concept, though none ever used the term.Specifically, McHarg is considered a principal founder of geodesign as most recentlyconceptualized, expressed through his seminal work Design with Nature (1969). Inaddition to assessing how natural landscapes support and sustain urban or suburban

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Urbanism, 2013http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2013.788054

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

developments, McHarg developed pre-digital mapping techniques that would betterhighlight areas most and least suitable for building (Barnett 2003). These approachesprovided inspiration for a new way of thinking about regional planning and urban design,and ultimately led to the digital representation of geographic information known widelyas geographical information system (GIS) (Miller 2012).

As GIS technology has matured, however, McHarg’s original vision ‘has somehowgotten lost along the way,’ according to geographer Michael Goodchild (Artz 2010[1],35). For McHarg, GIS was best viewed as a design technology. Instead, it has developedmore into a tool for geospatial analysis of what exists, and not what is to be. More recentproponents of geodesign intend to revive McHarg’s vision by bringing ‘geographic analy-sis into any design process, resulting in designs that more closely follow natural systems’(Introduction 2010, 1). In turn, GIS tools are a necessary component of this systematicanalytical approach, encouraging the application of evidence-based decision-making tothe realm of design.

Since the first Geodesign Summit in 2010, numerous definitions of geodesign haveemerged. Most definitions build upon McHarg’s vision of integrating geospatial tech-niques into the design process with the goal of living in more environmentally friendlyways – the essence of the contemporary concept of geodesign. President and founder ofEnvironmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Jack Dangermond, believes that geo-design is ‘designing with nature in mind’ (Artz 2010[2], 6). Harvard Professor Carl Stei-nitz integrated the geographic sciences with the design professions to inform his owndefinition, that of ‘changing geography by design.’ Steinitz elaborated that ‘not all geog-raphy changes by design, and not all design changes geography’ (Artz 2010[2], 7). In hisnew book, A Framework for Geodesign, Steinitz (2012) outlines the latest version of hisframework for accomplishing geodesign, which calls for integrated education in fourbroad areas: Geographic Sciences, Design Professions, Information Technologies, and thePeople of the Place. More focused on the planning discipline specifically, Atanas Entchevof ENTCHEV GIS Architects supposed that ‘GeoDesign and urban planning are probablythe same thing,’ adding that ‘An urban planner who uses GIS daily to its full potential (Iknow none) is probably a GeoDesigner ….’ (Artz 2010[2], 6). Tying together these vari-ous definitions is one fundamental characteristic – namely, the integration of geographicsciences and geospatial technologies with design, thereby inviting digital geographic anal-yses to inform the design process. In short, GIS and geospatial sciences inform us aboutwhat currently exists, while the design professions are looking to improve what will be.

The recent and enthusiastic emergence of geodesign as an approach to integrategeographic science into the design process is in part a product of ongoing innovations ingeospatial technologies, in concert with the environmental appeal of geodesign toimprove the sustainability of future urban and rural developments. The timing elementprimarily involves the ongoing development of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimen-sional (3D) geospatial technologies that now allow for ever-complex spatial datasets tobe overlaid and infused into meaningful cartographic and 3D visualizations. While aca-demic disciplines situated within either the geospatial sciences or the design professionsare not new, the technologies that support their respective research and design initiativesprovide a technological impetus to encourage interdisciplinary cooperation. Now beingadded to increasingly user-friendly GIS suite of software are 3D digital modeling toolswith the likes of City Engine, Google SketchUp, and Community Viz. These geospatialtechnologies are deemed necessary for successful implementation of geodesign problem-solving approaches, given the ever-important need to visualize large spatial datasets andtheir interrelationships (Miller 2012; Steinitz 2012).

2 T. Paradis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

These same geospatial technologies are providing the impetus for adoption of geodesignapproaches in both the private and public sectors, transcending the design professions.Firms and local government agencies that specialize in architecture, landscape architecture,urban design, and community and environmental planning – to name a few – are increas-ingly integrating digital geodesign technologies to improve the quality, efficiency, and anal-ysis of their products. Bill Miller (Miller 2012) provides a useful summary of the‘entourage of concepts and capabilities now associated with Geodesign [technologies]’ thatare increasingly expected for facilitating geodesign processes (paraphrased here):

• Operational frameworks: includes all hardware and software required by the user.Use patterns need to be supported across all devices, and the software environmentneeds to be intuitive and transparent.

• Data models: necessary for describing the geometry, attributes, and relationships ofobjects or places being designed.

• Creation and modification tools: includes geometry, attribute, and symbology toolsallowing the user to modify geometries, assign meaning, and cartographicallyrepresent design features, respectively.

• Inference engines: increasingly found within 2D and 3D software packages to makeautomatic assumptions about user intentions (e.g. SketchUp aids users in construct-ing parallel or perpendicular geometries with little user effort).

• Geoprocessing tools: useful for generating derived data from raw geospatial datasets.• Feedback displays and dashboards: produce geographic displays (typically as

maps) and scalar values such as polygon areas. Dashboard displays are employedvisually to present these data in an efficient and user-friendly manner.

• Scenario management tools: facilitate the creation and management of alternativedesign scenarios to determine better the most effective solution to design problems.

• Collaboration tools: allow for the collaboration of team members and publicparticipants to share, rework, and suggest alternatives for design projects, essentiallyproviding a digital replication of traditional bricks-and-mortar collaborative spaces.

• Interoperability tools: improve the ability for software packages utilized by widelydisparate disciplines and professions to communicate with one another without theinefficiencies of converting from one system to another.

All these technologies are currently available to assist with design-based problem-solving,though Miller calls for their continuing development to facilitate better the requirementsof interdisciplinary and digital-based geodesign processes.

Implications for geodesign education

That both public and private sectors are demanding such technologies has not been lost onhigher education. Academic discussions and presentations at the 2010–2013 GeodesignSummits held at ESRI headquarters in Redlands, California, focused on emerging opportu-nities and challenges for education in geodesign. Initial discussions at earlier summitsrevolved around initial remarks of intellectual curiosity and attempts to define the conceptof geodesign. By 2013 this curiosity had transformed into serious conversations aroundcurriculum design. A forum devoted for this purpose was provided by ESRI at the 2013Geodesign Summit in the form of the first Geodesign Curriculum Workshop, a half-dayforum to determine areas of consensus and disparate views and challenges associated withintegrating geodesign approaches and concepts into curricula. Approximately 40

Journal of Urbanism 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

participants represented 20 institutions of higher learning in North American and Europe,along with others who represented various public organizations and private firms. Pullingfrom the sample of 2013 Curriculum Workshop attendees, the following numbers of aca-demic programs and courses had integrated geodesign, either recently approved or alreadylaunched: studios/courses (6), certificates (3), undergraduate four-year degrees (2), andgraduate degrees (3). Other programs are currently in the initial design or proposal stages.

Conversely, no such programs existed at the time of the first Geodesign Summit in2010. By 2011 the academic contingent of summit participants remained skeptical if curi-ous about the staying power of, and potential curricular demands for, geodesign. Thiscollective caution clearly shifted by 2013. Instead, the prominent questions became: Whatknowledge and skills associated with geodesign are necessary for students within under-graduate and graduate programs? and What issues and challenges remain with integratinggeodesign into academic curricula? These two questions were featured prominently at the2013 Geodesign Summit and indicated an emergence of best practices and a developinglitany of issues identified with practical curricular design.

One overarching question involved teaching the geodesign process itself, namely, howare individuals or teams appropriately taught to ‘do’ geodesign? The approach isnecessarily interdisciplinary, requiring a synergy of academic perspectives to help solveongoing land-use, environmental, and population challenges that have proven much toocomplex for one discipline to handle alone. For this reason, Steinitz (2012) contends thatstudents will not likely be trained (nor perhaps should be trained) as ‘geodesigners,’ asstudents should still focus on their own respective disciplinary skills and expertise. In thiscontext, geodesign is about leading and managing a problem-solving process with theability to collaborate with multiple disciplinary perspectives. Geodesign therefore repre-sents no single discipline, but a collaboration that borrows from the likes of environmen-tal studies, human and physical geography, GIS and other geospatial technologies,environmental and community planning, urban design, landscape architecture, civilengineering, construction management, and architecture.

Consequently, geodesign is perceived as a ‘radically synthesizing tool,’ according toThomas Fisher, that ‘will change the way we do design, the way we think about science,and the way we educate’ (Fisher 2012). Fisher explained at the 2012 Geodesign Summithow education remains highly disjointed into specialties that do not traditionally shareand communicate well. The geographic and GIS sciences, for instance, are excellent atanalyzing and conveying information about the earth, though practitioners are rarelytrained in design methodologies. In turn, design is a highly value-laden activity withexcellent intentions for the future, though typically makes poor use of geospatial informa-tion that can better predict consequences to design decisions (Fisher 2012). The geospa-tial sciences ‘hand’ is not talking to the design ‘hand,’ and vice versa. Geodesigntherefore provides a direct challenge to conventional academic silos. And yet, this realityoffers a promising opportunity for encouraging cross-disciplinary communication andteamwork for students and faculty alike.

Given the existing context of a highly specialized, departmentalized model of highereducation, what types of familiar pedagogical approaches can be applied to teach themost fundamental design principles to geographers? Conversely, how might studentsfound within the professionalized disciplines of design be taught fundamental concepts ofspatial analysis, geo-technologies, and related research and reporting skills? The challengeis to bridge these two broad educational traditions – simultaneously empowering geogra-phers to help shape their world, and providing designers with spatial data enabling moreinformed design decisions.

4 T. Paradis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

It is unlikely in the short-term that a new geodesign ‘discipline’ will emerge on equalterms as those already established, such as geography or landscape architecture. Instead,it is more realistic to encourage broader participation in geodesign by exploring opportu-nities within existing curricula and academic structures. In his recent White Paper, Miller(2012) suggests that the future of geodesign will be rooted in four challenges: (1) devel-oping a comprehensive understanding of geodesign; (2) developing a design-centric GIStechnology; (3) applying that technology to a wide variety of geospatial design problems;and (4) establishing a discipline of geodesign, both in practice and in academia. It is thefourth challenge that provides the focus for this paper. Though a distinct and separate dis-cipline may or may not emerge with time, we support a more realistic, gradual approachto geodesign education that can manifest through various combinations of existingcourses, curricula, and disciplines. This view parallels that of Miller, who envisionsgeodesign as a ‘discipline of substance’ that is teachable ‘within the context of variouscurricula offered by academic institutions and instantiated in professions’ (Miller 2012,31), Just as good designs should consider the geospatial context in which they areplanned, geodesign education will need to remain flexible to allow for integration intocountless existing academic structural contexts.

The remainder of this paper highlights three well-established paradigms of highereducation that can inform a geodesign-oriented curriculum, regardless of disciplinarycontext. These include (1) learner-centered education (LCE), (2) outcomes assessment,and (3) curriculum design (Figure 1). The conceptual model in Figure 1 provides a visualframework that situates these three areas with respect to one another, and with respect toa hypothetical geodesign curriculum. The learner-centered paradigm of education is mosteffective when embedding approaches to assess student learning. Outcomes-basedassessment helps assure that effective learning is occurring, and informs the continuousimprovement of the curriculum. This integration is indicated with their overlapping ovalsin Figure 1. Learner-centered pedagogies are viewed here as inputs to geodesign

Figure 1. Conceptual model of curriculum design.Source: Tom Paradis.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

curricular components, while assessment of student learning outcomes provides evidenceto inform future curricular decisions. This cycle of curricular inputs and outcomes isrepresented by the arrows. Encompassing this entire cycle is the realm of curriculumdesign, which requires a consideration of learner-centered pedagogies and outcomesassessment to maximize the educational effectiveness of the entire curriculum.

The second purpose in this paper is to demonstrate one academic case wherebygeodesign can be inserted into an existing curricular and academic structure. Given thatall three aforementioned educational paradigms transcend traditional disciplinaryboundaries, the case presented herein does not demand replication with respect to actualacademic disciplines or structures. Instead, the intent here is to reveal how one or moreenthusiastic faculty members and/or academic leaders can find opportunities within theirown academic contexts to develop some initial geodesign pedagogies that can bedeveloped further in the future if desired. These approaches are therefore available to alldisciplines and academic programs as they variously integrate interdisciplinary learningopportunities with locally derived geodesign goals.

Specifically, we discuss the case of Northern Arizona University (NAU) in Flagstaff,where a new BS degree program was launched in fall 2011. This example illustrates howcurriculum design approaches, LCE, and outcomes assessment can inform efforts tointegrate geodesign concepts into academic programs. This particular case involves arecent and comprehensive curriculum design project through which three separate degreeprograms were merged into one. The new BS major is called Geographic Science andCommunity Planning (henceforth GSP). With its official rollout in fall 2011, the GSPdegree includes core course requirements and two optional emphasis areas illustrated inFigure 2. Through an exploration of this major, we make a specific case for geodesigneducation as a platform for promoting learner-centered approaches that instill deeplearning and higher-order thinking skills. We conclude the paper with some ‘places tostart,’ providing some realistic ideas for others considering geodesign approaches withintheir own academic programs and units.

Applying learner-centered education and assessment

The interdisciplinary concept of geodesign holds tremendous potential to adopt andshowcase the tenets of learner-centered education (LCE) and assessment. This ongoingshift from teaching ‘inputs’ to student learning ‘outcomes’ constitutes one of the moresignificant directions of higher education today. Endorsed by prominent leaders andtheorists in higher education (Huba and Freed 2000), this collective shift to LCE haschallenged earlier and persistent assumptions about teaching and learning. ‘Learning isnot a spectator sport,’ advised Chickering and Gamson (1987, 3) more than two decadesago. Students do not learn much just by sitting in class listening to teachers, memorizingpre-packaged assignments, and spitting out answers. They must talk about what they arelearning, write about it, relate it to past experiences, apply it to their daily lives. Ratherthan asking ‘What do I want to teach?’ in a consistently lecture-style classroom setting,teachers are encouraged to ask ‘What should our students be learning, and how can Ifacilitate that learning?’

Given its interdisciplinary nature, geodesign education will likely require somecombination of the following knowledge, skills, and perspectives: (1) geography andgeospatial sciences, (2) one or more design professions, (3) geospatial techniques,especially GIS, (4) ecology and sustainability, and (4) public participation and profes-sional communication skills. While knowledge and understanding of traditional academic

6 T. Paradis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

content will continue to provide a vital base for student learning, effective geodesign edu-cation will demand hands-on, applied, skills-based approaches that encourage higher-order learning skills and problem-solving abilities. In short, students should be ‘doing’geodesign rather than passively watching it. For these purposes, the pedagogies of LCEare well suited.

Since the 1980s numerous ideas and research have emerged to encourage deeper andmore lasting learning. A paradigm shift toward LCE represents a fundamental change infocus that relies less on instruction and teaching inputs (the teaching paradigm) and moreon producing learning outcomes (the learning paradigm). The spotlight has consequentlyshifted variously from teacher to student (Weimer 2002). When teaching is learner-cen-tered, the role of the teacher changes; teachers become more engaged as they guide, facil-itate, and design meaningful learning experiences beyond the traditional lectern. Aseminal, oft-cited article by Barr and Tagg (1995) described this transformation and pro-vided the foundation for future work. Fink (2003, 18) adjusts this by inviting institutions

Figure 2. Curriculum map for the BS Geographic Sciences & Community Planning (GSP)degree.Source: Tom Paradis.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

not only to ‘produce learning,’ but also to ‘produce significant learning.’ From an LCEperspective, attention is placed on ‘what the student is learning, how the student is learn-ing, the conditions under which the students are learning, whether the student is retainingand applying the learning, and how current learning positions the student for future learn-ing’ (Weimer 2002, xvi). This paradigm focuses more attention on what the student isdoing rather than what the teacher is doing, and it places a greater responsibility uponstudents to achieve learning objectives.

Huba and Freed (2000, 36) explain that students in learner-centered environments:

learn course material that promotes deep understanding. They are told the intended learningoutcomes of their course or program, and they are encouraged to formulate their own learn-ing goals. They complete assignments that require them to seek out, organize, describe, anduse new information as these activities are carried out in their disciplines. They explore,research, make choices, and explain, and this helps them develop an understanding of thediscipline that matches that of experts in the field.

LCE has been endorsed by prominent leaders and theorists in higher education (Huba andFreed 2000), thereby challenging our previous assumptions about teaching and learning.This gives rise to an enhanced attention to so-called higher-order thinking skills that movebeyond rote memorization and basic acquisition of content knowledge. One practicalhandbook for college teachers by Angelo and Cross (1993) provides multiple chapters onhow to assess and encourage formative development of these skills, which variouslyinclude analysis, synthesis, critical thinking, creative thinking, problem-solving, applica-tion, evaluation, and performance. They further emphasize the need to promote the skill ofmetacognition, that of teaching students how to think about their own thinking and learn-ing. Metacognition can be accomplished through the process of reflection, which in turnencourages students to become self-directed learners – contributing ultimately to life-longlearning. According to Suskie (2009), the practice of reflection is increasingly valued inhigher education as students are asked to reflect on aspects of their own growth and devel-opment, their own personal experiences that tie into course material, their own personalvalues and perspectives, and their satisfaction in what they are or are not learning.

Reflection assists most prominently in the development of two specific, higher-orderskills: metacognition and synthesis. Suskie (2009, 185) succinctly connects the role ofreflection with the increasingly important goal of life-long learning: ‘Metacognition islearning how to learn and how to manage that learning by reflecting on how you learnbest, thereby preparing for a lifetime of learning.’ The development of life-long learningskills constitutes a vital component of the learner-centered paradigm. In an ever-moredynamic and complex world where collective knowledge is expanding, it is not realisticto expect teachers to impart everything students need to know within the span of anundergraduate program. Students must be able to continue learning beyond their formaleducation, and understand why this skill is vital for success in our society. Add to thatour burgeoning electronic environments, and today’s learners must be able to synthesizelarge quantities and sources of information into meaningful, succinct sets of knowledgethat are useful for applied purposes such as problem-solving.

Both Suskie (2009) and Angelo and Cross (1993) provide practical approaches forembedding reflection assignments into teaching and assessments. Others offer additionalpractitioner literature to guide the teaching and assessment of higher-order skills. Bean(2001) focuses on integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning into classroompedagogies; Staley (2003) promises no less than 50 ways to leave your lectern; Barkley,

8 T. Paradis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

Cross, and Major (2005) provide a handbook on collaborative learning techniques;and Doyle (2008) discusses approaches to make students more comfortable in a learner-centered environment. These all provide useful resources for faculty who wish to explorefurther the facets of LCE and to stimulate potential connections with geodesigneducation.

The learner-centered paradigm further tames the incessant impulse to ‘cover content.’In one study, when students memorized facts and focused merely on discrete elements ofreadings, they failed to differentiate between evidence and information, were unreflective,and perceived the work as an external imposition (Weimer 2002). This traditional,teacher-centered approach has been characterized as surface learning by Marton andSaljo (1976; updated by Marton, Hounsell, and Entwistle 1997). Conversely, whenstudents focused on the author’s meanings, related new information to their own experi-ences, and worked to organize and structure the content, they achieved what Marton andSaljo characterized as deep learning. Students do not develop sophisticated learning skillswhen they are merely exposed to disciplinary content. Rather, these higher-order skillsmust be taught, and regular practice with these skills is necessary to develop self-directed,life-long learners. That said, lecturing still retains an important role in LCE. The mostuseful purpose of lecturing in a learner-centered context is to explain and elaborate uponideas and concepts not easily learned on their own (Doyle 2008).

In concert with the shift to LCE, the Association of American Colleges and Universities(AACU) (2007) issued a report entitled College Learning for the New Global Century thatidentified ten innovative, ‘high-impact’ practices that focus on learner-centered, experien-tial, and/or active learning strategies. These ten practices included, in no particular order,first-year seminars, common intellectual experiences, learning communities, writing-inten-sive courses, collaborative projects, undergraduate research, diversity/global learning,service learning, internships, and capstone courses (AACU 2007). Despite the wealth ofevidence in support of learner-centered approaches, the AACU report laments that thesepractices are ‘neither widespread in higher education nor part of the average collegestudent’s educational experience’ (Brownell and Swaner 2010). A synopsis of thismultidisciplinary, peer-reviewed research is provided in Brownell and Swaner’s (2010)report entitled Five high-Impact Practices: Research on Learning Outcomes, Completion,and Quality. They elaborate upon five of the ten practices in more detail, those of first-yearseminars, learning communities, service learning, undergraduate research, and capstonecourses and projects.

The powerful combination of LCE and high-impact practices holds implications forpreparing students to engage with the problem-solving goals of geodesign. Althoughteachers rightly continue to cherish the intrinsic value of learning for ‘learning’s sake,’the severe reality is that higher education is increasingly scrutinized for its slowness toimprove student readiness for the 21st century, with respect to employment specifically,and for responsible local and global citizenship, generally (for starters, see Keller 2008;Nussbaum 2010; and Zemsky 2010). From an employment perspective, Peter hart (Hart2008) captured the sentiments of employers in a national survey conducted at the behestof the AACU. While nearly two-thirds of business executives believed that all or mostrecent college graduates were adequately prepared for entry-level positions, the remainingone-third claimed that a significant proportion of college graduates lack the requisiteskills and knowledge. And, in no specific skill area did business executives give recentgraduates exceptionally strong marks.

According to Hart, areas for which graduates are in the most need of improvementincluded global knowledge (only 18% of respondents claimed that graduates were ‘very


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

well prepared’), self-direction (23%), writing (26%), critical thinking (22%), andadaptability (24%). Although rated the highest, only 30–39% of respondents believedgraduates were ‘very well prepared’ in the areas of teamwork (39%), ethical judgment(38%), intercultural skills (38%), social responsibility (35%), quantitative reasoning(32%), and oral communication (30%). To improve the skills necessary for employment,respondents strongly endorsed the types of active-learning, real-life assignments promotedthrough the LCE paradigm. Most effective, they claimed, are senior projects that demon-strate depth of knowledge, problem-solving, analysis, and reasoning skills. Similarly, theyhighly valued real-life opportunities including supervised/evaluated internship or commu-nity-based projects in which students can apply college learning to real-world settings.Other effective strategies and assessments included advanced comprehensive senior pro-jects, integrative essay tests, and electronic portfolios. Least effective are multiple-choicetests of general content knowledge. While 69% of executives viewed internship/commu-nity-based projects as ‘very effective,’ only 7% viewed multiple-choice tests similarly.

Closer to the disciplines of geography and the design professions, a study of alumniand employers was published by Solem, Cheung, and Schlemper (2008) in which 280geography and planning-related alumni and employers were asked how frequently theyapplied (1) general academic skills and (2) specific geographic skills. Findings revealedthat general skills, comparable with those discussed above, were applied more frequentlythan any area of geographic skill. At least 75% of respondents claimed that skills relatedto communication, writing, critical thinking, and problem-solving were ‘always or veryoften’ needed to perform their jobs. At the top of the list was time management (91%),followed closely by writing skills (88%), critical thinking (86%), problem-solving skills(84%), computer and technology skills (83%), and creative thinking (83%). Regardinggeographic-related skills, the highest rated were spatial thinking (73%), followed distantlyby interdisciplinary perspectives (64%), GIS (58%), cartography (53%), field methods(52%), human–environment interaction (48%), and global perspectives (45%). All thesegeneral and geographic skills are likewise relevant for developing student competence ingeodesign-related thinking and tasks.

Regarding the study’s second survey, aimed at existing employers, respondents wereasked to review the provided set of skill areas and to indicate which skills were necessaryto perform their jobs. With respect to the top five geographic skill areas most highlyvalued, GIS, cartography, and spatial thinking were cited across all four sectors ofemployment (higher education, government, for-profit, and non-profit companies). Othergeographic skills cited in the top-five list for one or more sectors included human–envi-ronment interaction, global perspective, spatial statistics, field methods, economic geogra-phy, and interdisciplinary and diversity perspectives. With respect to general skillsviewed as necessary in the workplace, those most prominent in the top-five lists for oneor more employment sectors included critical thinking, writing, adaptability, computertechnology, visual presentation, self-awareness, creative thinking, ethical practices, quanti-tative skills, problem-solving, teamwork, and project management. The authors cautioned,however, that ‘there was less consistency among employers in their assessment of thegeneral skill areas and related competencies of the workforce’ as compared with theirresponses regarding geographic skill areas (Solem, Cheung, and Schlemper 2008, 369).Above all, the authors concluded, ‘professionals need to be good managers, communica-tors, writers, and problem solvers,’ whereas specialized knowledge in geographic skills‘often varies’ (370). They go on to site a study (Mistry, White, and Berardi 2006) thatsubstantiated their own findings, whereby British geography professionals ‘agreed thatskills related to communication, financial management, adaptability, working in teams,

10 T. Paradis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

and the ability to acquire and analyze information were most commonly applied in theirprofessional positions’ (Solem, Cheung, and Schlemper 2008, 370).

Learner-centered education for geodesign

The aforementioned trends in higher education are intersecting with the recent emergenceof geodesign. Students of geodesign will need to develop skills in creative reasoning,teamwork, and problem-solving if they are effectively to design future buildings, neigh-borhoods, and more livable cities. Before they can effectively design and communicate,students need to be versed in a variety of qualitative and quantitative research methods toconduct analyses on existing places and sites. Local environmental situations and ecolo-gies need to be assessed, human–environmental impacts documented, geographic contextsconsidered, and local residents solicited for input. There will be a need to synthesize andcommunicate these findings spatially through various GIS and related techniques. Inte-grated within all these skills will be a continuing foundational knowledge of physical andhuman geography, sense of place and place attachment, sustainable development, appliedarchitecture and urban design approaches, and other relevant cross-disciplinary content.Doug Walker (Walker 2011), President and Principal of Placeways, LLC, summarized theimperative for such hands-on skills and knowledge, cautioning that:

even a perfect classroom record won’t guarantee a new graduate a job interview unless thereis some real-world experience to go with it. Geodesign is not just a technical exercise. It’sabout making GIS, models, data, and science available to ordinary people in a way theycan actually use. A student who hasn’t worked with that part of it hasn’t really learnedgeodesign.

In concert with problem-solving skills is the multidisciplinary, ecological imperative of ageodesign education. All designs will alter and perhaps damage the natural world incountless, unforeseen ways, necessitating that students gain a strong ecological founda-tion from the liberal arts and environmentally oriented curricula. According to David Orr(Orr 2006, 51), the ‘design professions such as architecture, landscape architecture, andurban planning are first and foremost practical liberal arts with technical aspects.’ Takingthis further, geodesign is not only about training designers to learn geographical researchskills to inform decisions, but also to benefit from an ecological education that can in partbe supplied by the liberal arts. Studies in economics, ethnic and gender studies, history,political science, and philosophy can broaden the otherwise technical education receivedby future designers, more specifically honed with instruction about energy and waterbalances, biogeography, lithospheric processes, construction materials, and the ecologyand cultures of local places.

Further, a portion of future lessons regarding sustainable design will be learned fromthe periphery, from societies at the margins of power and influence. Local, vernacular tra-ditions have provided immensely successful models of responsible, ecologically appropri-ate community designs, architecture, and agricultural systems. Such vernacular lessonsfor geodesigners ‘would help us become mindful of ecological relationships and engageour places creatively’ (Orr 2006, 50). Given the limited number of credit hours availablefor undergraduate degrees, these educational arenas provide opportunities to tap intooft-ignored general education courses that typically number in the hundreds at largerinstitutions. Students can be advised, or steered, into various course topics anddepartments to satisfy general education requirements while simultaneously making theseofferings more meaningfully related to the major.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

In their book Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses (2000, 5), Hubaand Freed provided a comparison of the teacher-centered and learner-centered paradigmsof education. As a way to summarize this section, Table 2 enhances their work byamending their original two columns and adding a third column that suggests how geode-sign education can apply learner-centered approaches. By no means comprehensive,Table 2 serves as a starting point to envision an alignment between geodesign and LCE.Several overarching assumptions play out of this vision. Namely, the primary (not theonly!) focus rests on outcomes of student learning rather than on the traditional inputs ofteaching. Teachers serve as facilitators that promote student construction and explorationof their own learning. Consequently, the tireless motive to ‘cover content’ is morebalanced in favor of expecting students to integrate relevant disciplinary knowledge intoauthentic assignments that demonstrate higher-order thinking skills. Clearly, the applied,hands-on character of geodesign is well suited to variously adopt elements of the LCEparadigm.

Practical applications of LCE can be established by individual faculty members andintegrated over time into existing courses and student assignments. The general ideasshown in Table 1 indicate the types of teaching approaches, student activities, and assess-ment tools that can be useful for building upon existing course-level practices. One prom-ising intersection between LCE and geodesign appears to be rooted in the facilitative,team-based studio approach, whereby the instructor serves as a facilitator rather thanmerely a disseminator of information; students construct their own knowledge throughresearch of existing conditions; students learn from their peers through collaborativelearning and problem-solving; student teams share and present their collective designsthrough various deliverables, such as city staff reports, professional presentations, or pos-ter sessions; and students gain intermittent feedback from faculty and/or other profession-als through formative assessment techniques such as scoring rubrics or classroomcharrettes. Moreover, the studio format encourages abductive thinking – that is, lateralthinking that creatively envisions future conditions (Hargrove 2011; Miller 2012).

Studio-based teaching is familiar to the design professions, though much less so inthe geospatial sciences. The integration of collaborative, term-length projects into existingcourses is a promising place for faculty to begin a geodesign approach. Numerous exam-ples of efforts toward this end were demonstrated at the 2012 and 2013 Geodesign Sum-mits, during which one 2012 panel presentation was recorded and remains publiclyavailable online (Fisher 2012). Much of this work, representing a variety of institutionalsettings and disciplines, demonstrated variations of course-level studio teaching. In KarenHanna’s graduate studio at Cal Poly Pomona, students integrate GIS data to inform alow-impact development (LID) project in San Antonio. The project requires students towork within and between three dominant scales in geodesign: the regional scale, localscale, and site scale. Across the continent is Jim Querry, who represented PhiladelphiaUniversity, having unveiled a Geodesign Master’s program by 2013. Querry emphasizedits program’s interdisciplinary nature and its focus on probably two studio-based experi-ences. At the undergraduate level, Janet Silbernagel described her regional design studiocourse in landscape architecture at the University of Wisconsin – Madison. She expectsstudents to demonstrate competency in synthesizing numerous realms of knowledge andthinking spatially through landscape analysis and regional design. Ming-Chun Lee at theUniversity of Texas – Austin takes his studio course to the local community and invitescharrette-style conversations and public participation to assist with student-led urbandesign projects. Likewise, our senior capstone studio at NAU – now with a dedicatedclassroom space – expects student teams to create a draft site plan and 3D digital model


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

Table 1. Comparison of teacher- and learner-centered approaches with suggested applications forgeodesign education.

Teacher-centeredparadigm Learner-centered paradigm Learner-centered geodesign

Knowledge transmittedpassively fromprofessor to students

Students actively constructknowledge through gathering andsynthesizing information anddemonstrate it through academicskills and projects

Students interpret datasets, conductfieldwork, and gather public inputto construct geographicalinformation system (GIS) maps,three-dimensional (3D)visualizations, research posterdisplays, site plans, etc.

Emphasis is onacquisition ofknowledge outside itscontext of use

Emphasis is on using andcommunicating knowledgeeffectively to address issues andproblems in real-life contexts

Course projects focus oninterpreting and understandingreal-life community and globalissues, and communicatingrelevant information throughcartographic, 3D, and writtenscenarios

Professor’s role isprimary informationgiver and evaluator

Professor’s role is to coach andfacilitate

Professor provides relevantexamples, standards, guidance, andregular feedback to studentsworking through applied mapping,research, and design assignments

Teaching and assessingare separate andsummative

Teaching and assessing areintertwined and formative

Students practice and demonstratetheir research, communication, anddesign skills through appliedprojects assessed at regularintervals throughout the process

Assessment is used tomonitor learning

Assessment is used to promoteand diagnose learning

Assessment tools such as scoringrubrics provide consistent andregular feedback on geographicresearch, mapping, and designprojects to promote improvement

Emphasis is on rightanswers

Emphasis is on generating betterquestions and learning from errors

Students learn to ask intelligentquestions to provide informedcontext, using simulationtechnologies or related approachesto detect fallacies in designs

Desired learning isassessed primarilythrough objectivelyscored tests

Desired learning is assesseddirectly through papers, projects,performances, posters, portfolios,and the like

Students are assessed on theirabilities to integrate spatial andenvironmental knowledge intoauthentic products such as 3Ddioramas, GIS maps, researchposters, mock presentations to citystaff, site plans, social media, etc.

Focus is on a singlediscipline

Approach is compatible withinterdisciplinary investigation

Students move through aninterdisciplinary curriculum thatintegrates knowledge and skillsfrom geography, geo-techniques,one or more design professions,and sustainable communitydevelopment

(Continued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

of a parcel in Flagstaff poised for mixed-use development. Through these and relatedcourses, educators are demonstrating the fundamental importance of the studio experienceas an effective learner-centered approach. Given their emphasis on team-based problem-solving and collaborative skills to design realistic local projects, these studio formats canalign particularly well with geodesign educational aims.

Integrating geodesign into the curriculum

Course-level efforts in geodesign education represent a promising and practical direction,regardless of discipline. Individual instructors can tweak existing courses and assignmentswithout disrupting existing curricular expectations or requiring multiple levels of inputand approval. Beyond the course level, however, there exists an initially small but

Table 1. (Continued).

Teacher-centeredparadigm Learner-centered paradigm Learner-centered geodesign

Culture is competitiveand individualistic

Culture is cooperative,collaborative, supportive, andinclusive

Students work in teams tocollaborate constructively, learnfrom one another in the field, andconsider and question creativepeer approaches for designingmore livable places

Only students areviewed as learners

Professors and students learntogether

Professors encourage students toresearch and share their ownknowledge about people andplaces that provides context for avariety of future design scenarios

Emphasis is ontransmittingdisciplinary contentand covering material

Emphasis is on learning criticalthinking, evaluation, andinformation literacy skills thatpromote life-long learning

Students learn specific geo-technologies and research methodsto enable adaptability to futuregeodesign approaches andcomputer applications

Note: Adapted from Huba and Freed (2000), 5.

Table 2. The Student Learning & Curriculum Design (SLCD) process at Northern ArizonaUniversity with the Geographic Science and Community Planning (GSP) degree timeline.

Curriculum design phase Time frame for GSP

(1) Identification of learning outcomes within the existingcurriculum

January–May 2009

(2) Alignment with accreditation body/university goals Bypassed(3) Curriculum mapping of the existing degree program August 2009–February 2010(4) Curriculum redesign March–November 2010(5) Materials submitted to college/university curriculum committees December 2010–March 2011Official launch of BS Geographic Science & Community Planning August 2011(6) Development of advising supplement or major’s handbook January September 2012(7) Revision of the degree program’s outcomes assessment plan January–May 2012


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

growing community of higher education institutions that are driving toward their ownversions of comprehensive geodesign curricula, in various phases of development. Exist-ing and future programs – representing both online and in-person degree programs at thegraduate and undergraduate levels – are emerging as the vanguard of geodesign educationin the United States. Those represented at the 2012 and 2013 Geodesign Summitsincluded the University of Arizona, California State Polytechnic University, the Univer-sity of Minnesota, NAU, the Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia University, theUniversity of Redlands, the University of Southern California, and the University ofWisconsin. This list will undoubtedly continue to grow.

In this section we highlight our own experience at NAU, where faculty took advan-tage of an existing interdisciplinary academic unit to infuse geodesign into a reconstitutedundergraduate degree program. As Figure 1 shows, effective curriculum design in highereducation – regardless of discipline or institutional size – necessarily requires a holistic,comprehensive approach that integrates the best practices of LCE and assessment.

The Department of Geography, Planning & Recreation at NAU was selected in fall2009 to participate in the university’s Student Learning & Curriculum Design (SLCD)initiative, sponsored by the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and facilitated by theOffice of Academic Assessment. The process involved a thorough curriculum mappingeffort that encouraged the geography and planning faculty members to document andunderstand how learning outcomes are stranded, or scaffolded, through the curriculum.The original initiative to create a merged degree was based on the retirement of twofaculty members to a university retirement buyout program, without replacements. Theresulting mandate was clear: consolidate the department’s separate geography, planning,and GIS degrees into one efficient and manageable undergraduate program that could beadequately staffed by the existing faculty. Therefore, the drive to create a mergedundergraduate degree was not initially based on a desire to incorporate geodesignelements; rather, it became clear during the process that the GSP faculty was wellsituated to do so.

NAU unveiled its SLCD initiative in 2008, which was rooted in three overarchinggoals: (1) to improve the use of external and internal reporting processes for data-drivenstrategic planning by academic departments; (2) to develop and improve learner-centeredteaching and assessment approaches by a wider range of academic departments and fac-ulty; and (3) to connect discussions of curriculum and student learning with strategicplanning at the department and university levels.

Achieving these goals required a gentle yet persuasive approach that could transformfaculty belief systems regarding their role in traditional, teacher-centered curricula. Suchbelief systems are referred to as ‘mental models’ by leading experts in change manage-ment and organization development initiatives that involve topics of assessment, curricu-lum development, and strategic planning. Four mental models were consequentlyintegrated into the broader SLCD approach: (1) identification of practical assessmenttechniques as a constant feedback loop, wherein periodic incoming information is usedfor curricular improvement; (2) application of curriculum mapping approaches to providefaculty with an experience of intentional, strategic curriculum design that accomplishesfaculty-driven learning outcomes; (3) engagement of the faculty in the aforementionedlearner-centered strategies to improve the relevance of student learning for the 21stcentury; and (4) transformation of faculty perceptions of their degree program from asilo- or specialization-mentality to a systems-thinking, or degree-program mentality(Senge 2000). All four mental models align closely with the curricular requirements ofgeodesign education.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

Program-level curriculum design processes from Stiehl (2005) and Diamond (2008)provided the foundation to develop curriculum mapping tools for participating programs.Serving as the Assistant Director for the Office of Academic Assessment, Melinda Tremlfacilitated and managed the SLCD process for all participating programs and providedthe necessary guidance and facilitation for the GSP project discussed herein. The SLCDprocess at NAU involves seven successive phases of activities, namely: (1) identification/full articulation of learning outcomes within existing curricula; (2) alignment with accred-itation body/university goals; (3) curriculum mapping of the existing degree program; (4)curriculum redesign; (5) materials submitted to college/university curriculum committees;(6) development of an advising supplement or major’s handbook; and (7) revision of thedegree program’s outcomes assessment plan (Table 2).

The first phase asks the faculty to articulate course- and lesson-level learningoutcomes that transparently displays everything students are expected to learn within theexisting programs. This provides a baseline for the creation of a detailed curriculum mapin Phase 3. It is imperative that all program faculty members not only participate in thislengthy exercise, but also trust one another to reveal what is being taught within theircourses. An Excel spreadsheet was provided for faculty members to indicate their owndetailed lists of learning outcomes within their courses. The survey also asked each fac-ulty member to estimate whether each outcome was taught at the beginner, intermediate,or advanced (undergraduate) level of proficiency, along with how frequently each topicwas taught. Following the compilation of all faculty surveys, this process resulted insome 14-pages of single-spaced learning outcomes that numbered in the hundreds – not atrivial task. Several successive deadlines and meetings were required to finalize the col-lective outcomes list. What emerged, however, was our first-ever comprehensive view ofthe existing curricula based on what everyone taught and emphasized in their courses.

The relative ease of collaboration and transparency among the GSP faculty memberswas fortunate – and necessary. Still, this process enhanced everyone’s knowledgeregarding each other’s own teaching strategies and priorities. It stimulated deeper,ongoing conversations among faculty members – including spontaneous hallway chatsand planned meetings – related to various aspects of the curriculum. This elevatedfrequency of discussion provided vital inter-program communication that later enabledthe scaffolding of knowledge and skills throughout the revised major. Given that theoriginal degree programs were not professionally accredited, Phase 2 was essentiallybypassed, allowing the faculty to move into Phase 3 of curriculum mapping.

The primary effort with Phase 3 was accomplished by Melinda Treml and the Officeof Academic Assessment. Melinda compiled all completed faculty surveys from Stage 1and constructed a detailed, multicolored spreadsheet that consisted of all learningoutcomes on the vertical axis, mapped across the ideal, four-year degree progression onthe horizontal axis. This revealed a color-coded, bivariate curriculum ‘map,’ or matrix,that provided useful information for curriculum revisions.1 The resulting matrix allowedthe faculty to identify curriculum gaps and redundancies, and to indicate key skills andknowledge that were common across two or three former degree programs. Conversely,the map revealed the areas of specialization unique to each of the degree-program areas.Given the complexity of the information, the faculty required some quality time tointerpret the data and discuss its meaning as a group.

The responsibility was returned to the faculty for Phase 4, whereby Melinda encour-aged small working groups of two or three individuals to consider carefully specific skillsand knowledge that should be emphasized in the revised curriculum. These groups alsoconsidered redundancies which gave rise to negotiations over who would be responsible


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

for teaching specific skills and content. Though admittedly a messy, somewhat chaoticprocess, faculty members could now address inefficiencies in the curriculum in whichtwo or more faculty members were actually teaching very similar material without inten-tional collaboration. In other cases, the decision was made to scaffold, or strand, specificskills throughout the curriculum from beginner to advanced levels of proficiency. Course-level literature provided guidance to scaffold learning, such that early, general knowledgeadequately prepared students for work in later areas of specialization (Ainsworth 2010;Fink 2003; Wiggins and McTighe 2005).

A point was reached where the occasional, impromptu conversations needed to coa-lesce into an actual course-based curriculum sequence (Table 2). This does not happenmagically or naturally, despite earlier phases of the curricular process. Creating a revisedcourse-based curriculum sequence comes with the risk that the faculty might naturallygravitate back into existing course structures that may or may not adequately representthe desired curriculum progression or learning outcomes. In reality, the GSP facultyaccomplished a little bit of both. Certain courses already contained the appropriate pack-age of outcomes, while other courses required new names, prefix numbers, syllabi, andapproaches. For instance, GSP 150 contained nearly all of the introductory physical geog-raphy outcomes that would serve as an important base for majors. Other courses, such asGSP 375W Community and Global Analysis, were reinvented essentially as new coursesthat emerged out of others slated for deletion. The faculty tweaked aspects of many othercourses, particularly their titles and specific outcomes that either moved to or from thecourses in question. Throughout this process, an educational tool no more complex thana large white board was often used to realign courses and outcomes, and to negotiate thesequence of courses within the curriculum.

This fluidity constituted the most unpredictable aspect of the curriculum design pro-cess, but also the most vital. It is during these conversations when all faculty membersare encouraged to provide input and ideas to improve the curriculum as a whole. It isimperative that all faculty members contribute in some way to the design, as they willultimately play a role in the success of the final curriculum. The ability to compromisetoward a group consensus is of the utmost importance. In the end, all participating facultymembers voted unanimously to accept the draft curriculum as it moved into the necessarypaperwork of Phase 5. A summary of the final GSP curriculum design highlights is pro-vided in Table 3, with the final degree progression or curriculum map represented earlierin Figure 2.

Alignment with a geodesign framework

It was at this point in the curriculum process that the GSP faculty gained full awarenessof geodesign, in January 2011. During a curriculum design meeting in fall 2010, MarkManone alerted the group about the upcoming 2011 GeoDesign Summit and suggestedthat someone attend. Tom Paradis returned with an enthusiastic report featuring the workof Dr. Carl Steinitz, whose presentation abstract stated that a ‘framework is needed toguide how collaboration might more effectively be organized to use scientific knowledgeto inform design outcomes’ (Steinitz 2011). Steinitz elaborated on the Framework at aworkshop for the ESRI International User Conference in July, 2011, attended by MarkManone. Steinitz’s most recent book, A Framework for Geodesign (2012), encapsulatesthe bulk of his work and recommendations (Steinitz 2012). In brief, his proposedframework includes four primary academic areas that provide for an interdisciplinarygeodesign process. These areas included: (1) geographic sciences; (2) design professions;


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

(3) information technologies; and (4) the people of the place. Steinitz defines the ‘people’as local stakeholders who ideally provide valuable and place-based input into futuredesign agendas.

Steinitz employed a Venn diagram to illustrate the intersection of the four areas asthey contribute to the geodesign process (Figure 3). To these authors, the general similar-ity between the Steinitz Framework and the evolving GSP degree program was uncannyand admittedly serendipitous. Consequently, the faculty seriously considered adding

Table 3. Highlights of the Geographic Science and Community Planning (GSP) curriculumredesign. The revised curriculum accomplishes the following goals as specified originally in therationale for combining majors.

Three undergraduate majors are combined into one degree. Based on the scaffolding of specific

Skills and knowledge areas from freshmen to senior level. Two optional emphasis areas provideadvanced knowledge and skills necessary for careers in community planning and/orgeographical information system (GIS) and geospatial sciences

Reduction of external prerequisite courses to those most essential for student progression withinthe degree: ENG 205 (to encourage writing across the curriculum) and STA 270 (backgroundin statistics to be applied later in the major)

Revision of the university-required junior-level writing (JLW) course (GSP 375W), which willprovide consistent writing and research skills for all students, in preparation for either seniorcapstone. Course pedagogy will satisfy the needs of students regardless of emphasis area incommunity planning or geospatial sciences

Approximately 25 undergraduate and graduate courses are being deleted from the catalog,allowing the full-time faculty to concentrate on teaching the revised major and emphasisareas. Several are reconstituted as ‘new’ courses that support the revised progression oflearning outcomes

Six credit hours of ‘experiential learning’ are now required, taking advantage of learner-centered, high-impact practices. Students choose one or more options from study abroad,internship, undergraduate research, or thesis project

Includes two 100-level freshman courses. GSP 150 Physical Geography (formerly GGR 250)and GSP 130 Mapping the World serve as entry-level, gateway courses for the major and aselectives within the university’s Liberal Studies Program. Both courses will attract freshmen tothe GSP major while introducing contemporary geo-techniques and geospatial knowledge andskills

Enhancement of the capstone courses. Two capstone courses (GSP 480C and 405C) have beenretained, requiring students to demonstrate their skills in research or applied design projectsprior to graduation. The capstones challenge students to demonstrate all four degree-programlearning outcomes

Enhancement of studio-based education. Opportunities for collaborative, team-based learning areenhanced through the studio model of teaching. Two courses (GSP 303 and 405C) areorganized around team-based site concept design projects, and other courses provideintroductory or short-term projects

Source: Tom Paradis.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

‘geodesign’ to the name of the new major, as an identity for the new degree program hadnot yet been determined. However, geodesign remains a relatively young concept on the(inter)national stage. This fact influenced the final consensus to retain a more familiarthough longer name, Geographic Science and Community Planning.

The GSP faculty considered the Steinitz Framework as a broad synthesis of the newcurriculum. By this time the faculty had tentatively agreed upon the revised major andtwo optional emphasis areas. An attempt was made by the authors to locate all of theGSP courses into the framework (Figure 3). Based loosely on course learning outcomes,their collective overlay onto the framework indicated the extent to which the GSP curric-ulum represented geodesign. Certain courses integrated three or four of the areas, such asGSP 303 Community Design & Preservation, placed near the center of the framework.Other courses are found closer to the periphery, depending upon their respective special-izations. If the spatial expression as a whole reflects the GSP curriculum, the new majorappears generally to dovetail with the Steinitz Framework. We include our overlay hereand invite others to improve the illustration’s design and usefulness.

As indicated in Figure 3, some courses may embed the full suite of geodesign areas,such as GSP 303, which expects students to conduct geographical research of a redevel-opment site and of its users, followed by team-based, mixed-use neighborhood designsillustrated through Google SketchUp. However, it is not necessary for all courses tolocate in the center of the diagram, as specific instructors and courses can specialize(GSP 150 or 201, as examples). Steinitz encourages some specialization, as he expectsmost students ultimately to specialize in one area of the framework. This is due in part tothe nature of traditional disciplines, which are still not easily integrated. Further, the

Figure 3. The Steinitz Geodesign Framework with GSP course numbers embedded. Courselocation is based on a qualitative estimate of their weighting toward one or more geodesign areas.Source: Tom Paradis, Mark Manone.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

attempt to produce experts in all four areas would not be realistic, which makes collabo-ration between these areas vital for success. The GSP faculty generally agrees, as theywill encourage students serious about future careers in either geospatial sciences/GIS orcommunity planning to continue into one of these two optional emphasis areas. Still, thecore GSP degree program is designed to provide a well-rounded and skills-basededucation that – as it turns out – pertains to all four areas of the Steinitz Framework.When intentionally designed around specific learning outcomes, we contend that anundergraduate curriculum of reasonable scope can effectively provide students with asolid basis in geodesign techniques and academic backgrounds.

This overlay exercise presented at least three challenges with respect to locating a cur-riculum within the framework: (1) academic skills such as communication and criticalthinking are difficult to situate within the diagram; (2) only the traditional course struc-ture is represented on the diagram, omitting the six credits of experiential learning andignoring alternative course choices; and (3) the diagram’s visual design can quicklybecome confusing with the addition of more text and explanation.

Pertaining to the second challenge, higher education is shifting incrementally towardthe aforementioned high-impact practices and various ‘post-course’ (Bass 2010) and‘post-enlightenment’ (Fisher 2011) structures. It will become increasingly challenging tolocate these more ambiguous structures into the Steinitz Framework given our ownsimplistic schema centered on traditional courses. In this case, for instance, the curricu-lum jumps into ‘post-enlightenment’ mode with a required six credits of ‘experientiallearning’ and additional opportunities for students to participate in authentic, real-lifeprojects and capstones. This can manifest in a complex array of forms and topics, frominternships to study abroad, and with academic emphasis pertaining to individual studentinterest. These issues will be left for others who might wish to expand upon this initialoverlay effort. Still, this visualization is instructive as a spatial way to understand theGSP curriculum from the perspective of geodesign.

A more refined alignment of the GSP degree program with the Steinitz Framework isshown in Table 4. Though not comprehensive, these more specific outcomes are dividedinto one of two categories, either knowledge or skills – which admittedly overlap. Alloutcomes within Table 4 are taught at novice or higher levels within the core GSP major.If students choose to continue with an 18-h emphasis, various knowledge and skills listedhere are revisited at the intermediate or advanced levels of learning. The quality ofeducation that constitutes each of the beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels wasdetermined by the faculty during the curriculum mapping process. These outcomes areaggregated from the comprehensive list of those identified during the curriculum mappingprocess.2 Some outcomes could certainly be placed within alternative categories.Moreover, the neatly arranged table does not adequately convey the interrelationshipsamong the outcomes themselves or within various learner-centered assignments. Table 4further indicates a balance between teaching content knowledge and applied skills,reflecting a learner-centered approach. Instead of abandoning content, it is interwovenmore intentionally into various real-life skills and student assignments to encouragedeeper learning and critical thinking. Like Figure 3, this tabular approach may be usefulfor other academic programs to take an inventory of their own learning outcomes andalign them with a similar geodesign framework.

The final phase of the SLCD process is the creation of a degree-program assessmentplan, centered on a broad set of student learning outcomes. The GSP faculty identifiedeight degree-program learning outcomes indicated in Table 5 and will continue toconstruct the advising handbook specified in Phase 6 of the SLCD process. These


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

Table4.

Alig

nmentof

theprim

aryGeographicScience

andCom

munity

Planning(G

SP)course-level

learning

outcom

eswith

thefour

areasof

the

Steinitz

Geodesign

Framew

ork.

Geodesign

areas

Geographicsciences

Designprofessions

Inform

ationtechnologies

Peopleof

theplace

Knowledgeand

concepts

Lith

ospheric

processesand

landform

sPlanninghistoryandtheory

Microsoftcomputer

managem

ent

Theoriesof

place

Atm

ospheric

system

s,clim

ate,

global

circulation,

weather

system

s,energy

budgets,and

clim

atechange

Urban

design

Fundamentalsof

GIS

Place

attachment

Hydrosphere,water

budgets,

ground

andsurfaceflow

Architectural

history

ArcGIS

Sense

ofplace

Biosphere

andbiogeography

New

urbanism

ArcGIS

Server

Dem

ographics

Hum

an–environment

relatio

nships

Moderndesign

Spatialanalysis

Migratio

n

Earth–S

ungeom

etry

Universal

design

Cartographicdesign

and

theory

Culturaldiffusion

Natural

hazards

Mixed

use/TND

Spatialdata

modeling

Politicaleconom

yCulturalandsocial

geography

TOD

Databases

Theoriesof

developm

entand

underdevelopment

Urban

morphology

LEEDs/greendesign

Enterprisegeo-databases

Com

munity

and

neighborhood

character

World

regions

Place-m

aking

File

geo-databases

Public–private

spaces

Globalization

Zoninghistoryandtheory

Raster

Socioeconom

icdifferences

Politicaleconom

yPerform

ance

andform

-based

codes

Vector

Cultural,ethnic,andgender

differences

Core–peripherymodels

Com

prehensive

plans

TIN

Geographicscale

Zoningandplanning

documents

Datastructures

Historicpreservatio

nCoordinatesystem

sOverlay

districts

Projections/datum

sAPA

ethics

code

Map

scale

(Contin

ued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

Table4.

(Contin

ued).

Geodesign

areas

Geographicsciences

Designprofessions

Inform

ationtechnologies

Peopleof

theplace

Suburbandevelopm

ent

Turning

inform

ationinto

know

ledge

Dow

ntow

nredevelopm

ent

Model

Builder

Housing

issues

Geo-statistics

Topology

rules

Imageprocessing

Working

with

remotely

sensed

data

Cloud

mapping

and

processing

GIS

andsocial

media

GIS

ethics

GIS

liability

Skills

and

applications

Researchandfieldmethods:

Write

staffreports

Proficiency

in/with

:Public

participation

techniques:

Surveys

Present

research

through

postersandPow

erPoint

show

s

MicrosoftOffice

Facilitatio

n

Interviews

Critiq

uesite

plans

GoogleSketchU

pWorkshops

Focus

groups

Critiq

ueurbandesigns

ArcGIS

Surveys

Content

analysis

CreateTOD,TND

designs

andsite

plans

GoogleEarth

Charrettes

Archivalanalysis

Use

andinterpretzoning

and

land

developm

entcodes

Wordpress

e-Com

munication

Participantobservation

Field

checksitesand

projects

Arc

View

Blogmanagem

ent

Landscape

analysis

Workeffectivelyin

team

s3-D

Analyst

Socialmedia

(Contin

ued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

Table

4.(Contin

ued).

Geodesign

areas

Geographicsciences

Designprofessions

Inform

ationtechnologies

Peopleof

theplace

Literature

review

sPresent

proposed

projectsto

city

staffandcommunity

groups

SpatialAnalyst

Com

munity

imagesurveys

Critical

reasoning

Model

Builder

Focus

groups

Quantitativ

ereasoning

Rem

otelysensed

data

processing

Walking

tours

Statistical

analysis

Python

Triangulatio

nArcObjects

Spatialstatistics

Dataim

portof

USCensus

Write

professional

research

reports

GIS

skills:layouts/charts/

graphs

CAD

transformation

Digitizing

ImportSketchU

pIm

portdatasets

Use

ofMSSuite

Tabletcomputeruse

Geo-referencing

Geo-databasedesign

Sou

rce:

Tom

Paradis,MarkManon

e.Notes:TND

=Traditio

nalNeigh

borhoo

dDevelop

ment.TOD

=TransitOrientedDevelop

ment.LEED

=Leadershipin

EnergyandEnv

iron

mentalDesign.

APA

=Amer-

ican

Plann

ingAssociatio

n.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

program-level outcomes are useful to communicate the intention of the degree programto students and other stakeholders, and to assess carefully its success with respect tostudent preparedness. Outcomes can be conceived at the lesson, course, degree program,or institutional levels, and it is generally recommended that degree-program assessmentplans include only a handful of broadly based outcomes for manageability purposes(Suskie 2009).

In this case, the eight GSP program outcomes given in Table 5 were determined bythe faculty and were integrated into a comprehensive degree-program assessment plan forimplementation during Academic Year 2012–13.3 Together they serve as a veritableroadmap for future curriculum decisions and serve as a reminder of the skills and knowl-edge our graduates should be able to demonstrate upon graduation. The ideal graduatewill be comfortable demonstrating these outcomes as they seek employment and makefurther contributions to community and society. This outcomes approach is furthersituated within our institutional context. Like many institutions of higher education in the

Table 5. Degree-program learning outcomes for the Geographic Science and CommunityPlanning (GSP) major.

1. Global awareness and engagementGSP graduates will be able to articulate how external or global processes influence andinteract with local places and development decisions

2. Sustainable environments and communitiesGSP graduates will be able to evaluate and design more sustainable and livable places whileconsidering the interrelationships between physical and human environments

3. Our diverse worldGSP graduates will be able objectively to appraise different perspectives and approachesoriginating from diverse places and physical environments

4. Written communicationGSP graduates will be able professionally to communicate synthesized knowledge, research,and designs through written products appropriate for diverse audiences and perspectives

5. Oral communicationGSP graduates will be able professionally to communicate synthesized knowledge, research,and designs through oral presentations for diverse audiences

6. Geospatial techniquesGSP graduates will be able to interpret, design, and produce quality two- (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) computer-generated maps and illustrations that communicate spatialknowledge at local, regional, and global scales

7. Planning and participationGSP graduates will be able to work effectively in teams to design more sustainable placesthrough the synthesis and input of various disciplinary and community perspectives

8. Research and analysisGSP graduates will be able to apply relevant qualitative and quantitative research methods toconduct scientific, objective inquiries at local, regional, and global scales


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

21st century, NAU expects all degree programs to maintain assessment plans specifying amanageable set of program-learning outcomes and related assessment techniques used tomeasure student learning on a regular cycle (Paradis and Hopewell 2010). Much of ourprevious assessment activity had been concentrated within the capstone courses, in whichscoring rubrics, reflective essays, and hard-copy portfolios were triangulated to assessstudent learning upon graduation (Paradis and Dexter 2007). A more detailed discussionof the evolving GSP assessment process and its findings may provide a useful topic for afuture article.

Discussion: multiple paths for geodesign education

One fundamental challenge of geodesign is to bridge traditional disciplinary boundariesof the geospatial sciences and the design professions. Coinciding with Miller’s (2012)suggestion, we recommend that the emerging concept of geodesign remain flexible toenable its integration into existing course-level and/or degree program-level academiccontexts. It remains unknown whether geodesign will develop into a stand-alonediscipline in the future. Current trends indicate that geodesign approaches will continuevariously to integrate into existing curricula and disciplines while taking advantage ofopportunities to invite interdisciplinary teaching and communication. With this paper wehave provided three promising and interrelated paradigms in higher education that cancontribute to intentional knowledge and skills-based development for students within anyexisting disciplinary structure. The case presented from NAU exemplifies one academiccontext that enabled a curriculum centered primarily on community planning, geospatialsciences, and GIS-related technologies. Other academic units and disciplinary structurescan provide their own opportunities to integrate geodesign approaches.

The LCE emphasis on outcomes might further encourage a diverse array of educa-tional approaches toward – and interpretations of – geodesign. This is due to the inherentflexibility of the outcomes approach. When faculty members are focused on developingstudent proficiencies – that is, on the outcomes of their education – the paths to achievethose outcomes remain potentially infinite. When faculty members voice concern over thepotential infringement of specific outcomes on their teaching approaches, the opposite isactually true. Once a series of course- or program-level outcomes has been determined bythe faculty, they enjoy freedom to explore a variety of pedagogies and topic areas thatalign most comfortably with faculty experience and interests. When the focus is on theoutcome, the faculty can take any reasonable educational path they wish to take.

This is why LCE can encourage creative and varied paths toward geodesign educa-tion, especially in this early period when definitions, concepts, and approaches are stillsorting themselves out. Rather than being ‘owned’ by specific academic departments ordisciplines, and rather than being constrained by rigid definitions at the onset of a poten-tially exciting opportunity for interdisciplinary work, geodesign should be explored andcreatively embedded into degree programs to the extent that faculties (and students) arecomfortable and interested. Local academic contexts and structures can be considered,and a focus on outcomes will encourage a diverse array of pedagogies that all variouslyarrive at a recognizable geodesign approach.

Conversely, academic programs considering how to integrate facets of geodesignwould be wise to determine their own interpretations from the outset. This may seem obvi-ous to avoid putting the proverbial cart before the horse, but it is certainly not trivial. AtNAU the GSP faculty identified three general characteristics of geodesign that fit nicelyinto the aforementioned learning outcomes and departmental context. As discussed above


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

in more detail, the NAU version of geodesign emphasizes: (1) interdisciplinary educationin geosciences and community planning; (2) skills and knowledge in geospatial techniquesand communications; and (3) an ecological imperative to promote more livable, sustain-able places. This may be a useful place to start for academic programs desiring to inven-tory their own curricula, whereby (1) faculty and students are already accomplishing theseaspects to a greater or lesser extent and (2) realistic opportunities exist to insert geodesignapproaches into specific lessons, courses, assignments, and – more intensely – relation-ships with other disciplinary groups outside the home department.

On the one hand, the GSP case discussed herein may represent a rather fortuitousacademic context already well situated to overlay a geodesign framework. Nearly all GSPfaculty members maintain educational and teaching backgrounds in both geography andplanning disciplines, buttressed by the legacy of a single academic unit that combinesgeography, planning, and GIS. Other, less integrated academic units will likely need toform relationships across administrative boundaries, adding further layers of political andlogistical considerations.

Notwithstanding these structural and contextual advantages enjoyed at NAU, the GSPfaculty still faces its own room for growth as measured against ideas for the future. Forinstance, the GSP faculty has discussed opportunities for incorporating computer-basedtabletop planning that could provide further opportunities for collaboration. In addition, aclassroom-sized space was recently acquired for use as a future Geodesign Studio.Faculty and students alike will need to develop teaching and learning approaches that arenow possible through this collaborative, interactive space. The first efforts towardinterdepartmental cooperation are being nurtured with faculty members in the College ofEducation who intend to incorporate universal design principles into the new studioroom. Further interest has been expressed by faculty members in civil engineering andconstruction management in developing collaborative course projects.

Consequently, the NAU version of geodesign education will evolve and continue toemphasize community planning over other design professions, whereas academicprograms elsewhere might take advantage of their own strengths in architecture,landscape architecture, engineering, and concentrated emphases in various geospatialsub-disciplines. It follows that geodesign education will likely continue to materializethrough as-yet unpredictable curricular paths given the local histories and legacies ofexisting programs and academic unit structures. Still, all these efforts may eventuallypoint to a core set of defining characteristics that ultimately bridge the geospatial sciencesand design professions to inform better decisions for place-making.

Notes1. For the multicolor curriculum maps for geography, GIS, and planning degrees, see http://geo-

designeducation.com/the-nau-approach/.2. For the full list of learning outcomes for the GSP major and its emphasis areas, see http://geo-

designgeodesigneducation.com/the-nau-approach/.3. For the full degree program assessment plan, see http://geodesigngeodesigneducation.com/the-

nau-approach/.

Note on contributors

Tom Paradis is Professor and Chair of Geography, Planning & Recreation at NorthernArizona University. He further served as the university’s Director of Academic Assessment2005–2011 and was appointed as a President’s Distinguished Teaching Fellow in 2011.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

http://geodesigneducation.com/the-nau-approach/

http://geodesigneducation.com/the-nau-approach/

http://geodesigngeodesigneducation.com




Melinda Treml previously served as research specialist in academic assessment and isnow the Associate Director for the Office of Curriculum, Learning Design and AcademicAssessment at Northern Arizona University. She led the creation of the Student Learning& Curriculum Design (SLCD) approach now used by the university, and she regularlyconsults with academic units on their curriculum design and assessment projects.

Mark Manone is Assistant Professor of Practice in the Department of Geography,Planning & Recreation at Northern Arizona University and co-manages the university’sGeospatial Research and Information Lab (GRAIL). He has served as an ESRI-authorizedGIS instructor (2003–2009) and teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in GIS andrelated geospatial technologies.

ReferencesAinsworth, L. 2010. Rigorous Curriculum Design: How to Create Curricular Units of Study That

Align Standards, Instruction, and Assessment. Englewood, CO: Lead & Learn Press.Angelo, T., and K. P. Cross. 1993. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College

Teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.Artz, M. 2010[1]. “Geodesign: New Concept or New Name?” Geospatial TODAY, February: 34–35.Artz, M. 2010[2]. “Changing Geography by Design. Chapter in Esri e-book, Changing Geography

by Design: Selected Readings in Geodesign.” Esri Press. Available from: http://www.esri.com/library/ebooks/geodesign.pdf [Accessed 20 June 2012].

Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2007. College Learning for the New GlobalCentury: A Report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America’sPromise. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Available from:at http://www.aacu.org/leap/hip.cfm [Accessed 1 July, 2011].

Barkley, E., K. Cross, and C. Major. 2005. Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook forCollege Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barnett, J. 2003. Redesigning Cities: Principles, Practice, Implementation. Chicago and Washing-ton, DC: Planners Press.

Barr, R. B., and J. Tagg. 1995. “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for UndergraduateEducation.” Change 27 (6): 13–25.

Bass, R. 2010. “E-Portfolios and the Problem of Learning in the Post-course era.” Available from:http://www.aacu.org/meetings/annualmeeting/AM10/documents/BassPowerPoint.pdf [Accessed10 June 2011].

Bean, J. C. 2001. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking,and Active Learning in the Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Brownell, J., and L. Swaner. 2010. Five High-Impact Practices: Research on Learning Out-comes, Completion, and Quality. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges andUniversities.

Chickering, A., and Gamson. 1987. “Seven Principles for Good Practice.” AAHE Bulletin, pp. 3–7.March.

Diamond, R. M. 2008. Designing and Assessing Courses and Curricula: A Practical Guide – 3rded. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Doyle, T. 2008. Helping Students Learn in a Learner-Centered Environment. Sterling, VA: Stylus.Fink, L. D. 2003. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Design-

ing College Courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Fisher, T. 2011. “The Infrastructure Needs of Geodesign.” Presentation at the 2011 Geodesign Sum-

mit, Redlands, CA. January 6-7. Available from: http://video.esri.com/watch/200/2011-geode-sign-summit-tom-fisher-the-infrastructure-needs-of-geodesigngeodesign [Accessed 1 July, 2011].

Fisher, T. 2012. “Geodesign Education: Where we are and where we are Going.” Presentation atthe 2012 Geodesign Summit, Redlands, CA. Available from: http://video.esri.com/watch/1009/geodesign-education-where-we-are-and-where-we-are-going [Accessed 26 June, 2012.]

Hargrove, R. 2011. “Fostering Creativity in the Design Studio: A Framework towards EffectivePedagogical Practices.” Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education 10 (1): 7–31.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013

http://www.esri.com/library/ebooks/geodesign.pdf


http://www.aacu.org/leap/hip.cfm

http://www.aacu.org/meetings/annualmeeting/AM10/documents/BassPowerPoint.pdf

http://video.esri.com/watch/200/2011-geodesign-summit-tom-fisher-the-infrastructure-needs-of-geodesigngeodesign

http://video.esri.com/watch/200/2011-geodesign-summit-tom-fisher-the-infrastructure-needs-of-geodesigngeodesign

http://video.esri.com/watch/1009/geodesign-education-where-we-are-and-where-we-are-going

http://video.esri.com/watch/1009/geodesign-education-where-we-are-and-where-we-are-going

Hart, P. 2008. How should Colleges Assess and Improve Student Learning? Employers’ views onthe accountability challenge. Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., on behalf of the Associa-tion of American Colleges and Universities.

Huba, M., and J. Freed. 2000. Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses: Shifting theFocus from Teaching to Learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Introduction in Changing geography by design, 2010. E-book, Esri Press. Available from: http://www.esri.com/library/ebooks/geodesign.pdf [Accessed 20 June 2012].

Keller, G. 2008. Higher Education and the New Society. Baltimore, MD: The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

Marton, F., and R. Saljo. 1976. “On Qualitative Differences in Learning – I: Outcome andProcess.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 46 (1): 4–11.

Marton, F., D. Hounsell, and N. Entwistle, eds. 1997. The Experience of Learning: Implicationsfor Teaching and Studying in Higher Education Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

McElvaney, S. 2012. Geodesign: Case Studies in Regional and Urban Planning. Redlands, CA:Esri Press.

McHarg, I. 1969/1992. Design with nature. John Wiley & Sons, Garden City, NY: Natural HistoryPress.

Miller, W. 2012. Introducing Geodesign: The Concept. White Paper. Redlands, CA: Esri Press.Mistry, J., F. White, and A. Berardi. 2006. “Skills and masters’ Level in Geography in Higher

Education: Teaching, Learning, and Applying.” Planet 16: 9–14.Nussbaum, M. 2010. Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. New Jersey: Princeton

University Press.Orr, D. W. 2006. Design on the Edge: The Making of a High-Performance Building. Cambridge:

MIT Press.Paradis, T., and L. Dexter. 2007. “Learner-Centered Teaching and Assessment in an Undergraduate

Field Analysis Course.” Journal of Geography 106 (4): 171–180.Paradis, T., and T. M. Hopewell. 2010. “Recognizing Progress in Degree-Program Assessment:

The Seals of Assessment Achievement and Excellence.” Assessment Update. July/August.Senge, P. 2000. “Systems Change in Education.” Reflections: The SoL Journal 1 (3): 52–60.Solem, M., I. Cheung, and M. B. Schlemper. 2008. “Skills in Professional Geography: An Assess-

ment of Workforce Needs and Expectations.” The Professional Geographer 60 (3): 356–373.Staley, C. 2003. 50 Ways to Leave your Lectern: Active Learning Strategies to Engage First-year

Students. Thompson Learning.Steihl, R. 2005. The Mapping Primer: Tools for Reconstructing the College Curriculum. Corvallis,

OR: The Learning Organization.Steinitz, C. 2011. A Framework for Geodesign. Abstract for presentation. Geodesign Summit, Red-

lands, CA. January 6–7.Steinitz, C. 2012. A Framework for Geodesign. Redlands, CA: Esri Press.Suskie, L. 2009. Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.Walker, D. 2011. The Geodesign Industry needs your Students. Available from: http://geode-

signgeodesigneducation.com/2011/06/27/the-geodesigngeodesign-industry-needs-your-students/[Accessed 8 July 2011].

Weimer, M. 2002. Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Wiggins, G., and J. McTighe. 2005. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Zemsky, R. 2010. Making Reform Work: The Case for Transforming American Higher Education.

New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

105.

225.

132.

234]

at 1

0:26

26

Aug

ust 2

013



http://geodesigngeodesigneducation.com/2011/06/27/the-geodesigngeodesign-industry-needs-your-students/

http://geodesigngeodesigneducation.com/2011/06/27/the-geodesigngeodesign-industry-needs-your-students/

Documents

on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability bJournal of ... · geodesign, Miller (2012) revealed how Frank Lloyd Wright (1867–1959), Richard Neutra