Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining the Effect of Enactment of a Geospatial Curriculum on Students’ Geospatial Thinking and Reasoning

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A potential method for teaching geospatial thinking and reasoning (GTR) is through geospatially enabled learning technologies. We developed an energy resources geospatial curriculum that included learning activities with geographic information systems and virtual globes. This study investigated how 13 urban middle school teachers implemented and varied the enactment of the curriculum with their students and investigated which teacher- and student-level factors accounted for students’ GTR posttest achievement. Data included biweekly implementation surveys from teachers and energy resources content and GTR pre- and posttest achievement measures from 1,049 students. Students significantly increased both their energy resources content knowledge and their GTR skills related to energy resources at the end of the curriculum enactment. Both multiple regression and hierarchical linear modeling found that students’ initial GTR abilities and gain in energy content knowledge were significantly explanatory variables for their geospatial achievement at the end of curriculum enactment, p < .001. Teacher enactment factors, including adherence to implementing the critical components of the curriculum or the number of years the teachers had taught the curriculum, did not have significant effects on students’ geospatial posttest achievement. The findings from this study provide support that learning with geospatially enabled learning technologies can support GTR with urban middle-level learners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albert WS, Golledge RG (1999) The use of spatial cognitive abilities in geographical information systems: the map overlay operation. Trans GIS 3(1):7–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrienko G, Andrienko N, Jankowski P, Keim D, Kraak M-J, MacEachren A, Wrobel S (2007) Geovisual analytics for spatial decision support: setting the research agenda. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 21(8):839–857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker TR, White SH (2003) The effects of G.I.S. on students’ attitudes, self-efficacy, and achievement in middle school science classrooms. J Geogr 102(6):243–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3):281–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodzin A (2012) Investigating urban eighth grade students’ knowledge of energy resources. Int J Sci Educ 34(8):1255–1275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodzin AM, Fu Q (2013) The effectiveness of the geospatial curriculum approach on urban middle-level students’ climate change understandings. J Sci Educ Technol. doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9478-0

  • Bodzin A, Fu Q, Peffer T, Kulo V (2013) Developing energy literacy in US middle level students using the geospatial curriculum approach. Int J Sci Educ 35(9):1561–1589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown MW (2009) The teacher-tool relationship: theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In: Remillard JT, Herbel-Eisenmann BA, Lloyd GM (eds) Mathematics teachers at work: connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. Routledge, New York, pp 17–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Century J, Rudnick M, Freeman C (2010) A framework for measuring fidelity of implementation: a foundation for shared language and accumulation of knowledge. Am J Eval 31(2):199–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Dane AV, Schneider BH (1998) Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: are implementation effects out of control? Clin Psychol Rev 18(1):23–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson D, Salierno C, Matese G, Pitts V, Sherin B (2002) Learning-for-use in earth science: kids as climate modelers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research on Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA

  • Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogleman J, McNeill KL, Krajcik J (2011) Examining the effect of teachers’ adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. J Res Sci Teach 48(2):149–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geier R, Blumenfeld PC, Marx RW, Krajcik JS, Fishman B, Soloway E, Clay-Chambers J (2008) Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. J Res Sci Teach 45(8):922–939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golledge RG (2002) The nature of geographic knowledge. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 92(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingsworth L, Beard JJ, Proctor TP (2007) An investigation of item type in a standards-based assessment. Pract Assess Res Eval 12(18). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/genpare.asp?v=12&n=18

  • Huynh NT, Sharpe B (2013) An assessment instrument to measure geospatial thinking expertise. J Geogr 112(1):3–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerski JJ (2003) The implementation and effectiveness of geographic information systems technology and methods in secondary education. J Geogr 102(3):128–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulo V, Bodzin A (2013) The impact of a geospatial technology-supported energy curriculum on middle school students’ science achievement. J Sci Educ Technol 22(1):25–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J, Bednarz RS (2009) Effect of GIS learning on spatial thinking. J Geogr High Educ 33(2):183–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee H-S, Linn MC, Varma K, Liu OL (2010) How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? J Res Sci Teach 47(1):71–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch SJ, Pyke C, Grafton BH (2012) A retrospective view of a study of middle school science curriculum materials: implementation, scale-up, and sustainability in a changing policy environment. J Res Sci Teach 49(3):305–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer DP (1999) Measuring instructional practice: can policymakers trust survey data? Educ Eval Policy Anal 21(1):29–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milson AJ, Demirci A, Kerski JJ (2012) International perspectives on teaching and learning with GIS in secondary schools. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2006) Learning to think spatially: GIS as a support system in K-12 education. National Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell CL (2008) Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Rev Educ Res 78(1):33–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel WR, Gallagher LP, Moorthy S (2011) Preparing teachers to design sequences of instruction in Earth science: a comparison of three professional development programs. Am Educ Res J 48(4):996–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS, Cheong AS, Fai YF, Congdon RT, du Toit M (2011) HLM 7: hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo MA (2005) A multi-method and multi-source approach for studying fidelity of implementation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada

  • Ruiz-Primo MA, Shavelson RJ, Hamilton L, Klein S (2002) On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: searching for instructional sensitivity. J Res Sci Teach 39(5):369–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settlage J, Meadows L, Olson M, Blanchard M (2008) Teacher knowledge and enacting inquiry. In: Abrams E, Southerland SA, Silva P (eds) Inquiry in the classroom: realities and opportunities. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, pp 171–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer JD (1998) Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. J Educ Behav Stat 24(4):322–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarr JE, Reys R, Reys B, Chavez O, Shih J, Osterlind S (2008) The impact of middle grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. J Res Math Educ 39(3):247–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Uttal D (2000) Maps and spatial thinking: a two-way street. Dev Sci 3(3):247–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lehigh University, A113 Iacocca Hall, 111 Research Dr., Bethlehem, PA, 18015, USA

    Alec M. Bodzin & Tamara Peffer

  2. Lehigh University, A219 Iacocca Hall, 111 Research Dr., Bethlehem, PA, 18015, USA

    Qiong Fu

  3. School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, 1830 E. Monument Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    Violet Kulo

Authors
  1. Alec M. Bodzin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qiong Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Violet Kulo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tamara Peffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alec M. Bodzin.

Appendix: Topic Outline of the Energy Curriculum

Appendix: Topic Outline of the Energy Curriculum

Topic

Description of learning activities

Energy introduction (4 days)

Students complete pretests. They calculate their personal and household energy consumption, and learn different energy terms and conversion factors. Students are introduced to sources and forms of energy

Solar energy (4 days)

Students use solar cells to power different appliances. They use Google Earth to explore five solar power plants to see the similarities in ground cover and topography. Students then use GIS to investigate the annual average sunshine, latitude and longitude, and location of 14 solar power plants

Wind energy (3 days)

Students are introduced to wind energy. They use Google Earth to explore seven wind farms to see the similarities in ground cover and topography. Students use GIS to investigate average wind speed and land use in Pennsylvania to determine optimal locations to place wind farms

Tidal energy (1 day)

Students complete a Google Earth exploration of four water bodies to determine whether these would be good places to locate tidal power plants

Hydroelectric energy (5 days)

Students are introduced to hydroelectric energy. They use Google Earth to explore five hydroelectric dams and GIS to investigate features of hydroelectric dams in the United States. Students then use Google Earth to explore a pumped storage generating station, four hydroelectric dams, and a nuclear power plant on two rivers in Pennsylvania

Nuclear energy (1 day)

Students learn how nuclear power is generated and how nuclear chain reactions occur

Geothermal energy (1 day)

Students use Google Earth to explore features of “hot Earth” areas and locations of geothermal resources

Biomass/Biofuels (2 days)

Students learn about biomass and complete a cellulase laboratory that investigates how raw materials are refined to process liquid fuels

US energy production and consumption (2 days)

Students learn about US regional energy production and consumption of both renewable and nonrenewable energy sources

Fossil fuels (4 days)

Students learn about fossil fuel sources and then use GIS to investigate fossil fuels reserves, and patterns of production, consumption, and population change for different countries over a 28-year period

Energy efficiency and conservation (6 days)

Students recalculate their personal and household energy audits based on current energy consumption practices. They identify connections among energy use types and energy fuel sources and then investigate different ways that energy can be conserved. Students investigate concepts about energy efficiency and heat output and then explore the advantages and disadvantages of different energy sources

The Isle of Navitas (5 days)

Students use GIS to explore energy resources for one of three provinces in the Isle of Navitas, a fictitious island country. They develop and present an energy policy statement that recommends an efficient combination of energy resources to provide sufficient power to their province while minimizing environmental impact

Energy conclusion (2 days)

Students review the unit and c posttests

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bodzin, A.M., Fu, Q., Kulo, V. et al. Examining the Effect of Enactment of a Geospatial Curriculum on Students’ Geospatial Thinking and Reasoning. J Sci Educ Technol 23, 562–574 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9488-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9488-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation