A Manifesto on Mobile Computing in Geographic Education*

Marc P. Armstrong and David A. Bennett

The University of Iowa

Mobile, location-aware computing technology is widely available. In this article we sketch out a manifesto on
mobile computing in geographic education (MoGeo) for consideration and debate within the geographic
community. At the core of our argument is the idea that emerging mobile computing technologies will allow
teachers to bring the classroom and pedagogic materials into the field, and that the resulting in situ educational
experience will enhance learning by contextualizing the complex and abstract concepts that we teach. We
provide a set of key principles that can guide the development of field experiences for students using these new
technologies. Key Words: mobile GIS, wireless computing, geographic education, location-aware computing.

Introduction (MoGeo). We argue that synergistic advances

n the palm of one hand we are now able to
I hold computing power that forty years
ago would have been contained in several
refrigerator-sized cabinets. The rapid pace of
technological miniaturization, along with a
commensurate reduction in power require-
ments, has enabled the creation of mobile com-
puters that are becoming integrated into many
aspects of our lives. Computers have, in essence,
become ubiquitous. They are embedded in cars,
cell phones, kitchen appliances, surveillance
equipment, and, in some instances, even our
clothing (Weiser 1993; Davis 2002; Hull, Reid,
and Geelhoed 2002; Smailagic and Siewiorek
2002; Nakanishi et al. 2004). Lightweight, wire-
less, tablet, and handheld ( PDA-like) computers
are now also commonplace, and most experts
agree that the trends we observe today in mobile,
embedded, ubiquitous, and pervasive comput-
ing are just a metaphorical tip of the iceberg.
Indeed, these technologies have the ‘‘potential to
change radically the way people interact with
their environment by linking together a range of
devices and sensors that will allow information
to be collected, shared, and processed in un-
precedented ways’’ (CSTB 2001, 1).
The purpose of this article is to put forth, for
consideration and debate, a manifesto on
mobile computing in geographic education
in geographic information system (GIS) soft-
ware, data collection technologies, and mobile
computing will have far-reaching effects in
academia in general and geography in particu-
lar. These technological advances have the po-
tential to enhance both how we ‘‘do geography’’
as professionals and how we teach about geo-
graphical processes in our classrooms. It would
be beneficial for our students, therefore, if we
were to revise our curricula accordingly. At
present, however, little has been written about
the way in which mobile technologies can be
used to further geographical education, an area
of enormous opportunity for educational inno-
vation. Mobile technologies will enable teachers
to bring the classroom, Internet, and library to
the field. We suggest that such contextually
aware in situ learning environments will en-
hance learning by coupling direct interaction
with real-world phenomena and immediate ac-
cess to associated knowledge repositories. Such
a coupling, we contend, will reduce the cogni-
tive burden associated with comprehending
abstract geographical processes, while simulta-
neously providing valuable experience with sup-
porting technologies.
We outline a set of areas in which mobile
computing can be used to support MoGeo
initiatives and suggest some guidelines for
educational projects that will, in turn, provide

*We thank The University of Iowa (UI) College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and the UI Academic Technologies Advisory Council for their financial
support of this project, the UI Information Technologies Services for their financial and technical assistance in the deployment of wireless tech-
nologies ( Jason Mueller in particular), and Jerry Mount, Wenwu Tang, and Chetan Tiwari for their help in implementing of mobile geocomputing
technologies described in this article.

The Professional Geographer, 57(4) 2005, pages 506–515 r Copyright 2005 by Association of American Geographers.
Initial submission, August 2003; revised submission, June 2004; final acceptance July 2004.
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, U.K.
 A Manifesto on Mobile Computing in Geographic Education
an impetus for the creation of new geographical
knowledge. We are particularly concerned with
an approach to MoGeo that integrates four key
technologies (Figure 1):
1. Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to pro-
vide information about location
2. Geographic information system (GIS) soft-
ware to provide data about what is at a lo-
cation
3. Wireless communication to provide in situ
access to the knowledge needed to interpret
these data and understand associated proc-
esses
4. Handheld and tablet computers that provide
the technology needed to package these ca-
pabilities into a single mobile unit.
In the next section we present a general dis-
cussion about the promise of, and need for, the
use of mobile technologies in geography. We
then provide a set of pedagogical principles that
distinguish MoGeo from traditional approach-
es. Finally, we discuss impediments to the im-
plementation of these ideas.
Background and Need for Mobile
Geographic Education
Geography has a long history of incorporating
field observation into research and teaching.
Almost 2,000 years ago, Strabo, who made ex-
tensive use of secondary sources, also included
‘‘descriptive’’ geography, with direct observa-
tion and recording of data, in his tripartite
categorization of the subject matter of the
discipline. Jumping forward a few millennia,
Global positioning
system receiver
Wireless network
interface card
Personal digital assistant
running GIS software
Figure 1 A handheld computer equipped with
Global Positioning Systems (GPS), wireless net-
work interface card (behind GPS), geographic
information system (GIS) software, and custom
communication software.
507
we encounter the collection of articles assem-
bled by Platt (1959) that chronicles the devel-
opment of different types of fieldwork during
the first half of the last century and, even more
recently, an entire special issue of the Geograph-
ical Review (2001) that was devoted to this topic.
Throughout this time, fieldworkers have been
quick to adopt new technologies that have
served to improve the ease and accuracy of re-
cording observations. Without exaggeration,
however, it is safe to say that the last forty years
have brought technological changes of unprec-
edented scale to the discipline of geography. As
noted by Dobson (2001), these technologies
have a clear connection to field observation,
and we suggest that the complementary nature
of locational technologies, such as GPS and
remote sensing, and emerging mobile com-
puting technologies will induce further signif-
icant changes in this realm—some foreseen,
others not.
Mobile computing devices, such as PDAs,
have the capability, built in or added on, to sense
their location; this is leading to new ways of
thinking about the role of geography in com-
puting ( Patterson, Muntz, and Pancake 2003).
Given rapid Moore’s-Law-like advances in mo-
bile hardware technology (Meindel 2003), the
GIS software industry has responded quickly
with products that run on mobile computing
devices. Simply put, the vendors have expanded
into a large and growing market for wireless
field data collection (see, e.g., Peng and Tsou
2003, chap. 9). This trend is opening new doors
for personal communication, marketing, emer-
gency services, and navigation. For example,
visually impaired individuals can navigate
through a campus (Golledge et al. 1998; Helal,
Moore, and Ramachandran 2001), store owners
can ‘‘reach out’’ electronically to potential cli-
entele who travel near their establishments
(McDonough 2001), emergency personnel in
rural areas can have a multimedia ‘‘dialog’’ with
experts at distant hospitals (Bergeron 2001), and
healthcare workers can monitor the status and
location of elderly or at-risk patients (Stanford
2002).
Researchers and policy makers in govern-
ment, industry, and academia have begun to
recognize the potential of these technological
trends. The Institute of Electrical and Elec-
tronics Engineers (IEEE) has commenced pub-
lication of a new journal that is focused on this
508 Volume 57, Number 4, November 2005
general topic; Pervasive Computing: Mobile and
Ubiquitous Systems recently began its fifth year of
publication. Federal level interest is evident in a
National Research Council (CSTB 2001) re-
port that documents the enormous changes that
are occurring in mobile, resource-constrained
computing. In recent work produced by a Na-
tional Academy of Sciences panel, the focus is
more explicitly geospatial, with an entire chap-
ter devoted to mobile, location-aware comput-
ing (CSTB 2003). More tangible evidence of
governmental support for mobile GIS is seen
through the financial backing of research efforts
like Project Batutta, a project funded by the
National Science Foundation’s Digital Govern-
ment program, that is focused on the develop-
ment and use of such technologies for field data
collection (Nusser et al. 2003). Industry’s sup-
port for mobile and ubiquitous computing is
evident in several collaborative efforts that have
been established among computer and commu-
nication industry leaders, government, and
academia. Though there have been some early
failures, the net result of these efforts leads us to
conclude that information technologies have
begun a new era, and it is imperative that ped-
agogic initiatives in geography respond in kind.
Wireless Computing on Campus
Universities have begun to invest in both the
science and application of wireless technolo-
gies, and successful projects have been imple-
mented on many campuses; the University of
Georgia, Dartmouth College, and the Univer-
sity of Maryland are noteworthy examples. En-
gineering students at the University of Georgia
have built antennas for mobile computing that
are deployed in downtown Athens. Students
are then challenged to create and implement
innovative applications that make use of the
technology. Dartmouth’s implementation is re-
presentative of what we expect will be more
typical of wireless applications on university
campuses. By providing campus-wide wireless
access to the Internet, campus administrators
see benefit to the educational experiences that
are generated when groups of students link to a
wireless network to engage in informal educa-
tional processes. Professors at Dartmouth are
also creating innovative ways to incorporate
wireless technologies into the classroom. For
example, in a psychology classroom, students
electronically respond to in-class questions
posed by the instructor (McHugh 2002). This
real-time feedback is designed to help an in-
structor distinguish between those concepts the
students have grasped and those that need fur-
ther discussion.
Researchers at the University of Maryland,
meanwhile, are working to construct a seamless
environment in which a computing device re-
mains location aware as one moves into build-
ings where GPS signals do not penetrate
(Banerjee et al. 2002). To accomplish this, they
must pass the tracking responsibility from the
GPS to an alternative technology such as
triangulation from signal strength estimation
(Grejner-Brzezinska 2004). On many campuses,
however, wireless technologies are being de-
ployed only for intrabuilding applications (e.g.,
Web access in offices and libraries) and are not
being used explicitly to support outdoor edu-
cational activities. On our campus (The Uni-
versity of Iowa) we have successfully persuaded
the information technology bureaucracy that
outdoor use is a plausible next step beyond in-
door use. They have responded by installing
wireless access points in two outdoor locations
to support the development of mobile GIS lab-
oratory exercises.
With Wireless, Geography Matters
Many challenging problems that we address in
our classes require an understanding of how
complex and interrelated processes operate
across space and through time. These process-
es occur at multiple spatial and temporal scales
and, as such, they are complicated and abstract.
While educational experiences gained in a tra-
ditional classroom may provide students with
access to domain experts, abstract concepts re-
main difficult for many to grasp. Field trips can
help ground classroom discussions and enhance
student understanding of spatiotemporal proc-
esses, but such trips are limited to a particular
place and time; extrapolation beyond these
bounds is left to the imagination of the student.
The educational value of a typical field trip also
may fail to reach its full potential because stu-
dents lack access to supplemental materials and,
if the group is too large or becomes too dis-
persed, access to expert knowledge and wide-
ranging discussion. Answers to questions that
arise through the exploration of the environ-
ment must wait until students return to a class-
room, an Internet connection, or a library. We
 A Manifesto on Mobile Computing in Geographic Education
suggest that such interruptions to learning in-
hibit intellectual exploration because students
are not encouraged to form a web of under-
standing that links associated concepts.
Connecting an Internet-enabled wireless com-
munication device to a GPS receiver that re-
ports location provides an extremely powerful
tool that can help to overcome this problem.
Furthermore, it seems certain that location-
aware mobile computers will have an increas-
ingly significant impact on our daily lives. As a
consequence, it is important that geography
students, in general, and GIScience students, in
particular, understand the potential strengths
and weaknesses of this emerging technology.
Such an understanding will give our students
the knowledge needed to compete successfully
in a rapidly changing job market and lead to the
appropriate and ethical use of advanced geo-
spatial technologies. We further contend that
the need for such an understanding is, in fact,
widespread within the academy and that the ac-
tivities described here will have important ram-
ifications in a wide range of disciplines, literally
from anthropology (studying the ecological
context of ancient sites) to zoology (accessing
taxonomic keys while conducting field surveys).
A Way Forward
With MoGeo-enabled fieldwork, context as-
sumes a dominant role, since we must strive to
deliver educational material to a student when
and where it is needed. We must know who the
students are and the class in which they are en-
rolled. We must know the laboratory exercise
particular students are attempting to complete
and where they are located in the landscape. We
must know which concepts a student has mas-
tered and which ones present him or her with an
educational challenge. In essence, we must con-
struct a digital abstraction of each student in
space-time. MoGeo applications must pull con-
textual information from students and then
push appropriate educational materials back to
them. Some elements of this coordinated pull
and push of information will prove to be
straightforward. Providing access to an educa-
tional video clip about a particular feature when
a student comes within ten (or 100) meters of it,
for example, seems technically straightforward.
Understanding which concepts a student has
mastered and which require reinforcement will,
509
however, prove to be a greater challenge. Con-
sider, for example, Figure 2, which represents
one scenario for interactive learning. The idea
in this case is that students must successfully
complete a set of predetermined learning ob-
jectives before progressing to more advanced
coursework. This process would provide real-
time reinforcement, allow students to correct
their mistakes in the field, while the concepts
and motivation for learning are current, and to
proceed at their own pace. We should expect,
however, variability not only among different
students but also for an individual student. A
student could possess relatively sophisticated
knowledge in one area and struggle in other
areas because of experience, learning style, or
motivation. If the learning process is overly
constrained into a stepwise, linear activity path,
students may encounter bottlenecks that unduly
inhibit progress and, as a result, quickly become
Lab n
Learning yes
Lab n+1
objectives
met?
no
Identify weakness
1. Conceptual (e.g., didn’t understand the idea of topology)
2. Procedural (e.g., problem with sequencing of steps or software)
3. Mechanical (e.g., error and accuracy)
Remediate
Figure 2 Each laboratory exercise should be as-
sociated with a set of quantifiable learning objec-
tives. These objectives may be conceptual (e.g.,
understanding topology), procedural (e.g., under-
standing how field-based data collection is imple-
mented using a particular software package), or
mechanical (e.g., performing required tasks accu-
rately and completely). Using mobile GIS technolo-
gy and contextually triggered ‘‘pop quizzes,’’ the
system could assess how well students meet
stated objectives and, in some circumstances, iden-
tify where mistakes are made (e.g., discrepancies
between the students’ work and expected product).
Remedial actions could include recapturing points
that are incorrectly located, completing a step that
was inadvertently skipped, or searching Web-based
resources that describe a particular concept.
510 Volume 57, Number 4, November 2005
frustrated with the system. Thus, the learning
process may be best thought of as a partially
ordered set of activities, and students should be
provided opportunities to complete activities in
a manner that best meets their abilities and
needs. The challenge, then, is to use student-
centered context to guide dynamic, nonlinear
learning that identifies weaknesses and pro-
motes understanding. While context-sensitive
computing has received some attention from
the research community, much work remains to
be done (Satyanarayanan 2002).
MoGeo Design Principles
We believe that the context-specific delivery of
appropriate materials, together with direct in-
teraction with real-world phenomena and im-
mediate access to knowledge repositories, will
reduce the level of abstraction associated with
traditional educational experiences and, thus,
lead to greater understanding of geographical
processes. This leads to a set of prescriptive
principles about MoGeo system design.
1. Thou shalt make the abstract concrete
through in situ learning experiences.
The study of many geographical processes
occurs at medium (e.g., over a landscape or a
city) or large (e.g., a sampling quadrat or
station) spatial scales. In the context of a
conventional lecture, geographical concepts
are described using abstractions. Relating
these abstractions to real-world processes
often proves challenging to students. Mobile
computing will, to a greater extent, allow
students to study geographical processes in
situ while having access to reference materi-
als, expert knowledge, their professor, and
their fellow students. The challenge to ed-
ucators is to provide appropriate materials to
students in a timely manner. This requires a
careful evaluation not only of content but of
appropriate scale and dimension as well.
2. Thou shalt define flexible locational
triggers.
MoGeo technology can be used to turn re-
ality into something analogous to the self-
guided tour systems available at many muse-
ums. When the location of a student in a par-
ticular educational context is obtained, this
information can be communicated to a data
server that then delivers appropriate location-
specific information to the student in the field.
This information can be tailored to a partic-
ular educational goal depending on the course
being taught, or even a particular student’s
progress in that course. For example, a con-
textually appropriate and locationally trig-
gered video (e.g., a professor discussing the
process of stream meanders is made available
as a student approaches an oxbow) would be
designed to help students gain insights into
processes operating at a site. By augmenting
reality with a contextually aware overlay of
knowledge, the world becomes, in essence, a
museum (but at a finite number of locations).
Though researchers have begun to exper-
iment with context-sensitive hypermedia ap-
plications using PDAs (Bellotti et al. 2002),
significant challenges remain to be addressed.
In particular, the conceptualization of abso-
lute and relative location must be carefully
nuanced. In this case, a locational trigger re-
fers to the decision to push or provide access to
specific types of information. For example, a
locational trigger could be based on the dis-
tance between a student and a point, line, or
area, or based on a computed topological
relationship (inside, adjacent). However, the
value of an appropriate distance parameter
might change, depending on educational or
geographical context. Moreover, the location-
sensing sampling interval and rate of move-
ment of the student will have to be synchro-
nized correctly, and fuzzy tolerances for
particular contexts may need to be established.
3. Thou shalt accommodate multiple learning
styles.
It is well known that people process in-
formation in different ways (Smith 2002).
Some individuals, by preference or necessity,
are visual learners, while others preferential-
ly use auditory channels. These alternative
learning styles should be taken into consid-
eration when class materials are produced.
Locational triggers could, for example, de-
liver information in graphical, textual, audi-
tory, or symbolic (mathematical) form. Links
among these alternative representational
forms should be provided to help reinforce
the concepts being presented.
4. Thou shalt make learning interactive,
dynamic, and student centered.
The progress of students can be moni-
tored as they use a mobile computer. We can
know: (1) where a student is; (2) the progress
 A Manifesto on Mobile Computing in Geographic Education
a student has made on a particular project;
and (3) how well the student did on particular
aspects of the problem. ‘‘Pop quizzes’’ can be
launched based on context (e.g., course,
location, individual, identified mistakes or
conceptual shortcomings) to test how well
the student learned the lessons being taught,
and, if necessary, remedial actions can be
taken. Such actions may include an alterna-
tive presentation of the material (e.g., textual
instead of graphical), access to additional
Web-based resources, online discussion with
professors or peers, or repeating steps where
problems occurred. (We anticipate that the
use of such quizzes will make our courses
very popular.)
5. Thou shalt teach about spatial relationships
and their digital representation.
Traditional GIS applications have tended
to partition data into different generic types
(i.e., attribute, geometrical, topological),
and these continue to be fundamental cate-
gories. Geography students engaged in field-
based data editing should be able to observe
and capture attributes that are associated
with a particular feature, as well as alter its
geometry (e.g., add or remove curvature) or
connectivity (e.g., establish that streets do, or
do not, actually connect). They must also
learn about other basic geographic concepts
relating to pattern, accessibility and distance
(Nystuen 1963).
6. Thou shalt instruct about safe editing prac-
tices and metadata.
Data check-in and check-out procedures
need to be established to provide adequate
quality control and assurance. It is possible,
for example, that a student might confuse
different types of oak trees based on field
observation. To facilitate error correction, it
must be possible to trace the history of
alterations in case there are systematic
operator-induced errors that are observed.
Part of this process involves fastidious atten-
tion to the collection of metadata (see Guptill
1999).
7. Thou shalt instruct about privacy and
ethical use.
Mobile computing technologies bring with
them very real concerns about privacy (Arm-
strong 2002; Monmonier 2002; Beresford
and Stajano 2003; Myles, Friday, and Davies
2003; Gruteser and Xuan 2004). These con-
511
cerns may be manifested as stark invasions
into an individual’s personal information or
physical space, or more subtlety as a slow
erosion of our collective sense of privacy as we
willingly increase our use of these technolo-
gies for convenience, knowledge, or pleasure
(see, e.g., Curry 1998; Onsrud, Johnson, and
Lopez 1994). In particular, mobile computers
can be used with GIS software and Web-
based resources to determine a wide variety of
information about particular locations. For
example, a student could saunter up to a sin-
gle-family dwelling unit, determine its ad-
dress, and link that information to telephone
numbers, the names and telephone numbers
of neighbors, assessed valuation, and many
other types of information available from
public and commercial information provid-
ers. Though there are few formal restrictions
on what can, and cannot, be done, students
should be taught responsible use of the tech-
nologies (CSTB 2003). On an even more
ominous note, Dobson and Fisher (2003)
have written about geoslavery, which is ena-
bled by mobile computing and positioning
technologies. With these technologies, indi-
viduals can have their location monitored and
their behavior controlled. For example, the
location of children and persons convicted of
particular crimes can be used to determine if
they are violating specific agreements or con-
ditions. This has important ethical, develop-
mental, and social consequences.
8. Thou shalt promote personal safety.
Faculty must consider personal safety is-
sues when designing MoGeo applications.
For example, if waypoints are established as
part of completing an exercise, their location
could expose students to danger or cause
them to behave in an unlawful manner (e.g.,
trespass). While the risks with respect to
MoGeo do not appear to be greater than
those associated with other types of field ex-
periences, they clearly do not disappear as a
consequence of using the technology.
9. Thou shalt practice safe communication.
Wireless network security receives con-
siderable attention from information tech-
nology professionals, and justifiably so.
Commonly used wireless protocols (e.g.,
802.11b) have well-known security prob-
lems (Arbaugh 2003). Wireless computers
can be used to access networks, with and
512 Volume 57, Number 4, November 2005
without security provisions enabled. Wire-
less security has two main components: au-
thentication and encryption. Authentication
ensures that only those individuals with le-
gitimate access rights can use the network. In
a university setting this might include pro-
viding network access only to current stu-
dents, faculty, and staff and be consistent
with restrictions placed on the use of other
university facilities such as libraries. En-
cryption is used to prevent unauthorized in-
terception of information. Current systems
often use a relatively easily defeated, but
nontrivial, protocol called wired equivalent
privacy (WEP). Future systems will use
much more difficult to defeat encryption
and authentication technologies based on
the recently ratified IEEE 80211i standard
(Cam-Winget et al. 2003; Housley and Arb-
augh 2003).
10. Thou shalt not write bloated code for mo-
bile devices.
At the present time, mobile devices tend
to have limited RAM, electrical power, pe-
ripheral storage, and processing capability
(Viredaz, Brakmo, and Hamburgen 2004).
Consequently, it is important that code be
lightweight.
A MoGeo Example
Introductory courses that are designed to teach
students about physical processes can make
extensive use of MoGeo concepts. To illus-
trate their utility, consider the following class-
room application in Introduction to Physical
Geography.
An instructor in Iowa City, IA, is teaching a
module on fluvial processes and flooding. This
instructor chooses to use the 1993 flood that
affected much of the Midwest to illustrate as-
sociated concepts. The instructor tells the stu-
dents that on 21 June 1993 the Iowa River at
Iowa City had a mean daily discharge of 26,200
cubic feet per second. What does this statement
mean to typical undergraduate students? Can
they relate this value to what they see on a daily
basis? Do they realize that this value is ten times
that of a typical June day? Do students under-
stand the relationship between velocity, dis-
charge, and stream stage? Between land use and
flooding? We expect understanding would
improve if students could stand next to the
Iowa River and:
1. Retrieve the real-time USGS flow data (e.g.,
on 1 June 2003, discharge at this location was
2,540 cfs, http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis);
2. Build a stage-discharge curve, type in a dis-
charge value, and construct a visualization of
the associated flood extent, with the student’s
current position captured and highlighted
using GPS;
3. Link to images or streaming video of past
flood events;
4. Link to streaming video of the instructor
discussing floodplain processes and drawing
his or her attention to key spatial features
with the aid of an integrated map;
5. Link to geographically referenced air photos
of the flood and establish the extent of the
flooded area using GPS;
6. Search the World Wide Web to understand
spatial relationships (e.g., land-use patterns)
within the Iowa River watershed and the role
of the Iowa River watershed within the larger
context of the Mississippi River; and
7. Engage in online discussions with other stu-
dents at different locations in the watershed
or the instructor, perhaps with the assistance
of a dynamic map and communication tech-
nology that would allow for multiway dis-
cussions of specific geographical features
(e.g., a student may notice that Iowa City’s
treatment facility appeared to be below flood
level and want to question the instructor
about the implications of this situation).
Through the kinds of interactions and par-
ticipation in data exploration and analysis illus-
trated by this example, we expect that students
will gain a better understanding of geographical
processes.
Concluding Discussion
What we know about geographical processes is
derived, in part, from a collection of real-world
observations. Yet we often teach these processes
in the classroom with digital or photographic
images substituting for the real thing. MoGeo
offers a new educational paradigm that provides
a tighter coupling between reality and how we
teach about it. While the promise of MoGeo
within an academic setting is alluring, we would
 A Manifesto on Mobile Computing in Geographic Education
be remiss if we did not point out some chal-
lenges that might impede its full implementa-
tion. These include technological impediments,
such as bandwidth requirements, as well as con-
ceptual limitations, such as user interfaces and
appropriate system use and deployment.
Handheld devices have limited computing
power; they are slower and less capacious than
desktop systems. Consequently, in their current
form, they cannot support the analysis of some
of the more intensive computational problems
associated with geographical analysis (e.g.,
some types of interpolation). GIS software
packages, however, often provide analytical
routines that can be accessed from customized
source code. Computationally intensive, field-
based laboratory exercises can, therefore, be
constructed by wrapping such routines into us-
er-friendly and laboratory-specific interfaces,
uploading collected data to a server for analysis,
and sending the results back to the handheld
device. This solution, however, exacerbates
bandwidth problems.
The commonly deployed 802.11b commu-
nication protocol (so called Wi-Fi) spreads
information over 22Mhz of the 2.4-GHz in-
dustrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) band and
produces a theoretical upper limit to data trans-
mission of 11Mbps per channel. Twenty stu-
dents, roaming across the landscape, sending
and receiving streaming video, real-time voice
communication, and large spatial data sets, are
likely, therefore, to overtax the bandwidth avail-
able to the current generation of wireless tech-
nology. While it is often true that promised
improvements in technology fail to meet our
expectations, there is hope in the near term with
respect to wireless bandwidth. The 802.11g
protocol is backward compatible with 802.11b
and increases the maximize transmission rate to
54Mbps per channel. This technology is now
available in stand-alone routers or in dual-
mode (with 802.11b) configurations. On the
horizon lies 802.16 with up to 75Mbps per
channel, a technology referred to as Wi-MAX
(Vaughan-Nichols 2004).
A second issue with the 802.11b communi-
cation protocol is range; students should be
within approximately 300 m (outdoor, 100 m
indoor) of an access point. While the 802.11g
protocol increases this distance, the fact remains
that currently available wireless technologies
place an electronic leash on MoGeo. When
513
technologies like 802.16a become a reality,
however, the leash may stretch to a very com-
fortable 50 km.
Handheld devices also lack sufficient display
area to present maps, images, or even some tex-
tual material in standard form. The small-form
factor, at best, necessitates a redesign of the
typical user interface and, at worse, diminishes
the potential utility of mobile computing for use
with maps and imagery. Though computational
power and user interface issues can be amelio-
rated with the use of tablet computers, these
devices are quite costly. Currently, putting a
mobile GIS device with a PDA form-factor into
the hands of a student will cost around $500, and
this figure could more than triple if tablet PCs
are used.
Other problems that must be overcome fall
generally into the human-behavior domain. We
now have only a cursory understanding of the
way in which these new mobile technologies are
shaping the contours of human actions
(Armstrong 1997; Grudin 2002). When new
technologies are introduced into educational
settings, they sometimes are widely adopted and
appear to succeed (overhead projectors). Other
technologies fare less well in most university
settings (televised lectures and opaque projec-
tors). In other cases, the introduction of tech-
nology engenders new types of behavior, some
positive, some negative (Davis 2002). In the
context of mobile computing, we have attempt-
ed to sketch out a positive view, knowing that
the downside is very real: better and faster
cheating, dissolution of boundaries between
class time and private life, and the inability of
students (and professors) to adapt to new tech-
nology are just a few examples.
Despite these technological and conceptual
challenges, we expect MoGeo to improve the
educational experiences of students in two
important ways. First, students will have the
opportunity to work at the cutting edge of
information technologies and, thus, be better
prepared for a rapidly changing world of com-
puting (CSTB 2001). Second, mobile com-
puting will allow students to study many
geographical processes in situ while also having
access to online reference materials, expert
knowledge, their professor, and their fellow
students. We believe that this educational par-
adigm shift will help students gain a better un-
derstanding of many geographical processes.’
514 Volume 57, Number 4, November 2005
Literature Cited
Arbaugh, W. A. 2003. Wireless security is different.
Computer 36 (8): 90–95.
Armstrong, M. P. 1997. Emerging technologies and
the changing nature of work in GIS. Proceedings of
GIS/LIS’97. Bethesda, MD: American Congress on
Surveying and Mapping (unpaged CD-ROM).
———. 2002. Geographic information technologies
and their potentially erosive effects on personal
privacy. Studies in the Social Sciences 27 (1): 19–28.
Banerjee, S., S. Agarwal, K. Kamel, A. Kochut, C.
Kommareddy, T. Nadeem, P. Thakkar, B. Trinh, M.
Youssef, R. Larsen, A. Shankar, and A. Agrawala.
2002. Rover: Scalable location-aware computing.
IEEE Computer 35 (10): 46–53.
Bellotti, F., R. Berta, A. de Gloria, and M. Margarone.
2002. User testing a hypermedia tour guide. Per-
vasive Computing 1 (2): 33–41.
Beresford, A., and F. Stajano. 2003. Locational privacy
in pervasive computing. Pervasive Computing 2 (1):
46–55.
Bergeron, B. P. 2001. The wireless Web and patient
care. Journal of Medical Practice Management 17 (1):
39–43.
Cam-Winget, N., R. Housley, D. Wagner, and J.
Walker. 2003. Security flaws in 802.11 data link
protocols. Communications of the Association for Com-
puting Machinery 46 (5): 35–39.
CSTB – Computer Science and Telecommunications
Board Committee on Intersections Between Geo-
spatial Information and Information Technology.
2003. IT roadmap to a geospatial future. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
CSTB – Computer Science and Telecommunications
Board Committee on Networked Systems of Em-
bedded Computers. 2001. Embedded, everywhere: A
research agenda for networked systems of embedded com-
puters. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
Curry, M. R. 1998. Digital places: Living with geographic
information technologies. New York: Routledge.
Davis, G. B. 2002. Anytime/anyplace computing and
the future of knowledge work. Communications of the
Association for Computing Machinery 45 (12): 67–73.
Dobson, J. E. 2001. Fieldwork in a digital age. Geo-
graphical Review 91 (1–2): 430–40.
Dobson, J. E., and P. F. Fisher. 2003. Geoslavery. IEEE
Technology and Society Magazine Spring: 47–52.
Golledge, R. G., R. L. Klatzky, J. M. Loomis, J.
Speigle, and J. Tietz. 1998. A geographical infor-
mation system for a GPS based personal guidance
system. International Journal of Geographical Infor-
mation Science 12 (7): 727–49.
Grejner-Brzezinska, D. 2004. Positioning and track-
ing approaches and technologies. In Telegeoinforma-
tics, ed. H. Karimi and A. Hammad, 69–110. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Grudin, J. 2002. Group dynamics and ubiquitous
computing. Communications of the Association for
Computing Machinery 45 (12): 74–78.
Gruteser, M., and L. Xuan. 2004. Protecting privacy
in continuous location-tracking applications. IEEE
Security & Privacy 2 (2): 28–35.
Guptill, S. C. 1999. Metadata and data catalogues. In
Geographical information system (Vol. 2, 2nd ed.), ed.
P. Longley, M. Goodchild, D. Maguire, and D.
Rhind, 677–92. New York: Wiley.
Helal, A., S. Moore, and B. Ramachandran. 2001.
Drishti: An integrated navigation system for visu-
ally impaired and disabled. Proceedings of the 5th
International Symposium on Wearable Computers.
Zurich, Switzerland.
Housley, R., and W. Arbaugh. 2003. Security problems
in 802.11-based networks. Communications of the As-
sociation for Computing Machinery 46 (5): 31–34.
Hull, R., J. Reid, and E. Geelhoed. 2002. Creating
experiences with wearable computing. Pervasive
Computing 1 (4): 56–61.
McDonough, D. 2001. Lucent joins location-based
ad game. Wireless Newsactor, 23 January. http://
www.wirelessnewsfactor.com/perl/story/
6934.html (last accessed 22 June 2005).
McHugh, J. 2002. Unplugged U. Wired 10 (10).
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.10/dart
mouth.html (last accessed 22 June 2005).
Meindel, J. 2003. Beyond Moore’s law: The intercon-
nect era. Computing in Science and Engineering 5 (1):
20–24.
Monmonier, M. 2002. Spying with maps. Surveillance
technologies and the future of privacy. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Myles, G., A. Friday, and N. Davies. 2003. Preserving
privacy in environments with location-based appli-
cations. Pervasive Computing 2 (1): 56–64.
Nakanishi, Y., K. Takahashi, T. Tsuji, and K. Ha-
kozaki. 2004. iCAMS: A mobile communication
tool using location and schedule information. Per-
vasive Computing 3 (1): 82–88.
Nusser, S. M., L. L. Miller, K. Clarke, and M. F.
Goodchild. 2003. Geospatial IT for mobile field
data collection. Communications of the Association for
Computing Machinery 46 (1): 45–46.
Nystuen, J. D. 1963. Identification of some funda-
mental spatial concepts. Papers of the Michigan Acad-
emy of Science, Arts, and Letters 48:373–84.
Onsrud, H., J. Johnson, and X. Lopez. 1994. Protect-
ing personal privacy in using geographic informa-
tion systems. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing 60:1083–95.
Patterson, C. A., R. R. Muntz, and C. M. Pancake.
2003. Challenges in location-aware computing.
Pervasive Computing 2 (2): 80–89.
Peng, Z., and M. Tsou. 2003. Internet GIS: Distributed
Geographic Information Services for the Internet and
wireless networks. New York: Wiley.
 A Manifesto on Mobile Computing in Geographic Education
Platt, R. S. 1959. Field study in American geography.
In The Development of theory and method exemplified by
selections, Research paper No. 61. Chicago: The
University of Chicago, Department of Geography.
Satyanarayanan, M. 2002. Challenges in implementing
a context-aware system. Pervasive Computing 1 (3): 2.
Smailagic, A., and D. Siewiorek. 2002. Application
design for wearable and context-aware computers.
Pervasive Computing 1 (4): 20–29.
Smith, J. 2002. Learning styles: Fashion fad or lever
for change? The application of learning style theory
to inclusive curriculum delivery. Innovations in Ed-
ucation and Teaching International 39 (1): 63–70.
Stanford, V. 2002. Using pervasive computing to de-
liver elder care. Pervasive Computing 1 (1): 10–13.
Vaughan-Nichols, S. J. 2004. Achieving wireless
broadband with WiMax. Computer 37 (6): 10–13.
Viredaz, M., L. Brakmo, and W. Hamburgen. 2004.
Energy management on handheld devices. ACM
Queue 1 (7): 46–52.
515
Weiser, M. 1993. Some computer science problems in
ubiquitous computing. Communications of the Asso-
ciation for Computing Machinery 36 (7): 75–84.
MARC P. ARMSTRONG is a Professor and Chair in
the Department of Geography, and a Collegiate Fel-
low in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, at The
University of Iowa, 316 Jessup Hall, Iowa City, IA
52242. E-mail: marc-armstrong@uiowa.edu. His re-
search interests include computational geography,
cartography, mobile computing, and spatial decision
support systems.
DAVID A. BENNETT is an Associate Professor in
the Department of Geography at The University
of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242. E-mail: david-
bennett@uiowa.edu. His research interests include
geographic information science, environmental sim-
ulation, and the analysis of environmental policy using
geoprocessing techniques.