GIS lessons and Spatial Thinking

Research has shown that GIS lessons improve student engagement and enhance their spatial thinking. This study adapted the research by Lee and Bednarz (2009) on a group of JC1 (16-17 year olds) students in Singapore to ascertain the effect of GIS lessons on students’ spatial thinking. 20 students participated in three GIS lessons on the topic of tectonic hazards. At the end of the lessons, they worked collaboratively in pairs to produce volcano hazard maps that indicate the areas at risk in the state of Washington, USA.

Common barriers to the implementation of GIS-based lessons cited include the high cost of ICT infrastructure and the complex user interface of commercial GIS software. To overcome these, the lessons were conducted using open-source and portable GIS software bundled with public domain data. Pre- and post-tests, using the Spatial Thinking Ability Test (STAT) were used to ascertain students’ cognitive gains. The findings show that GIS lessons have a positive impact on students’ spatial thinking.

The findings from this research was presented at the GA Annual Conference and Exhibition (Guilford 2014) by Mr Lester Low (Catholic Junior College), Mr Josef Tan (CPDD, MOE) and Mr Soo Jiunn Huat (ETD,MOE).

The A level curriculum is not easy to integrate ICT into with the existing lecture-tutorial system. Curriculum delivery has been content driven and very little opportunity for students to inquire deeper into the geographical concepts or exercise the skills of synthesise and evaluation of authentic geographical data.

The design of this classroom enactment is to introduce a GIS tool with authentic data to facilitate students’ inquiry into the Management of volcanic hazards. Through the manipulation of data in the platform, students are provided with a real situation where an Emergency Management Planner is likely to encounter with a potential volcanic hazard. In the process, students need to make use of the data to substantiate their proposal for a possible evacuation route / shelter.

It was hypothesised that through this process of inquiry, students will develop their spatial thinking ability on top of achieving curriculum outcomes.

There is not many readily available tools in the market to test the spatial thinking skills that is aligned to the Geographical concepts as prescribed by the A level curriculum syllabus. Many of the available tools are not contextualised to the subject and therefore do not meet the requirement of this study.

Lee and Bednarz (2012) developed a develop a standardized test of spatial thinking abilities (the spatial thinking ability test (STAT)) that integrates geography content knowledge and spatial skills. Refer to table 1 for the various spatial thinking concepts that was considered during the design of the tool.

The version of the test adopted by this research comprises of 2 equivalent forms (one that used for a pretest and one for a post-test) that allows for the evaluation of changes in spatial thinking skills over a period of time.

The pre- and post-tests were composed of slightly different questions covering the same spatial thinking skills. Each form, containing 16 multiple-choice questions, consists of eight different types of questions. Figure 1 contains a sample of items from the STAT.

Having considered our options, the team decided on this research question: Do GIS lessons result in learning gains? The question is further broken down into 2 sub questions:

1. Do GIS lessons improve A level students' spatial thinking ability?
2. Do GIS lessons improve A level students' academic scores?

Two groups of A levels Geography Students (JC 1, H1) were selected for this study. The experimental group consist of 20 mixed ability pupils from a tutorial class. The control group is made of of the rest of the cohort (JC1, H1 Geography class) which is 55 students in 3 tutorial groups.

Before the intervention, all the students in the cohort took the STAT pre-test in a lecture setting. In the ensuing 4 weeks, the experimental group was exposed to a total of 10 hours of GIS in 3 classroom lessons and an out of classroom PBL project. Research shows that a minimum of 10 hours of exposure to GIS is required to have an impact on the students.

In the 4 weeks, all students were taught content in Hazard Mapping and risk management in the topic of Volcanicity in the lectures. The control groups attended regular tutorials that lead up to answering exam-like structure questions.

The experimental groups carried out their lessons in the computer using the QGIS software. In weeks 1 and 2, students were given worksheets to guide them to navigate the tool while answering content specific questions. Typically, they have to view and/or query data from the system to answer questions.

In week 3, they were briefed on the PBL project and the expected outcomes of this project (See Students Artefact 1 and 2). Students can clarify with teacher on the use of the tools when they met with difficulties. Students brought back the PBL task to complete at home during the week.

In week 4, students made presentations to teacher and co-researchers.

In week 5, the cohort completed the STAT post test. There was no pre-test in content but the mid-year examination results for that particular topic was analysed to assess students' adademic attainment.

A simple analysis of difference in mean was carried out for the 2 groups to determine the change in Spatial Thinking. A perception survey was administered to the experimental groups to assess their use of the tool. Finally, a focus group discussion was conducted with 8 selected students to further clarify their responses in the survey.

To establish that spatial thinking skills are developed through the use of GIS in an inquiry of an authentic task.

• Pre and Post-tests, using the Spatial Thinking Ability Test developed by Lee and Bednarz (2012), were conducted to ascertain the students’ cognitive gains as a result of their participation in the GIS-based lessons. The analysis of the mean difference from the Pre and Post-tests between the experiment and control groups showed that the impact of GIS is significant. See Table below.
  

There is a significant decrease in the post test results in the the control group while the experimental group remains stable. We concluded that given the nature of the A level Geography syllabus which is targetted at content delivery, students in the control group are not given the exposure in developing their spatial thinking and as a result the post post results in the STAT is worst off than the experimental group.

To draw relationship between students’ academic outcomes with the intervention of a
GIS course (as compare with those without).

• The mid-year examinations results were analysed and there is no significant difference in academic results between the experimental and control group.
  
• Additional data were collected through a questionnaire survey, non-participant observations (during the GIS lessons) and a focus-group discussion. Results suggest that a prudent selection of curriculum content and good instructional design is essential to the delivery of effective GIS-based lessons.

GIS Software (Quantum GIS)

• There is a need to improve the software interface to make it easier for students’ to use. Mainly to reduce the number of icons and tools made available to the students. As the task for ‘A’ levels do not demand high level/sophisticated analysis tools, these will be removed in the improved interface.
  

Teacher PD

• Teacher worked very closely with CPO/ETO in a PLC to develop the lesson plan. The lesson designers must have a good knowledge of the affordance of the tool to make lesson delivery more effective. Just in time PD for the specific functions of the tool is provided to teacher as he planned the lessons. As the ‘technical’ support from ETO is tailored to the lesson, teachers’ confidence level increased.
  
• Moving forward, the same teacher will continue for the 2nd trial in April 2014. If a new teacher is coming forward, same support must be given from the start.
  

Curriculum size / Demand of the task

• The tasks planned for the students were too complicated even at ‘A’ levels. Even though the students learnt the concepts of Hazard Management in their Lectures, the concepts of buffer zone of hazard impact, for example, did not come out naturally when students create the hazard map. This shows that teacher needs to provide additional scaffolds to link the concepts from the lectures to the actual application of hazard mapping.
  
• The scaffolds provided in Lesson 1 and 2 are tool specific, not concept specific.
  
• Moving forward, the task must be simplified, with sufficient scaffolds provided to link the concepts to the application.
  

1. Gersmehl, P. (2008). Teaching geography. Guilford Press.

2. Lee, J., & Bednarz, R. (2012). Components of spatial thinking: evidence from a spatial thinking ability test. Journal of Geography, 111(1), 15-26.