Resource: Gapminder World

Web-based Tool Critique

Introduction

For the web-based “project”, I have chosen to critique Gapminder World (GW), a tool from the Gapminder Foundation which allows people to interact with cross-country data. My critique is based on the TPACK criteria, a framework which emphasizes how knowledge of edutech, pedagogy, and a subject/content can reinforce each other.

Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org

In particular, instead of the 3 “pure” contexts (TK, CK, and PK) of analysis, I will focus on the major intersections among these (shown as TCK, PCK, and TPK in the Venn diagram), as this is where arguably most of the value in the use of edutech seems to lie.

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)

For all the exciting possibilities GW seems to afford, we must be mindful of potential limitations. As with all great new hammers, there is always the risk of treating everything like a nail. GW is a tool like many others and, as such, can sometimes constrain the ways we think.

As with all data-driven tools, one major concern is the relevance of the data. Since many countries are very diverse inside, we all can easily imagine how a teacher knowledgeable about a specific country may point out that GW’s country-level focus is too coarse. Such coarsity will make people gloss over some very important within-country disparities, and arguably miss many of the nuances of our world. Such an approach may indeed lose some very interesting trees for whole forests.

For a tool with a timeline perspective, relying on country averages can indeed completely ignore within-country transformative trends: the top-down bias of the tool will invariably miss the early stages of future trends inside individual countries (all big things start small, after all). Another major limiting factor comes from GW’s reliance on the quantifiable. Anything not directly numerable is simply left out, and this can ultimately limit an in-class treatment of geography/history.

From a Technological Content perspective, GW’s greatest strength is perhaps as a tool to hone students’ intuitions (and dispel their misconceptions about the world). It is important that teachers emphasize that countries are not usually homogeneous entities, and encourage further exploration/research of various countries through means other than GW.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

As in the less tech-savvy scenario of the non-digital classroom, a teacher’s knowledge of their subject can make a big difference in how deep students are encouraged to learn the topics proposed in class. As useful as it is, Gapminder is no replacement for an educator who is well-versed both in their subject as well as sound pedagogical practices.

The sorts of scenarios Gapminder seems most suited are inquiries of a hybrid historical/geographic nature, perhaps with a touch of economics or epidemiology (if the teacher is comfortable going in those directions). Ideally, the teacher should be proficient in both history as well as world geography, in order to provide expert guidance to students when they need it.

Yet when it comes to the historical side of the lessons, another limitation of GW comes out. GW is suddenly silent about things before the mid-1800s (its data start from the 19th century). The lack of earlier historical data still severely limits its applicability in the history classroom to the post-Edwardian era.

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)

GW’s immediacy (almost) allows direct exploration along 3 dimensions of data (4 if the non-instantaneous animations are counted): the flat graph area provides the first 2, while the third is conveyed by the areas of the moving bubbles. For content as alien to physical experience as multidimensional data, such at-a-glance manipulation is as “concrete” as is currently practical and enable an exploration of the world with a bird's-eye view.

All these qualities are well in tune with an intuitionistic philosophy of pedagogy which emphasizes starting with concrete manipulation, and only later introduce abstractions. Inquiry-wise, the tool seems to encourage personal exploration of pet-hypotheses (especially their rejection): for all the coarseness of country-level data, it is hard to argue when personal myths about our world are put into question in front of your eyes. While (linear) correlation is not causation, a (visual) lack of correlation is a good sign of the contrary!

Gapminder World is well suited for pedagogical styles centered on compare/contrast scenarios; shown is a comparative display of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, two geographically adjacent countries (click picture to interact/change the scenario)

Where GW seems to excel is in promoting comparative thinking. A good example you can try for yourself is comparing the development of Haiti and the Dominican Republic: such a stark contrast between two countries which share a common island/geography can be a catalyst for instructive discussions about the possible root causes of the disparities. Also, GW is always readily available to inform on related questions: with a few clicks you can quickly switch the datasets displayed to your heart’s content and see a new aspect of world region of your choice.

The only major pedagogical drawback I can foresee stems from the officiality of the results displayed: while they can disprove faulty hypotheses and country stereotypes, such visual eloquence can also turn into a conversation stopper for some kinds of students. I suppose it is always up to the teacher to ensure GW-mediated activities become sophisticated and nuanced conversations about our world.