Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 25–36 | Cite as

The Impact of a Geospatial Technology-Supported Energy Curriculum on Middle School Students’ Science Achievement

  • Violet KuloEmail author
  • Alec Bodzin
Article

Abstract

Geospatial technologies are increasingly being integrated in science classrooms to foster learning. This study examined whether a Web-enhanced science inquiry curriculum supported by geospatial technologies promoted urban middle school students’ understanding of energy concepts. The participants included one science teacher and 108 eighth-grade students classified in three ability level tracks. Data were gathered through pre/posttest content knowledge assessments, daily classroom observations, and daily reflective meetings with the teacher. Findings indicated a significant increase in the energy content knowledge for all the students. Effect sizes were large for all three ability level tracks, with the middle and low track classes having larger effect sizes than the upper track class. Learners in all three tracks were highly engaged with the curriculum. Curriculum effectiveness and practical issues involved with using geospatial technologies to support science learning are discussed.

Keywords

Geospatial technologies Geographic information systems Google earth Energy Middle school Science curriculum 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Toyota USA Foundation. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Lori Cirucci, David Anastasio, Dork Sahagian, Tamara Peffer, Denise Bressler, and Ryan McKeon, without whose help this work would not have been possible.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy: project 2061. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2007) Atlas of science literacy, vol 2. AAAS Project 2061, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Arcury TA, Johnson TP (1987) Public environmental knowledge: a statewide survey. J Environ Educ 18(4):31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Audet RH, Ludwig G (2000) GIS in schools. ESRI Press, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker TR, White SH (2003) The effects of GIS on students’ attitudes, self-efficacy, and achievement in middle school science classrooms. J Geogr 102:243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrow LH, Morrisey JT (1987) Ninth-grade students’ attitudes toward energy: a comparison between Maine and New Brunswick. J Environ Educ 18(3):15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrow LH, Morrisey JT (1989) Energy literacy of ninth-grade students: a comparison between Maine and New Brunswick. J Environ Educ 20(2):22–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bednarz SW, Audet RH (1999) The status of GIS technology in teacher preparation programs. J Geogr 98:60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bednarz SW, Acheson G, Bednarz RS (2006) Maps and map learning in social studies. Soc Educ 70:398–404Google Scholar
  10. Bell P, Hoadley CM, Linn MC (2004) Design-based research in education. In: Linn MC, Davis EA, Bell P (eds) Internet environments for science education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 73–85Google Scholar
  11. Black JB, McClintock RO (1996) An interpretation construction approach to constructivist design. In: Wilson BG (ed) Constructivist learning environments: case studies in instructional design. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, pp 25–31Google Scholar
  12. Blum A (1981) A survey of environmental issues treated in science education curricula, before and after 1974. J Res Sci Teach 18(3):221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blum A (1987) Student’s knowledge and beliefs concerning environmental issues in four countries. J Environ Educ 18(3):7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bodzin A (2011) The implementation of a geospatial information technology (GIT)-supported land use change curriculum with urban middle school learners to promote spatial thinking. J Res Sci Teach 48:281–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bodzin A (in press) Investigating urban eighth grade students’ knowledge of energy resources. Int J Sci EducGoogle Scholar
  16. Bodzin A, Anastasio D (2006) Using web-based GIS for earth and environmental systems education. J Geosci Educ 54(3):295–300Google Scholar
  17. Bodzin A, Cirucci L (2009) Integrating geospatial technologies to examine urban land use change: a design partnership. J Geogr 108:186–197Google Scholar
  18. Bodzin A, Anastasio D, Kulo V (in press) Designing google earth activities for learning earth and environmental science. In: MaKinster J, Trautmann N, Barnett M (eds) Teaching science and investigating environmental issues with geospatial technology: designing effective professional development for teachers. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  19. Boyes E, Stanisstreet M (1990) Pupils’ ideas concerning energy sources. Int J Sci Educ 12:513–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bransford JD, Brown A, Cocking R (eds) (2000) How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  21. Broda HW, Baxter RE (2002) Using GIS and GPS technology as an instructional tool. Clgh 76:49–52Google Scholar
  22. Bybee RW, Taylor JA, Gardner A, van Scotter P, Powell JC, Westbrook A, Landes N (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Colorado Springs. Retrieved 19 Feb 2009, from http://www.bscs.org/pdf/bscs5efullreport2006.pdf
  23. Cobb P, Confrey J, diSessa A, Lehrer R, Schauble L (2003) Design experiments in educational research. Educ Res 32(1):9–13Google Scholar
  24. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  25. Collins AC, Stevens AL (1983) A cognitive theory of inquiry teaching. In: Reigeluth CM (ed) Instructional-design theories and models: an overview of their current status. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 247–278Google Scholar
  26. Davidson A (1999) Negotiating social differences: youth’s assessments of educators’ strategies. Urban Educ 34:338–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Davis EA, Krajcik JS (2005) Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educ Res 34(3):3–14Google Scholar
  28. DeMers MN (2005) Fundamentals of geographic information systems, 3rd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  29. DeWaters J, Powers S (2008) Energy literacy among middle and high school youth. In: Paper presented at the 38th ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference, SarasotaGoogle Scholar
  30. Eisenkraft A (2003) Expanding the 5E model. Sci Teach 70(6):56–59Google Scholar
  31. Environmental Systems Research Institute (1993) Understanding GIS: the ARC/INFO method. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Farhar BC (1996) Energy and the environment: the public view. In: Renewable energy policy project REPP issue brief. University of Maryland, College Park, pp. 20Google Scholar
  33. Gagné RM (1985) The conditions of learning and theory of instruction, 4th edn. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Gambro JS, Switzky HN (1996) A national survey of high school students’ environmental knowledge. J Environ Educ 27(3):28–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gambro JS, Switzky HN (1999) Variables associated with American high school students’ knowledge of environmental issues related to energy and pollution. J Environ Educ 30(2):15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gersmehl PJ, Gersmehl CA (2006) Wanted: a concise list of neurologically defensible and assessable spatial thinking skills. Res Geogr Educ 8:5–38Google Scholar
  37. Hagevik RA (2003) The effects of online science instruction using geographic information systems to foster inquiry learning of teachers and middle school science students. Doctoral dissertation. North Carolina State University, Raleigh (Unpublished)Google Scholar
  38. Henson RK, Smith AD (2000) State of the art in statistical significance and effect size reporting: a review of the APA task force report and current trends. J Res Dev Educ 33:285–296Google Scholar
  39. Holden CC, Barrow LH (1984) Validation of the test of energy concepts and values for high school. J Res Sci Teach 21:187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jonassen DH (1997) Instructional design model for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educ Technol Res Dev 45(1):65–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jonassen DH (1999) Designing constructivist learning environments. In: Reigeluth CM (ed) Instructional-design theories and models: vol. 2. A new paradigm of instructional theory. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 215–239Google Scholar
  42. Kerski JJ (2008) Geographic information systems in education. In: Wilson JP, Fotheringham AS (eds) The handbook of geographic information science. Blackwell, Malden, pp 540–556Google Scholar
  43. Kulo V (2011) Design, development, and formative evaluation of a geographic information system-supported science Web-based inquiry module. Doctoral dissertation. Lehigh University, Bethlehem (Unpublished)Google Scholar
  44. Kulo V, Bodzin A (2011) Integrating geospatial technologies in an energy unit. J Geogr 110:239–251Google Scholar
  45. National Assessment of Educational Progress (1975) Selected results from the national assessments of science: energy questions. National Center for Education Statistics, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  46. National Environmental Education & Training Foundation and Roper ASW (2002) Americans’ Low “Energy IQ:” a risk to our energy future/why America needs a refresher course on energy. National Environmental Education & Training Foundation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  47. National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  48. National Research Council (2000) Inquiry and the national science education standards: a guide for teaching and learning. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. National Research Council (2003) Engaging schools: fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  50. Phillips M (1997) Makes schools effective? A comparison of the relationships of communitarian climate and academic climate to mathematics achievement and attendance during middle school. Am Educ Res J 34(4):633–662Google Scholar
  51. Ramirez M, Althouse P (1995) Fresh thinking: GIS in environmental education. The Journal 23:87–90Google Scholar
  52. Reigeluth CM, Frick TW (1999) Formative research: a methodology for creating and improving design theories. In: Reigeluth CM (ed) Instructional design theories and models: vol. II. A new paradigm of instructional theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 633–651Google Scholar
  53. Richey RC, Klein JD, Nelson WA (2004) Developmental research: studies of instructional design and development. In: Jonassen DH (ed) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 1099–1130Google Scholar
  54. Richmond JM, Morgan RF (1977) A national survey of the environmental knowledge and attitudes of fifth year pupils in England. ERIC/SMEAC Information Reference Center, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  55. Rule A (2005) Elementary students’ ideas concerning fossil fuel energy. J Geosci Educ 53(3):309–318Google Scholar
  56. Sanders RL, Kajs LT, Crawford CM (2002) Electronic mapping in education: the use of geographic information systems. J Res Technol Educ 34:121–129Google Scholar
  57. Schultz RB, Kerski JJ, Patterson TC (2008) The use of virtual globes as a spatial teaching tool with suggestions for metadata standards. J Geogr 107:27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stahley T (2006) Earth from above. Sci Teach 73(7):44–48Google Scholar
  59. Stevens JP (2002) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 4th edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  60. Strickland BB, Turnbull AP (1990) Developing and implementing individualized education programs, 3rd edn. Merrill, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  61. Stubbs M (1985) Energy education in the curriculum. Educ Stud 11(2):133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wiggins GP, McTighe J (2005) Understanding by design, expanded 2nd edn. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.BethlehemUSA

Personalised recommendations