Computers in Geography TeachingAuthor(s): Craig E. WoodSource: Area, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Jun., 1991), p. 173Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20002964 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 10:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.154 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:54:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IBG Annual Conference 173

Computers in geography teaching Computers in Geography Teaching was organised by the Computers in Teaching Initiative Centre for Geography (CTICG), in collaboration with QMSG, to address the current progress in teaching geography using Information Technology (IT).

In Module 1 (Fact or Fiction?) Jonathan Darby (CTI Support Services) outlined the effects that the CBURC-funded Computers in Teaching initiative has had on education since its inception in the early 1980s. A realistic resume of advantages and disadvantages of CAL was presented, along with some of the blockages that one might encounter. This theme was con tinued by David Unwin (Leicester) who presented results and analysis of preliminary question naire returns about CAL use. He concluded that resources for promoting CAL in the UK had been spent badly and that there had been little use of it in geography outside the traditionally numerate areas of the discipline. What is required is a supportive environment to nurture and encourage developments in teaching of all kinds, including CAL. This point was extended by David Walker (Loughborough) who argued that computer literacy should be a basic skill that supports geography where it is appropriate.

Module 2 (Policy and Operation) was opened by Andrea Tapsfield (National Council for Educational Technology) who suggested that students educated under the National Curriculum will probably have better IT skills than many undergraduates and will force a change in the way computers are used in higher education. David Maguire (Leicester) then summarised the salient points of the CHEST Arc/Info arrangement which has provided an important software resource. The module was concluded by Stuart Farthing (Bristol Polytechnic) who presented the current controversies within the planning community over the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS), arguing that such systems should be judged on their ability to help answer policy questions and lead to discernable actions rather than their long term capability ro reduce the costs of teaching.

Module 3 (But does it work?) addressed some of the practicalities of using computers to teach geography. David Ebdon (Nottingham) outlined attempts by Paul Mather at Nottingham to produce an effective tool for teaching image processing. Answering the question in the module title provoked a YES/NO/DON'T KNOW response: better understanding (YES), 'cheaper' practicals (NO), proof of effectiveness (DON'T KNOW). These sentiments were echoed by David Green (Aberdeen) who presented his experiences teaching cartography using drawing packages on the Archimedes computer. A more positive answer came from Paul White (Huddersfield Polytechnic) whose use of computer aided design (CAD) systems for reservoir volume calculations has led to the result that students now spend more of their time learning geography and less time being schooled in the fundamentals of surveying. Using examples from

MINITAB, Daniel Griffith (Syracuse), contended that students could enhance their under standing of complex statistics using commercially available software without the need for teachers to invest in more 'traditional' CAL programs. Many of the necessary pieces of the jigsaw were already in place, and only required a small input of teacher time to produce

worthwhile educational resources. The final module (Is it worth it?) produced two papers that provoked considerable debate. First,

Robin Flowerdew (Lancaster) and Andrew Lovett (East Anglia) outlined some of the pitfalls of using CAL highlighting how Murphy's Law can be more applicable to CAL teaching than anything else. Exponents of CAL may have seen this as a slightly cynical view, but the authors argued that, more often than not, it was realistic. The final paper by Ifan Shepherd (Middlesex Polytechnic) provided a summary of the day's proceedings. He argued for appropriate use of computing technology. Throwing money at a problem will not necessarily make it go away, nor will adopting the latest technologies. A more effective approach is to use the available resources to support the learning process and help the student to learn in the best way that he/she can. He gave an appropriate conclusion to the day by suggesting' Shepherds Law' of CAL. This states that the educational effectiveness of any technology is inversely proportional to the square of the 'hype ' associated with it.

Craig E Wood University of Leicester

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.154 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:54:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions