View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Evaluating Geospatial Education Provision: A Case Study of Aotearoa New Zealand

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Evaluating Geospatial Education Provision: A Case Study of Aotearoa New Zealand
Language: English
Authors: Mairéad de Róiste (ORCID 0000-0002-7418-1428), Scott C. Pool, John H. Lowry (ORCID 0000-0002-7909-4411)
Source: Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 2025 49(2):185-202.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Geographic Location, Geographic Concepts, Technology, Skilled Workers, Higher Education, Curriculum Design, Faculty, Courses, Geographic Information Systems, Comparative Analysis, Teacher Attitudes, Industry, Stakeholders, Attitudes
Geographic Terms: New Zealand
DOI: 10.1080/03098265.2024.2403075
ISSN: 0309-8265
1466-1845
Abstract: Geospatial technology is still a growth area and knowledge of these technologies remains essential for a skilled workforce. In higher education, geospatial curriculum design is predominantly determined by educators and is influenced by what educators believe should be taught. Knowledge of national or regional provision can support a richer understanding of expected provision and areas of over or under-provision to better support the needs of varied geospatial roles and identify possible programme specialisations. In this paper, we describe an approach for evaluating Aotearoa New Zealand's provision of geospatial education in the tertiary education sector. First, we examine and compare current course offerings in New Zealand's tertiary sector against selected institutions in five countries using the GIS&T Body of Knowledge and Geospatial Technology Competency Model as a framework for comparison. Second, we evaluate the results of a focus-group workshop of geospatial education providers and geospatial industry stakeholders about perceived needs in geospatial education in New Zealand. We find this approach works well to support a better understanding of what is provided for both educators and industry. By including industry geospatial professionals in identifying perceived gaps, educators' knowledge of industry needs will grow as well as industry's understanding of current provision.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1465777
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFvbb8ER1_1QdcoXm7BxDYLAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCzURV6x34UjYxueKgIBEICBmyfHhg4XfwemHOeuya6cubCJz0gX8FScuSthw2GU91ZREQlcFSpgSSFO0EjScYYjm67cZ_y2tuMnuUbLwAr7Pc3JWJGI7B3y6dgYN3IJ3B_SiZ9uJTHDsTaqutxXvDsIGKKhl0pgQ45dI1uWAEcvbizaQwcXzAYMesY3nl4M_yzOW1OnTp8U1SIXLwyRQgitH_P9K1yobvcxoK2T
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184138111;jgh01apr.25;2025Apr03.01:50;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184138111-1">Evaluating geospatial education provision: a case study of Aotearoa New Zealand </title> <p>Geospatial technology is still a growth area and knowledge of these technologies remains essential for a skilled workforce. In higher education, geospatial curriculum design is predominantly determined by educators and is influenced by what educators believe should be taught. Knowledge of national or regional provision can support a richer understanding of expected provision and areas of over or under-provision to better support the needs of varied geospatial roles and identify possible programme specialisations. In this paper, we describe an approach for evaluating Aotearoa New Zealand's provision of geospatial education in the tertiary education sector. First, we examine and compare current course offerings in New Zealand's tertiary sector against selected institutions in five countries using the GIS&T Body of Knowledge and Geospatial Technology Competency Model as a framework for comparison. Second, we evaluate the results of a focus-group workshop of geospatial education providers and geospatial industry stakeholders about perceived needs in geospatial education in New Zealand. We find this approach works well to support a better understanding of what is provided for both educators and industry. By including industry geospatial professionals in identifying perceived gaps, educators' knowledge of industry needs will grow as well as industry's understanding of current provision.</p> <p>Keywords: Geospatial education; GIS; Geographic Information Science; surveying; education provision</p> <hd id="AN0184138111-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Geospatial technology is still a growth area (Gentile et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref1">11</reflink>]; Khan et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref2">17</reflink>]), and due to technological advancements, geospatial data is proliferating (Walter, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref3">24</reflink>]). Knowledge of these technologies remains essential for a skilled workforce. Geospatial professionals undertake varied roles, each requiring different geospatial knowledge and expertise from application development to data analysis and interpretation (Gaudet et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref4">10</reflink>]). Growth in the demand for geospatial skills is also found in related areas, such as conservation, urban planning, and disaster response (Bean et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>]; de Vries, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]; Kawasaki et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref7">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Within the geospatial sector, professional accreditation is limited. Consequently, geospatial curriculum design in higher education is predominantly determined by educators in different higher education institutions. Such curriculum design is influenced by what educators believe should be taught based on their knowledge of the academic literature, geospatial competency models, and the industry's expectations and requirements.</p> <p>Two geospatial competency models are preeminent: the GIS&T Body of Knowledge (BoK) and the Geospatial Technology Competency Model (GTCM). The BoK emerged in response to a perceived lack of "specification and assessment of curricula for a wide range of student constituencies" identified by Kemp and Wright ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref8">16</reflink>]). The BoK encompasses three domains; Geographic Information Science concerning the nature of geographic information and the use of geospatial technology in answering scientific questions, geospatial technology, and applications of GIS&T. Created primarily by academics, the BoK provides learning objectives to support curriculum design (Kemp, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref9">15</reflink>]) and was envisaged as adaptable to different institutions as well as diverse learner outcomes with the assumption not all students follow a single path (DiBiase et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref10">7</reflink>]). The BoK is now available on the web and both are organised in a hierarchical fashion with Knowledge Areas (KA) at the top, each comprising a number of subtopics with associated learning objectives and references.</p> <p>Influenced by industry professionals rather than academics, the GTCM is designed as a triangle with nine tiers (Employment and Training Administration, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref11">8</reflink>]). At the base of the triangle, competencies are applicable to a number of industries, and approaching the tip, competencies are more specialised to particular occupations.</p> <p>Keeping pace with the changing demands of industry is a concern for both models. Wallentin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref12">23</reflink>]) assessed workforce needs in Europe and identified areas for update, e.g. web-related aspects of GIS&T. Similarly, Jackson and Kerski ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref13">13</reflink>] p. 1575) in a survey of 61 industry participants who were asked to rank GTCM geospatial competencies against their experience and expectations found that certain "traditional core tenets of the model are no longer valued". Both models are also US-centric and may not adequately address the needs of a more global audience (Prager & Plewe, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref14">19</reflink>]). The BoK originally launched as a PDF in 2006 and has been updated to both a webpage and "living textbook" where content areas have been expanded and revised.</p> <p>Both models are imperfect, yet both address the need to provide a framework to evaluate competency and, therefore, learning needs for geospatial professionals. As academic institutions struggle with limited resources and questions of legitimacy, greater knowledge of geospatial provision in the tertiary education sector is of critical importance. A better understanding of critical gaps, overprovision, as well as areas of similar provision will help educational institutions and their stakeholders (e.g. employers) know where curriculum changes might be made. Given the range of possible geospatial roles, requirements for a workforce need not follow a single specific curriculum. Not all institutions will deliver the same content or courses, as they often aim to meet needs of varied geospatial roles in industry.</p> <p>In this paper, we describe an approach for evaluating the status of Aotearoa New Zealand's (NZ) provision of geospatial education in the tertiary education sector. The approach takes two parts. In the first part, we examine and compare current course offerings in NZ's tertiary sector against selected institutions in five countries. For this, we use primarily the BoK and GTCM as a framework for comparison. For the second part, we evaluate the results of a focus-group workshop of geospatial education providers and geospatial industry stakeholders about perceived needs in geospatial education provision in NZ</p> <p>We apply this methodology to NZ. The country has a population of around 5 million inhabitants. It has a land mass of 268,838 square kilometres (104,454 square miles) and is approximately 10% larger than the UK. Its diverse geography makes geospatial technology particularly relevant and is used for emergency preparedness, agriculture, forestry, transport, and environmental monitoring among other areas. A long-term geospatial skills shortage has existed for over a decade and both <emph>Surveyor</emph>[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>] and <emph>Other Spatial Scientist</emph>[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref16">2</reflink>] remain on the long-term skill shortage list produced by Immigration New Zealand.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>] Other than for surveying, there is no recognised national accreditation for geospatial professionals. NZ is served by eight universities and over 400 additional tertiary providers, such as Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics, Wānaga (Māori (indigenous) institutes), Industry Training Organizations (ITOs), etc. The Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) is the government agency that oversees NZ qualifications ranging from introductory level to doctorates within the New Zealand Qualifications Framework (NZQF). All of the eight universities and a further four institutes offer at least one geospatial course. Industry-driven training also exists through private providers.</p> <p>In this paper, we explore where provision aligns with international comparisons and industry expectations and where critical gaps exist. International comparisons and industry expectations provide a critical lens to assess the effectiveness at a national level of geospatial education programmes in preparing geospatial graduates to meet workforce demands. By combining international benchmarking with engagement with the geospatial industry, this study comprehensively evaluates national geospatial education provision. The methodology we apply here will benefit other nations or groups of tertiary providers (e.g. a region, or a subset of providers such as community colleges in the US) in assessing provision across a sector and help identify both expected courses and areas of served and underserved less standardised skills.</p> <p>The benefit of our approach is threefold. 1. An assessment across a country or region against the categories we have proposed will facilitate a better understanding of what is provided for both educators and industry. 2. National or regional differences in provision can be identified as well as over or under provision. Both will help educators design programmes to better fit the needs of industry and may also provide a marketable point of difference. 3. Inclusion of industry geospatial professionals in identifying perceived gaps will improve educators' knowledge of industry needs as well as grow industry's understanding of current provision.</p> <hd id="AN0184138111-3">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184138111-4">Cross-country comparisons</hd> <p>We compared the provision of geospatial tertiary courses in NZ against provision in five other countries. This approach allows us to identify where differences exist and to explore possible explanations for these differences. We first summarise a snapshot of geospatial tertiary courses for 2021 in NZ. We then compare this snapshot to selected education institutions in Australia, Germany, the USA, and the UK, five from each country, as well as all tertiary institutions offering geospatial courses in the Republic of Ireland, a country with a population comparable to NZ (see Supplementary Material for details of the institutions selected). For our selected institutions, each institution had to provide a masters geospatial or geoinformatics programme as well as undergraduate courses. From a complete list of relevant institutions, a selection was made to ensure a geographic spread across the relevant country. This comparison provided an international benchmark with which to compare geospatial education provision in NZ.</p> <p>In this paper, "course" refers to an education module that makes up a programme. Geospatial courses were identified using providers' websites by searching keywords[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>] and examining programmes[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref19">5</reflink>] that may include geospatial courses. We did not distinguish between the value of different courses (e.g. 15 or 20-credit courses). For NZ, 2022 academic calendars were also used and if unavailable, 2021 was substituted.</p> <p>A course was considered to be a geospatial course if its course description or learning outcomes could be matched with defined geospatial competencies and it was offered in 2021 or 2022. Geospatial courses identified in each country were categorised by course type based on available online information. The expansive list of keywords should identify both traditional and more "non-traditionally" titled geospatial courses aimed at students outside of expected geospatial domains. Additionally, searching by programme ensured we identified courses with more non-traditional titles but clearly formed part of the institution's geospatial offerings. As we follow a course-by-course approach rather than assessing overall programmes, non-geospatial electives may fill some category gaps but are excluded from our analysis.</p> <p>Not all providers' websites (8 of 44) had a course catalogue with a search bar. For these websites, keywords could not be used to find geospatial courses and we were limited to analysing programme outlines. Some geospatial courses (48[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref20">6</reflink>]) did not have online descriptions or learning outcomes, which meant such courses were either categorised by a clear title or removed from the analysis. Most German providers did not list the year when the course was offered. Consequently, we assumed all the geospatial courses identified in Germany were offered within the constraints of our review (2021 or 2022).</p> <p>The categories were primarily determined based on domain competencies from the BoK. An additional category of Earth Geometry & Geodesy was obtained from the GTCM as this category was not well differentiated in the BoK under Data Capture Knowledge Area and a number of courses were being placed in the wider category while dealing with a single subtopic. Both models do not account for the common learning approach, which starts with an overview or introductory course followed by more defined content areas. Consequently, general and introductory GIS/GISc and Surveying courses, applied geospatial courses, and GIS internship/work placement courses were also added to the categorisation. Course categories are mutually exclusive, and a course is only assigned to one category. Table 1 outlines the course categories used and provides a brief description.</p> <p>Table 1. Course categories categories based on domains from the GIS&T body of knowledge or the geospatial technology competency model are noted by their respective acronyms (BoK or GTCM).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Categories (source)</td><td>Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intro GIS/GISc</td><td>Introduce the foundational concepts and technology of geospatial science.</td></tr><tr><td>GIS</td><td>Cover multiple knowledge areas of GI systems at a non-introductory level with a primary focus on GIS tools and technology, and less of a focus on geospatial scientific concepts.</td></tr><tr><td>GISc</td><td>Cover multiple knowledge areas of GIScience at a non-introductory level with a primary focus on geospatial scientific concepts, and less of a focus on the GIS tools and technology.</td></tr><tr><td>Intro Surveying</td><td>Introductory, general surveying focusing on general concepts, methods and tools of surveying.</td></tr><tr><td>Surveying</td><td>Cover the general concepts, methods and tools of surveying at a non-introductory level.</td></tr><tr><td>Applied Geospatial</td><td>Apply GIScience & GISystems to solve real-world problems without being restricted to a specified domain.</td></tr><tr><td>Domain Applications (BoK)</td><td>Primary focus is incorporating a component of GIS or GISc into a specific domain.</td></tr><tr><td>Analytics & Modeling (BoK)</td><td>Focus on the analysis of spatial data and geocomputation.</td></tr><tr><td>Cartography & Visualization (BoK)</td><td>Primarily focus on map design aspects and the visualization of spatial data.</td></tr><tr><td>Programming & Development (BoK)</td><td>Focus on programming and development within the context of GIS (including Web-based GIS).</td></tr><tr><td>Data Capture (BoK)</td><td>Focus on spatial data capture methods and technologies, such as remote sensing, land surveying and global navigation satellite systems (GNSS).</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>Other courses that do not make up the main course types. Includes the categories below.</td></tr><tr><td>Data Management (BoK)</td><td>Focus on spatial data management, such as storage, retrieval, format conversion, and sharing.</td></tr><tr><td>Design & Implementation of a GIS&T (BoK)</td><td>Topics include GIS&T project planning and management, GIS&T operations and infrastructure, and GIS design.</td></tr><tr><td>GIS&T & Society (BoK)</td><td>Focus on professionalism, ethics, community engagement, critical perspectives or policy within the realm of geospatial science.</td></tr><tr><td>Earth Geometry & Geodesy (GTCM)</td><td>Focus on the mathematics of the shape and area of the Earth.</td></tr><tr><td>GIS Internship/Work Placement</td><td>Provides placement in a workplace environment in order to apply geospatial knowledge.</td></tr><tr><td>Research methods</td><td>Focus on the techniques and concepts of conducting research in the geospatial field.</td></tr><tr><td>Thesis/Research</td><td>Research that contributes to the geospatial discipline.</td></tr><tr><td>Capstone</td><td>Focuses on a final geospatial project in order to complete a qualification.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>All courses were assigned to a Course Category (Table 1). Each course was assigned to a category based first on course title and, where course title was inconclusive, based on course description. Courses were initially categorised by one author and then were reviewed by the other two authors. Any inconsistent categorisation was discussed, and the appropriate category for a course was agreed on by all three authors. Where possible, we have differentiated between GISystems and GIScience general courses. A course was considered a "GIS" course if the emphasis was on tools and systems of geospatial science and considered a "GISc" course if it emphasised geospatial science concepts rather than tools. Our approach allows for the comparison across institutions but does not account for courses covering more than one category or how well each category is covered. We added the GCTM category of Earth Geometry & Geodesy as we noted that a number of courses were being captured in Data Capture while their primary focus was on this subcategory area within the BoK. Further differentiation within categories would be best served by a more detailed analysis of course content beyond the title and description used here.</p> <hd id="AN0184138111-5">Geospatial stakeholders in NZ</hd> <p>The second part of our study aimed to elicit concerns regarding geospatial education within NZ from industry professionals and education practitioners through a 2-hour focus-group workshop. The nature of this conference targeting both industry and education provided an ideal mix to open an informed dialog between different types of stakeholders in comparison to more education or industry focused events. The workshop was held on the 30th of August 2022 at the New Zealand Geospatial Research Conference (NZGRC) and was attended by 28 participants from local and central government (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref21">6</reflink>), Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>), private industry (<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>), and academia (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>). The workshop was facilitated by the three authors and Geoff O'Malley (Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand). Ethics approval was granted by Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington #30588.</p> <p>While the results of the workshop help provide a national context for the international comparison, its main benefit, and aim, was to initiate a dialogue between education providers and stakeholders in the geospatial industry in NZ. It was hoped that through this dialogue, educators might gain a better understanding of industry needs while industry professionals would gain a better understanding of the constraints faced by educators.</p> <p>The workshop did not focus on the results of the cross-country comparison. These results were shared at the conference in a session after the workshop and later in a government report. Presenting the results would have significantly lengthened the workshop, so we privileged discussion instead. By creating a flexible structure for the workshop and responding to participants' interests in the discussion topics, we also gathered additional context for the responses provided.</p> <p>Each participant was given a printed list of 11 possible questions (Table 2) and asked to vote on the three they would most like to discuss at the workshop. All participants could see the votes so vote counts may not be fully representative as participants may have decided not to vote if their choice would not have impacted the final result.</p> <p>Table 2. Questions presented to the workshop participants for potential discussion with the number of votes for each question.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Question</td><td>Votes</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>1. Where is geospatial education thriving and where is it struggling?</p></list-item></list> ○ What are the factors behind these states?</td><td>2</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td>2. Where do expectations of undergraduate and postgraduate education differ for geospatial science?</td><td>1</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>3. What are the differences between industry and academic expectations for geospatial science education and how can or should these be overcome?</td><td>13</td><td>23%</td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>4. What does the geospatial industry expect/hope for from graduates learning geospatial science in tertiary education?</p></list-item></list> ○ Are there specific hard and/or soft skills, theoretical concepts, technologies, or software? ○ Are there areas where tertiary education in NZ is doing well? Are there areas of deficiency? ○ How do expectations differ between undergrads and postgrads?</td><td>11</td><td>20%</td></tr><tr><td>5. If geospatial science tertiary educators were to write a 'mission statement' what would it be?</td><td>1</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>6. Introductory geospatial science courses are often service courses (i.e. students from a variety of majors (from data science through geology to economics) take the courses). How can we design these courses to meet industry needs while meeting the needs of students with a broad range of interests and academic backgrounds?</td><td>1</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>7. What is the difference between geospatial science technical training courses (short courses) and geospatial science courses at a university? What roles do each play in the development of learning and progression in geospatial science careers? Assuming both are important to the geospatial industry, how does their importance differ?</td><td>5</td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td>8. Should geospatial science education be taught in universities or polytechnics? If both, how do their roles differ?</td><td>1</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>9. How important is it for graduates to complete a named qualification (e.g. minor, major, BA/BSc, PGDip) in geospatial science? Or is it the courses they take that are important?</td><td>4</td><td>7%</td></tr><tr><td>10. What role do other courses play in a university education for someone going into a geospatial science career? In other words, is it important to be 'well rounded' or is the geospatial industry looking for a specific skill set/knowledgebase?</td><td>2</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td>11. What are the skills (hard and/or soft), knowledge of theoretical concepts, or technologies that will be needed of graduates interested in geospatial science careers in the coming decade?</td><td>15</td><td>27%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The top three questions voted for were Q3, 4, and 11. As Q4 and Q11 were similar and the workshop was time-constrained, Q11 was removed as, despite gaining a higher vote, Q4 was the more encompassing of the two. The two questions (Q3 and Q4) were presented sequentially to four groups of 5–7 people sitting at separate tables. Each group nominated a spokesperson, and the summary of their discussion was recorded.</p> <hd id="AN0184138111-6">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184138111-7">Cross-country comparisons</hd> <p>In NZ, 102 geospatial courses were identified and 111 in Ireland. In the five selected institutions for each country, 75 geospatial courses were identified in Australia, 163 in Germany, 93 in the UK, and 135 in the USA.</p> <p>To compare the provision of geospatial offerings across the comparator countries, we examine the relative size of the course offerings in each category. In the tables and graphs that follow, the size of the category is measured by the total number of course offerings in that category for the country and the percentage of total courses offered for the country. Table 3 shows the number of courses in each category with the percentage of total course offerings for each of the six comparison countries. Figure 1 shows the comparative distribution across all categories.</p> <p>Table 3. Size of geospatial category by country. Number and percentage of courses identified for each category by country, including main and "other" categories. The largest percentage for each country is represented in red. The number of institutions included in the analysis for each country is given in the relevant country heading in brackets.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Category</td><td>NZ (12)</td><td>IRE (14)</td><td>AUS (5)</td><td>GER (5)</td><td>UK (5)</td><td>USA (5)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Main</td><td>Intro GIS/GISc</td><td>13 (10%)</td><td>19 (14.3%)</td><td>9 (7.3%)</td><td>8 (4.7%)</td><td>12 (12.6%)</td><td>12 (7.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>GIS</td><td>12 (9.2%)</td><td>11 (8.3%)</td><td>9 (7.3%)</td><td>11 (6.4%)</td><td>13 (13.7%)</td><td>9 (5.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>GISc</td><td>4 (3.1%)</td><td>2 (1.5%)</td><td>0</td><td>4 (2.3%)</td><td>3 (3.2%)</td><td>3 (2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Intro Surveying</td><td>2 (1.5%)</td><td>0</td><td>3 (2.4%)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1 (0.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Surveying</td><td>11 (8.5%)</td><td>22 (16.5%)</td><td>23 (18.5%)</td><td>2 (1.2%)</td><td>4 (4.2%)</td><td>6 (3.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>Applied Geospatial</td><td>9 (6.9%)</td><td>9 (9.8%)</td><td>5 (4%)</td><td>4 (2.3%)</td><td>5 (5.3%)</td><td>10 (6.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>Domain Applications</td><td>17 (13.1%)</td><td>15 (11.3%)</td><td>13 (10.5%)</td><td>4 (2.3%)</td><td>17 (17.9%)</td><td>22 (14.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Analytics & Modeling</td><td>13 (10%)</td><td>11 (8.3%)</td><td>8 (6.5%)</td><td>17 (9.9%)</td><td>6 (6.3%)</td><td>11 (7.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Cartography & Visualization</td><td>5 (3.8%)</td><td>2 (1.5%)</td><td>6 (4.8%)</td><td>16 (9.3%)</td><td>6 (6.3%)</td><td>12 (7.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>Programming & Development</td><td>9 (6.9%)</td><td>7 (5.3%)</td><td>4 (3.2%)</td><td>7 (4.1%)</td><td>10 (10.5%)</td><td>14 (9.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Data Capture</td><td>15 (11.5%)</td><td>16 (12%)</td><td>28 (22.6%)</td><td>56 (32.6%)</td><td>10 (10.5%)</td><td>25 (16.4%)</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Other</bold></td><td>20 (15.4%)</td><td>15 (11.3%)</td><td>16 (12.9%)</td><td>43 (25%)</td><td>9 (9.5%)</td><td>27 (17.8%)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>Data Management</td><td>1 (0.8%)</td><td>5 (3.8%)</td><td>5 (4%)</td><td>11 (6.4%)</td><td>2 (2.1%)</td><td>4 (2.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>Design & Implementation of a GIS&T</td><td>0</td><td>2 (1.5%)</td><td>2 (1.6%)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>8 (5.3%)</td></tr><tr><td>GIS&T & Society</td><td>3 (2.3%)</td><td>1 (0.8%)</td><td>2 (1.6%)</td><td>3 (1.7%)</td><td>0</td><td>7 (4.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>Earth Geometry & Geodesy</td><td>4 (3.1%)</td><td>0</td><td>3 (2.4%)</td><td>18 (10.5%)</td><td>2 (2.1%)</td><td>3 (2%)</td></tr><tr><td>GIS Internship/Work Placement</td><td>4 (3.1%)</td><td>2 (1.5%)</td><td>2 (1.6%)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1 (0.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Research Methods</td><td>1 (0.8%)</td><td>2 (1.5%)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1 (1.1%)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Thesis/Research</td><td>3 (2.3%)</td><td>2 (1.5%)</td><td>0</td><td>2 (1.2%)</td><td>2 (2.1%)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Capstone</td><td>4 (3.1%)</td><td>1 (0.8%)</td><td>2 (1.6%)</td><td>9 (5.2%)</td><td>2 (2.1%)</td><td>4 (2.6%)</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Total</bold></td><td>130</td><td>133</td><td>124</td><td>172</td><td>95</td><td>152</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Distribution of categories as a percentage of total number of courses offered by country.</p> <p>Introductory GIS/GISc courses are well represented in both Ireland and NZ. Introductory GIS/GISc is the second largest category (by proportion of total course offerings) for Ireland at 14.3%, and third equal in NZ at 10%. We would also expect introductory courses to account for a lesser proportion elsewhere as the comparison only targeted five institutions in these countries. Introductory Surveying courses were generally lower and less consistent. In all countries, GIS rather than GISc courses were more prevalent (Table 2). The UK had the highest proportion of GISc courses (3.2%) followed by NZ (3.1%). The comparison method used may not account for actual course delivery.</p> <p>NZ had the highest percentage proportions of Analytics and Modelling courses (10%) out of all the countries. However, proportions were not markedly different from the comparators (from 6.3% to 9.9% excluding NZ). NZ's second most provided category is Data Capture (11.5%). The provision of Data Capture courses in NZ is similar to that of Ireland (12%) but substantially less than both Germany and Australia.</p> <p>Cartography and Visualization is more common and has a comparatively greater emphasis in Germany (9.3%) and the USA (7.9%), while NZ has the second lowest provision (3.8%). Irish provision of Cartography and Visualization (1.5%) is substantially lower than other countries.</p> <p>The importance of programming varies. Both the UK (10.5%) and the USA (9.2%) place strong emphasis on this skill area while Germany and Australia offer only 4.1 and 3.2%.</p> <p>Introductory Surveying courses were not identified in three of the six countries assessed. Surveying is a more specialised programme of study. It is likely that outside of NZ, Ireland, and Australia, the universities specialising in this area may not have been included in the analysis. Ireland did not record any introductory surveying courses.</p> <p>Domain application courses were the most provided category in NZ and the UK (by percentage of total offerings). These courses focus primarily on incorporating GIS or GISc into a single, specified domain such as forestry, archaeology, or ecology. Whereas, applied geospatial courses are primarily focused on applying geospatial methods to solve problems that are not restricted to a specified domain. Understanding the relative focus in each country is revealing. All countries except Germany had a higher proportion of domain applications relative to applied geospatial courses. Germany had the same number of courses in both categories.</p> <p>Within the Main categories, NZ is neither the largest or smallest provider of courses and provision is in keeping with other countries. It is in the Other category that the differences between countries become more apparent. Germany's course offerings were less standardised compared with the rest of the countries with the highest proportion of "other" courses that did not fit into the main course categories (25%), followed by the USA (17.8%). German "other" courses are primarily Data Management and Earth Geometry & Geodesy courses. Both of which are not well provided in NZ. Of all countries surveyed, NZ has the lowest number of data management courses. NZ, Germany, and the UK did not have any Design and Implementation courses. The USA provides these courses in all five surveyed institutions.</p> <p>NZ had the highest proportion of GIS Internship/Work Placement courses (3.1%), followed by Australia (1.6%). Germany and the UK did not have any of these courses. These pathway courses are appreciated by both employers and new spatial professionals in NZ (de Róiste, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Relatively few Research Methods courses were provided across the institutions surveyed. Approximately 1% were Research Methods courses in Ireland, the UK and NZ, while Australia, Germany and the USA did not provide courses in this category. NZ had the highest proportion of thesis/research courses (2.3%), followed by the UK (2.1%). Australia and the USA did not have any of these courses. It is likely, however, that these courses are available to learners but are not explicitly labelled as geospatial research courses.</p> <hd id="AN0184138111-8">Geospatial stakeholders in NZ</hd> <p>Results of the focus group workshop are summarised under the questions discussed in the workshop. As points reflect the views of the different groups, some points may be contradictory.</p> <hd id="AN0184138111-9">Q3:</hd> <p>What are the differences between industry and academic expectations for geospatial science education and how can or should these be overcome?</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> There was general agreement that tertiary geospatial education should teach general geospatial theory, knowledge, and practice rather than just particular tools. The geospatial industry is fast-paced with changing technologies. Specialised skills can become redundant quickly. Focusing on learning how to learn is important as well as understanding good practice, documentation, and metadata. Collaboration is a key concern for industry and collaborative tools such as GitHub are important.</item> <p></p> <item> A concern was expressed that universities focus too much on theory and not enough on practical skills. However, participants acknowledged that they were uncertain about which skills are actually covered.</item> <p></p> <item> Education is likely to focus more on cartography as communication, user experience (UX), ethics, and privacy. These foci were broadly grouped under critical thinking and may not be clearly valued by employers who may view geospatial information and processes purely technically. However, these skills can be valuable for professionals to understand the implications of their work.</item> <p></p> <item> A significant difference is the importance of data engineering for industry. Learning how to deal with and improve real data is critical, and students should not just work with good quality, clean datasets.</item> <p></p> <item> Other specific skills were mentioned as important: programming, spatial analysis, SQL, technical knowledge of databases, and understanding of enterprise systems (including their complexity and supporting a large number of users). It was recognised that many of these are covered in some university programmes.</item> <p></p> <item> Different employers have different needs, in some organisations, there's a greater awareness of operational needs, whereas others are more policy rather than practical-focused.</item> <p></p> <item> University students are also likely to develop different skill sets. There is space in the geospatial industry for different types of graduates. The industry can benefit from software developers who are GIS aware and GIS professionals who understand software and good practices.</item> <p></p> <item> A distinction was made between training and education. There was recognition that employers will have to train new graduates and will bear the associated cost. The idea of an industry training organisation was raised wherein both industry and educators have input into curriculum and resource development.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184138111-10">Q4:</hd> <p>What does the geospatial industry expect/hope for from graduates learning geospatial science in tertiary education?</p> <p></p> <hd1 id="AN0184138111-11"> • Are there specific hard and/or soft skills, theoretical concepts, technologies, or software? </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> A range of hard skills were identified. Programming and automation were mentioned by several participant groups. Data skills are particularly important: the finding, managing, manipulating, and processing of data as well as database processing skills. Relatedly, security and authenticity in enterprise environments are also important. Spatial statistics and web delivery were raised. Familiarity with high-performance computing was also identified with the disclaimer that this may be more suited to government research institutes and research-focused organisations.</item> <p></p> <item> Within soft skills, transferable skills such as teamwork, collaboration, and communication are highly regarded. Communication skills comprise map and other visual communication, science communication and particularly communicating with non-experts, such as stakeholders, managers outside of geospatial, and the general public. Stakeholder engagement and requirement gathering, problem-solving and learning how to learn were also identified. Cultural awareness and the impact of the Treaty of Waitangi (bicultural foundational document) on data sovereignty and other issues are valuable.</item> <p></p> <item> More specific to the geospatial industry, the scientific approach and associated processes as well as spatial literacy were highlighted. Awareness of the impact of space on equity was also raised.</item> <p></p> <item> In terms of technologies, it is expected that universities provide students with exposure to a range of software and are platform agnostic.</item> <p></p> <item> Two additional concepts were identified, both having to do with how employers in the geospatial industry view what students should learn about geospatial data and technologies. With regard to data, it was identified that spatial data are unique compared with other types of data. For example, a good understanding of not just coordinate systems, but spatial data accuracy is required for working with spatial data competently. This suggests some employers understand that learning GIS is more than learning how to use a software and there is a knowledge base upon which technical skills must be developed. Despite this, some employers tend to be unable to differentiate GIS as a tool versus a body of knowledge and professional skills.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0184138111-12"> • Are there areas where tertiary education in NZ is doing well? Are there areas of deficiency? </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Tertiary education is doing well in providing the "basic stuff". Cartography and map-making were specifically mentioned. Tertiary education is also doing well at wider awareness raising of GIS and more "people tacking it on to their geography degree or their hydrology".</item> <p></p> <item> Areas for improvement focused on communication skills (including presenting), collaboration, information on standards and best practice, and time management particularly within time-constrained projects (e.g. doesn't have to be perfect).</item> <p></p> <item> Opinions were mixed as to whether spatial statistics were appropriately covered as the impression was that there was a stronger focus on theory rather than applied problem solving. Participants raised the potential for industry to be more involved in assessment.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0184138111-13"> • How do expectations differ between undergrads and postgrads? </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Participants had higher expectations of graduates with postgraduate qualifications. It is expected undergraduates and postgraduates differ based on their depth of understanding, experience, and awareness of methods, concepts, and tools. Postgraduates should be able to work independently and can lead the projects. Undergrads require more support and are likely to be assigned specific tasks.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184138111-14">Discussion</hd> <p>At the end of our survey of courses in 2021/2022, NZ had well-established geospatial education provision, across various institutions and programmes. Geospatial education is offered at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. The courses provided on different programmes provide theoretical knowledge as well as technical skills, and practical experience in geospatial fundamentals, spatial data analysis and modelling, remote sensing, and cartography. Postgraduate opportunities include research papers where students engage in original research and develop advanced geospatial skills in different domain applications and research methodologies. The categorisation of courses was helpful in assessing overall provision across institutions and would be helpful in communicating current provision to those in industry or as context to assess offerings in a single institution.</p> <p>Geospatial provision in NZ is broadly in line with the comparison countries. Ireland and NZ have similar provisions of undergraduate and postgraduate geospatial courses and introductory courses are provided at a high number of education institutions in both countries. Programming, spatial analysis and other geospatial skills are provided at a number of universities and in line with overseas provision. These areas were identified as important by participants in the geospatial industry and educators workshop.</p> <p>Within this overall provision, some areas of course provision are worth exploring further. Cartography and geovisualization are unique to spatial data but draw on graphic design and data science to gain insights from spatial datasets as well as create visually appealing spatially informed stories. Provision of such courses is comparatively low, particularly compared with Germany and the US. However, our workshop participants did not identify this as an area of concern. This cross-validation provides support for a more holistic approach to national assessment.</p> <p>Introductory courses explore a wide breadth of geospatial topics at the expense of an in-depth investigation into the topics (Prager & Plewe, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref26">19</reflink>]). Ireland had the highest proportion of introductory GIS/GISc courses (19.6%), followed by the UK (12.6%) and NZ (10%). Sinton ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref27">20</reflink>]) argues that undergraduate offerings are important to attract students to a discipline, as students are less likely to come across a discipline if it is only taught at a graduate level. Ensuring visibility of geospatial education for students in subjects where GIS and other spatial technologies are learned and applied is likely to improve overall knowledge of the domain and ensure the geospatial industry is seen as an option for graduates. Including this element in the overview of geospatial provision is clearly important in mapping pathways to more advanced study.</p> <p>Internships are provided at a higher proportion in NZ in relation to the comparators. This provision can be an important pathway to industry for students (de Róiste, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref28">5</reflink>]), can be an important step in gaining experience in addition to the qualifications in demand by industry (de Róiste, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref29">4</reflink>]) and leads to benefits to both host firms and students (Franco et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref30">9</reflink>]). The continued focus on internships is likely to be of benefit to the geospatial industry but was not identified by our workshop participants.</p> <p>Design & implementation of GIS&T courses are not offered in NZ. These courses include content such as managing GIS&T operations and infrastructure, GIS&T project planning and management, and GIS design (University Consortium for Geographic Information Science, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref31">22</reflink>]). GIS project management skills are sought after by employers (Hong, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref32">12</reflink>]) and Solem et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref33">21</reflink>]) highlight the importance of general management skills for all professional geographers. Ireland, Australia and the USA all have at least one design and implementation of a GIS&T course of all the identified geospatial courses. However, the numbers of these courses were typically low across case studies (Australia and Ireland: 2, USA: 8). Design and implementation may be covered by other courses but given the overall low numbers of dedicated courses, the case for dedicated provision in NZ is borderline.</p> <p>NZ has the highest provision of domain application courses but this number is in line with Ireland and not out of step with the average of the other countries. Interdisciplinary applications of geospatial tools and technology can deepen critical spatial thinking and engagement with course content, as students can identify the criteria for the spatial analysis themselves based on their own research and understanding of the problem (Bearman et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>]; Sinton, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref35">20</reflink>]). Domain application courses can also increase the use of GIS in non-geography disciplines which can potentially benefit geography as a discipline overall (Sinton, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref36">20</reflink>]). Such a focus on provision is unlikely to be of detriment to the industry or students and may help grow wider knowledge of geospatial tools and approaches.</p> <p>Our workshop identified a concern of over emphasis on theory. This concern was not reflected in our findings. There are few theory-only courses and the emphasis on domain applications is a counterpoint to this concern. The institutions selected by our methodology in the UK, USA, Australia, and Germany required a postgraduate programme. This approach means we selected both research and workforce-focused institutions. A more targeted approach may identify a greater theory focus in more research focused institutions. However, this differentiation was not obvious in the more complete surveys in both Ireland and NZ where vocational and other institutions (e.g. polytechs) were also included. Additionally, more courses were identified as "GIS" courses with a focus on the software rather than more holistic or theoretical GISc courses. However, a strong focus on software over concepts can mean graduates are less prepared to meet the changing needs of the geospatial industry as they mature in their role and the software changes. Within these courses, it is unknown whether individual course learning objectives and content overemphasize theory.</p> <p>In terms of gaps, our methodology identified one key gap. NZ had the lowest proportion of data management courses across the six countries. Our workshop identified the importance of finding, managing and processing data, assessing data quality, ensuring data security, and monitoring databases. Employers regard data management skills, such as database development and query skills as important for GIS positions (Hong, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref37">12</reflink>]). Hong ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref38">12</reflink>]) recommends trimester-long database management courses to better prepare students, as the depth and breadth of the topic cannot be fully covered by a component within a general GIS course. Students taking geospatial programmes may also take data management courses that are not explicitly geospatial. Such courses would be missed in our analysis. However, as NZ courses in this area was out of step internationally, our review suggests geospatial data management education provision could be improved in NZ.</p> <p>Our model is primarily based on the BoK with additions of introductory and more general courses and Earth Geometry & Geodesy from the GTCM. The granularity of our model was appropriate for assessment at the national NZ scale and facilitates cross-country comparison to identify areas where provision is in alignment and where potential gaps are present. The results of the benchmarking exercise were in keeping with the industry workshop, where data management was identified as being a particular gap.</p> <p>The BoK was primarily designed for GIS courses (Kemp, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref39">15</reflink>]) rather than the wider definition we use here to include surveying. Earth Geometry & Geodesy was added to better account for the focus in surveying courses on positioning systems. This addition, along with the two more general surveying categories, worked well in the analysis of the courses provided in the six countries.</p> <p>Courses were assessed based on their title and description. Consequently, courses may cover more than one content area, and relative provision and content categories may have been underrepresented in the results. This limitation is particularly valid for the more general and introductory geospatial courses where a variety of content is covered in a single course. Soft skills were identified as important for industry but course level analysis does not identify where these skills are developed and they may or may not be supported through content on individual courses or across programmes. A more detailed analysis focusing on course content (e.g. through course learning objectives) would be needed to assess the extent to which these and other subcategories are included.</p> <p>Our workshop with the geospatial industry stakeholders and educators identified a lack of knowledge in industry about what is covered at university. A country review will address some of this knowledge gap and assure industry professionals of the wide range of geospatial skills covered across the country. Including industry perspectives on the provision of geospatial education ensures the programmes remain relevant and are aligned with the needs of industry, as well as adequately preparing students for a successful career in the geospatial industry. Frequently seeking industry experience can help educational institutions update their understanding of the industry's evolving needs and reduce content with overly limited or dated applications. An important outcome of the workshop was the initiation of a dialogue between education providers and those dependent on that provision.</p> <p>Both the BoK and GCTM are US-centric and may not account for the unique needs of different countries. The general categories can hide gaps in provision of key local content. Māori culture is integral to NZ's identity. By incorporating Te Ao Māori (Māori world view) into geospatial courses, students gain an understanding of cultural diversity and inclusivity, a broader sense of place, the cultural significance of features and landscapes, as well as implications for land ownership and mapping, resource management, and territorial boundaries. GIS has been critiqued as it tends to ignore concepts integral to Indigenous knowledge of place, such as relatedness, ambiguity, non-empirical experience, and the value placed on geographical knowledge and, therefore, a need to restrict its access (Briggs et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>]). Including indigenous content moves beyond Participatory GIS and counter-mapping approaches (see Mercier & Rata, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref41">18</reflink>]). Incorporating Te Ao Māori fosters a more inclusive and holistic approach to geospatial analysis, helping shape a geospatial workforce that is respectful, culturally sensitive, and equipped to address the unique geospatial context in NZ. Our approach does not identify such a gap given the generic categories used.</p> <p>The analysis conducted in this study presents a snapshot and the university sector will likely experience changes in geospatial courses. Indeed in NZ, there has been a workforce contraction in response to COVID-19 impacts, coupled with declining student numbers and a strong employment market. This contraction may mean geospatial provision is out of step with international provision and repeated comparisons may prove important. Similarly, repeating the survey will ensure education provision can be assessed as industry needs evolve over time.</p> <hd id="AN0184138111-15">Conclusion</hd> <p>Benchmarking geospatial provision in NZ against that in other countries was helpful in determining that provision is in step with international provision at the course level and Data management was identified as a key gap. Data management is underrepresented nationally and was a concern identified by participants in our workshop with geospatial professionals and educators. However, care will be needed to ensure local needs are also considered. Te Ao Māori was not identified by our approach. Only one course is provided nationally and though this gap was not identified in our workshop, the contextual importance of Mātauranga Māori is valuable for geospatial graduates in understanding and adapting geospatial skills to the unique national setting in NZ. Care is needed to move beyond the generic BoK and GTCM categories we use here.</p> <p>The results of this study will be of interest to educational providers in NZ in determining new programme curriculum, identifying areas where current provision could be improved to better meet industry needs, and arguing for appropriate resource allocation. The results will allow educators to adapt their provision, taking into account global trends to ensure relevance and competitiveness in an increasingly global education market and ensure students are provided with the skills and expertise to gain employment in other countries. These same benefits are likely to be of relevance to educators in other countries or regions if they wish to apply the methodology outlined in this paper.</p> <p>The workshop of geospatial educators and geospatial industry stakeholders provided valuable insight into the perceptions of both groups. While educators were able to listen to industry stakeholders, people from industry also had the chance to learn about some of the constraints on educators to meet industry needs. Such initiatives are important opportunities for employers and industry professionals to build knowledge of the education landscape as well as for educators to identify the relative importance of different skills for their local audience to add local context to wider international benchmarking.</p> <hd id="AN0184138111-16">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This paper was written with support from 2021/2022 Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington Summer Research Scholarship co-funded by the university and Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) in collaboration with the Geospatial Capability Committee.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref42">7</reflink>]</p> <p>We are thankful to the workshop participants at the New Zealand Geospatial Research Conference in 2022. We greatly appreciate the comments of the Geospatial Capability Committee and feedback from Nathan Heazlewood.</p> <hd id="AN0184138111-17">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>Two of the authors were employed as course coordinators at two New Zealand tertiary institutions during this study. Personal knowledge of course offerings were not used in the analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0184138111-18">Supplementary material</hd> <p>Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2024.2403075</p> <ref id="AN0184138111-19"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> ANZSCO level 1: Plans, directs and conducts survey work to determine, delineate, plan and precisely position tracts of land, natural and constructed features, coastlines, marine floors and underground works, and manages related information systems.https://skillshortages.immigration.govt.nz/surveyor/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref16" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> ANZSCO level 1: Acquires, integrates, analyses, interprets, presents, manages and distributes information about locations in space and time, and develops related equipment, software and services.https://skillshortages.immigration.govt.nz/other-spatial-scientist/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref17" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> https://skillshortages.immigration.govt.nz/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref18" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> "GIS", "Geo", "Geospatial", "Spatial", "Remote", "GNSS", "Map", "Cartography", "Geovisual", "Visual", "Modeling", "Modelling", "GPS", "Navigation", "Data", "Environmental", "Satellite", "Photogrammetry", "Observation", "GI" "Geomatics", "Geodesy", "GIScience", "Systems", "Geographic", "Geoinformatics", "Geoinformatik", "Geodäsie", "Surveying".</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref19" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Programmes searched were geography, environmental science, surveying, archaeology, agriculture, forestry, geology, biology, ecology, ecosystems, urban planning, land management, and data science.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> NZ (0), Ireland (46 of 133), Australia (0), Germany (20), UK (0), USA (2). Although the proportion in Ireland was high, it did not impact course categorisation to the same extent as most course titles were clear. For the later course contents analysis, most of these courses were not in the categories compared with NZ and only 9 of the 46 courses were problematic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref10" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> https://<ulink href="http://www.linz.govt.nz/gcc">www.linz.govt.nz/gcc</ulink></bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0184138111-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Bean, W. T., Baumbusch, R. C., Berger, B., Delheimer, M., Hecker, L. J., Lau, M., & Milligan, M. C. (2017). What should go in a wildlife professional's geospatial toolbox? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 41 (3), 605 – 610. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.795</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bearman, N., Jones, N., André, I., Cachinho, H. A., & DeMers, M. (2016). The future role of GIS education in creating critical spatial thinkers. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 40 (3), 394 – 408. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2016.1144729</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Briggs, C., Burford, I., Duckham, M., Guntarik, O., Kerr, D., McMillan, M., & San Martin Saldias, D. (2020). Bridging the geospatial gap: Data about space and indigenous knowledge of place. Geography Compass, 14 (11), e12542. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12542</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Róiste, M. (2014). Filling the gap: The geospatial skills shortage in New Zealand. New Zealand Geographer, 70 (3), 179 – 189. https://doi.org/10.1111/nzg.12054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Róiste, M. (2016). Graduate pathways: Support for young geospatial professionals in New Zealand. Unpublished report commissioned by land information New Zealand and the department of conservation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Vries, W. T. (2021). Trends in the adoption of new geospatial technologies for spatial planning and land management in 2021. Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, 8 (2), 85 – 98. https://doi.org/10.14710/geoplanning.8.2.85-98</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DiBiase, D., DeMers, M., Johnson, A., Kemp, K., Taylor Luck, A., Plewe, B., & Wentz, E. (2007). Introducing the first edition of geographic information science and technology body of knowledge. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 34 (2), 113 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1559/152304007781002253</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref11" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Employment and Training Administration. (2010). US department of labor announces release of geospatial technology competency model. https://<ulink href="http://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20100708">www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20100708</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref30" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Franco, M., Silva, R., & Rodrigues, M. (2019). Partnerships between higher education institutions and firms: The role of students' curricular internships. Industry and Higher Education, 33 (3), 172 – 185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422218819638</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaudet, C. H., Annulis, H. M., & Carr, J. C. (2003). Building the geospatial workforce. URISA Journal, 15 (1), 21 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gentile, M., Johnston, J., & Camhi, J. (2021). The rise of spatial thinking. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/signals-for-strategists/geospatial-analytics-use-cases.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hong, J. E. (2016). Identifying skill requirements for GIS positions: A content analysis of job advertisements. The Journal of Geography, 115 (4), 147 – 158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2015.1085588</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, R. D., & Kerski, J. (2023). Examining the perspectives of practitioners toward a geospatial technology competency Model. Transactions in GIS, 27 (5), 1550 – 1578. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.13087</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kawasaki, A., Berman, M. L., & Guan, W. (2013). The growing role of web‐based geospatial technology in disaster response and support. Disasters, 37 (2), 201 – 221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2012.01302.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemp, K. (2012). In Unwin, David J., Foote, Kenneth E., Tate, Nicholas J., & DiBiase, David (Eds.), Teaching Geographic Information Science and Technology in Higher Education (pp. 47 – 59). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119950592</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemp, K., & Wright, R. (1997). UCGIS identifies GIScience education priorities. Geo Info Systems, 7 (9), 16 – 18, 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khan, T. U. R., Davis, P., & Behr, F.J. (2016). A framework for an open source geospatial certification model. The International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing & Spatial Information Sciences, 41, 57. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLI-B6-57-2016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mercier, O. R., & Rata, A. (2017). Drawing the line with Google earth: The place of digital mapping outside of geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 41 (1), 75 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2016.1260097</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prager, S. D., & Plewe, B. (2009). Assessment and evaluation of GIScience curriculum using the geographic information science and technology body of knowledge. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33 (S1), S46 – S69. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260903034012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinton, D. S. (2009). Roles for GIS within higher education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33 (S1), S7 – S16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260903034046</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solem, M., Cheung, I., & Schlemper, M. B. (2008). Skills in professional geography: An assessment of workforce needs and expectations. The Professional Geographer, 60 (3), 356 – 373. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330120802013620</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> University Consortium for Geographic Information Science. (n.d.). GIS&T body of knowledge. <ulink href="http://gistbok.ucgis.org/">http://gistbok.ucgis.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallentin, G., Hofer, B., & Traun, C. (2015). Assessment of workforce demands to shape GIS&T education. Transactions in GIS, 19 (3), 439 – 454. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walter, C. (2020, August). Future trends in geospatial information management: The five to ten year vision (3rd ed.). United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management. https://ggim.un.org/meetings/GGIM-committee/10th-Session/documents/Future_Trends_Report_THIRD_EDITION_digital_accessible.pdf</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Mairéad de Róiste; Scott C. Pool and John H. Lowry</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref41"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1465777
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Evaluating Geospatial Education Provision: A Case Study of Aotearoa New Zealand
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mairéad+de+Róiste%22">Mairéad de Róiste</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7418-1428">0000-0002-7418-1428</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Scott+C%2E+Pool%22">Scott C. Pool</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22John+H%2E+Lowry%22">John H. Lowry</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7909-4411">0000-0002-7909-4411</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Geography+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Journal of Geography in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 49(2):185-202.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Geographic+Location%22">Geographic Location</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Geographic+Concepts%22">Geographic Concepts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology%22">Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skilled+Workers%22">Skilled Workers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Design%22">Curriculum Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty%22">Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Courses%22">Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Geographic+Information+Systems%22">Geographic Information Systems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Industry%22">Industry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stakeholders%22">Stakeholders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitudes%22">Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22New+Zealand%22">New Zealand</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03098265.2024.2403075
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0309-8265<br />1466-1845
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Geospatial technology is still a growth area and knowledge of these technologies remains essential for a skilled workforce. In higher education, geospatial curriculum design is predominantly determined by educators and is influenced by what educators believe should be taught. Knowledge of national or regional provision can support a richer understanding of expected provision and areas of over or under-provision to better support the needs of varied geospatial roles and identify possible programme specialisations. In this paper, we describe an approach for evaluating Aotearoa New Zealand's provision of geospatial education in the tertiary education sector. First, we examine and compare current course offerings in New Zealand's tertiary sector against selected institutions in five countries using the GIS&T Body of Knowledge and Geospatial Technology Competency Model as a framework for comparison. Second, we evaluate the results of a focus-group workshop of geospatial education providers and geospatial industry stakeholders about perceived needs in geospatial education in New Zealand. We find this approach works well to support a better understanding of what is provided for both educators and industry. By including industry geospatial professionals in identifying perceived gaps, educators' knowledge of industry needs will grow as well as industry's understanding of current provision.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1465777
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1465777
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03098265.2024.2403075
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 185
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Geographic Location
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Geographic Concepts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skilled Workers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Geographic Information Systems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Industry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stakeholders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: New Zealand
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Evaluating Geospatial Education Provision: A Case Study of Aotearoa New Zealand
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mairéad de Róiste
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Scott C. Pool
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: John H. Lowry
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0309-8265
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1466-1845
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 49
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Geography in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1