Curriculum-Aligned Professional Development for Geospatial Education

  • Beth KubitskeyEmail author
  • Barry Fishman
  • Heather Johnson
  • Kirsten Mawyer
  • Daniel Edelson


Professional development (PD) designed to accompany curriculum materials prepares teachers for specific classroom practices, guides them during practice, and creates opportunities for reflection. We present the theoretical underpinnings for our model of curriculum-linked PD and describe a hybrid (face-to-face and online) professional development program for curriculum materials that make use of the My World™ Geographic Information System software. Research-derived design principles for curriculum-aligned PD include the following: (1) identify goals for the professional development, (2) adopt a learning theory and use it, and (3) evaluate whether learning goals were met and then revise PD practices according to this feedback. We do not intend our design to be the model for online PD, but rather an example of an approach successfully applying our design principles.


Curriculum aligned Hybrid Learning for use Environmental science 



 The work described in this chapter was funded by the National Science Foundation under grants ESI-0455582, REC-9876150, ESI-0227557, and 0352478, and by the National Geographic Education Foundation. The opinions reported in this work are those of the authors and not the funding agencies or their institutions.


  1. Audet, R., & Paris, J. (1997). GIS implementation model for schools: Assessing the critical concerns. Journal of Geography, 96(6), 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blakeslee, T., & Kahan, J. (1996). Michigan curriculum framework: Science education guidebook (PDF Document). Lansing, MI: State of Michigan.Google Scholar
  3. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crawford, B. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. (2006). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
  6. Edelson, D. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 391–450.Google Scholar
  8. Edelson, D. C., Schwille, K., Bruozas, M., Lach, M., Taber, M., Gordin, D. N., et al. (2005). Investigations in environmental science: A case-based approach to the study of environmental systems. Armonk, NY: It’s About Time.Google Scholar
  9. Fishman, B., Marx, R., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kali, Y., Linn, M. C., & Roseman, J. E. (Eds.). (2008). Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kent, A. M. (2004). Improving teacher quality through professional development. Education, 124(3), 427–436.Google Scholar
  14. Kerski, J. J. (2001). A national assessment of GIS in American High Schools. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 10(1), 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kerski, J. J. (2003). The implementation and effectiveness of geographic information system technology and methods in secondary education. Journal of Geography, 102, 128–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 483–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kubitskey, B. (2006). Extended professional development for systemic curriculum reform. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  18. Kubitskey, B., & Fishman, B. (2005, April). Untangling the relationship(s) between professional development, practice, student learning and teacher learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  19. Kubitskey, B., & Fishman, B. (2006, April). Professional development design for systemic curriculum change. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  20. Kubitskey, B., Fishman, B., & Marx, R. (2003, April). The relationship between professional development and student learning: Exploring the link through design research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  21. Kubitskey, B., Fishman, B., & Marx, R. (2004). Impact of professional development on a teacher and her students: A case study. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association, San Diego.Google Scholar
  22. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin, H.-T. (2008). Exploring the role of showing design intent in supporting curriculum modifications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  24. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  25. Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99(5), 258–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. W. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational technology: A case study of student teacher/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 427–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McClurg, P., & Buss, A. (2007). Professional development: Teachers use of GIS to enhance student learning. Journal of Geography, 106(2), 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially: GIS as a support system in the K–12 curriculum. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. National Staff Development Council. (2001). NSDC standards for staff development.Google Scholar
  32. Richardson, V. (2000). Alexis De Toqueville and the dilemmas of professional development. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED479531). Retrieved from ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center) database.Google Scholar
  33. Richardson, V. (2003). The dilemmas of professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(5), 401.Google Scholar
  34. Rivet, A. E. (2004). Contextualizing instruction: Connecting to urban students’ ideas and experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  35. Selwyn, N. (2000). Creating a “connected” community? Teachers’ use of an electronic discussion group. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 750–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., & Krajcik, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1(2), 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Supovitz, J. A., Mahyer, D. P., & Kahle, J. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 331–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Watkins Jr., T. D. (2003). Approval of the update of professional development vision and standards for Michigan educators (PDF Document). Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education. Retrieved March 21, 2004, from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beth Kubitskey
    • 1
    Email author
  • Barry Fishman
    • 2
  • Heather Johnson
    • 3
  • Kirsten Mawyer
    • 4
  • Daniel Edelson
    • 5
  1. 1.Eastern Michigan UniversityMichiganUSA
  2. 2.The University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  4. 4.Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  5. 5.National Geographic SocietyWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations