Exploring the Effects of GIS Use on Students' Achievement in Geography
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Exploring the effects of GIS use on students’ achievement in geography Von der Pädagogischen Hochschule Heidelberg zur Erlangung des Grades einer Doktorin der Philosophie (Dr. phil.) genehmigte Dissertation von Kathrin Viehrig aus Pirna (in Sachsen) 2014 Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Alexander Siegmund Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Nir Orion Fach: Geographie Tag der Mündlichen Prüfung: 05.12.2014 Exploring the effects of GIS use on students’ achievement in geography Dissertation approved by the Heidelberg University of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Kathrin Viehrig 2014 First advisor: Prof. Dr. Alexander Siegmund Professor of Physical Geography and its Didactics Head of Department of Geography Heidelberg University of Education, Heidelberg, Germany Second advisor: Prof. Dr. Nir Orion Head of Earth and Environmental Sciences Group Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel Other committee members: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Knörzer Professor of Sport Science/ Sport Education Dean of Faculty of Natural and Social Sciences Heidelberg University of Education, Heidelberg, Germany Prof. Dr. Manuela Welzel-Breuer Professor of Physics and its Didactics Heidelberg University of Education, Heidelberg, Germany Prof. Dr. Ulrich Michel Professor of Geoinformatics and its Didactics Heidelberg University of Education, Heidelberg, Germany Subject: Geography Day of the oral examination: 05.12.2014 5 Acknowledgements There are many people who provided valuable contributions and support to this dissertation. First of all, I would like to thank my main advisor Prof. Dr. Alexander Siegmund for his continuing support and provision of learning opportunities as well as helpful discussions. Secondly, I want to thank Prof. Dr. Nir Orion for agreeing to be my second advisor, welcoming me for visits when I was in Israel and very interesting discussions about systemic thinking. Thanks also to Dean Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Knörzer for heading the committee as well as Prof. Dr. Manuela Welzel-Breuer and Prof. Dr. Ulrich Michel for agreeing to be members of the committee. Many people have helped shape my understanding and skills in geography education, GIS and statistics, have provided feedback, help and new insights, and have proofread draft versions. First of all, I want to thank the current and former members of the rgeo-team at the Department of Geography, Heidelberg University of Education, especially Dipl.-Geoökol. Daniel Volz, Dr. Christina Fiene, Dr. Isabelle Kollar, Dr. Raimund Ditter, Dr. Sebastian Günthert, Dipl.-Geog. Markus Jahn, Dr. Kerstin Voß, Dr. Alexandra Siegmund, Prof. Dr. Peter Dippon, Dr. Nils Wolf and Dipl.-Geog. Svenja Brockmüller. I also want to thank the HEIGIS-members, Dr. Sascha Wüstenberg, Dr. Samuel Greiff and Prof. Dr. Joachim Funke. Additionally, there are many people through which I was inspired or received valuable ideas for this dissertation, such as Prof. Dr. Priyadarsi Roy, Prof. Dr. Kristina Reiss, Dr. Joseph Kerski, Prof. Dr. Sarah Bednarz and many people I talked to at confer- ences, both nationally and internationally, and courses. Moreover, colleagues from other departments at the University of Education such as Saskia Gensow also provided valuable input, especially at the beginning of the dissertation. I also want to thank the students and teachers that participated and who thus made this dissertation possible. Thanks as well to the responsible authorities for the permissions. Additionally, thanks also to Dr. Ulrike Klein helping to make the Kiel professional development course happen. Acknowledgements 6 Furthermore, thanks to Ogada Ochala and Sam Stearman who allowed me to use their Kenya photographs, Dr. Jong Wong Lee and Dr. Joseph Kerski for al- lowing me to use adapted versions of the spatial thinking items and Wester- mann for supporting the use of their WebGIS-platform within the treatment. Thanks to the Heidelberg University of Education, the SDW and the DFG for fi- nancial support. Moreover, thanks to ESRI for the provision of a student license. Thanks to those people who supported me on the way. A special thanks to Dipl.-Biol. Ute Viehrig, Dr. Jochen Viehrig, Dr. Marèn Viehrig and Dr. Avi Epstein for all their support. Thanks to Eli – for everything. 7 Table of contents Acknowledgements 5 Table of contents 7 Table of figures 11 Table of tables 14 Abbreviations 18 Abstract 20 Zusammenfassung 23 1 Setting the scene 26 1.1 GIS didactics: Educational white lands 26 1.2 Significance of exploration endeavors 28 1.3 Research objective 32 2 Reviewing the literature 34 2.1 Competencies in geography education 34 2.1.1 Significance of geographic system competency 35 2.1.2 Possible structures of geographic system competency 37 2.1.3 Possible achievement of geographic system competency 41 2.2 GIS in geography education 43 2.2.1 Extent of GIS use in education 44 2.2.2 Rationales for GIS use in education 46 2.2.3 Potentials of GIS use for improving student achievement 48 2.2.4 Costs of GIS use in education 50 2.3 Role of student variables 51 2.3.1 Age 52 2.3.2 Sex 53 2.3.3 Pre-achievement 54 2.3.4 Language and migration background 55 2.3.5 Affective variables 57 2.3.6 Classroom setting 58 2.4 GIS use and geographic system competency 59 Table of contents 8 3 Charting the course 60 3.1 Research questions and hypotheses 64 3.2 Statistical considerations and data analysis 66 3.2.1 Scale quality and analysis 66 3.2.2 Connections between variables 69 3.2.3 Software used for analyses 74 3.3 Sample procedures 75 4 Describing the samples 77 4.1 Variables 77 4.1.1 Basic demographic variables 77 4.1.2 Language background 77 4.1.3 Migration background 79 4.2 Study 1 80 4.3 Study 2 80 4.4 Study 3 81 4.5 Study 4 81 4.6 Study 5 82 4.7 Limitations due to the achieved samples 88 5 Describing the instruments 89 5.1 Definition and model selection 90 5.2 Item basis 92 5.3 Study 1 93 5.3.1 Systemic thinking 94 5.3.2 Conclusions 97 5.4 Study 2 98 5.4.1 Spatial thinking 98 5.4.2 Conclusions 99 5.5 Study 3 99 5.5.1 Spatial thinking 100 5.5.2 Systemic thinking 101 5.5.3 Conclusions 105 5.6 Study 4 105 Table of contents 9 5.6.1 Spatial thinking 105 5.6.2 Conclusions 107 5.7 Study 5 107 5.7.1 Spatial thinking 108 5.7.2 Systemic thinking 110 5.7.3 Conclusions 120 5.8 Limitations due to the assessment instruments used 121 6 Describing the learning unit 122 6.1 Time frame 124 6.2 Basic methodological considerations 124 6.3 Study 3 126 6.4 Study 5 127 6.5 Limitations due to the learning units used 132 7 Analyzing the findings 134 7.1 Study 3 134 7.1.1 Hypothesis I: Improvement through GIS 134 7.1.2 Hypothesis II: Improvement map vs. GIS 135 7.1.3 Hypothesis III-b: Improvement and sex 136 7.1.4 Hypothesis III-e: Improvement and pre-achievement 138 7.1.5 Hypothesis III-f: Improvement and pre-spatial thinking 141 7.1.6 Conclusions from Study 3 144 7.2 Study 5 144 7.2.1 Hypothesis I: Improvement 144 7.2.2 Hypothesis II: Improvement GIS vs. map 145 7.2.3 Hypothesis III-a: Improvement and age 146 7.2.4 Hypothesis III-b: Improvement and sex 151 7.2.5 Hypothesis III-c: Improvement and migration background 154 7.2.6 Hypothesis III-d: Improvement and language background 157 7.2.7 Hypothesis III-e: Improvement and pre-achievement 163 7.2.8 Hypothesis III-f: Improvement and pre-spatial thinking 171 7.2.9 Hypothesis III-g: Improvement and materials 175 7.2.10 Hypothesis III-h: Improvement and pre-experience 178 Table of contents 10 7.2.11 Overall HLMs 180 7.2.12 Conclusions from Study 5 184 8 Discussing the implications 186 8.1 Implications based on the student variables included 187 8.1.1 Age 187 8.1.2 Sex 188 8.1.3 Migration and language background 189 8.1.4 Pre-achievement and pre-spatial thinking 190 8.1.5 Pre-experience with GIS 191 8.2 Implications based on sample size and analyses used 192 8.3 Implications based on the treatment used 193 8.3.1 Material type 193 8.3.2 Methodology 194 8.4 Implications based on the test instruments used 197 8.4.1 Systemic thinking 197 8.4.2 Spatial thinking 200 8.4.3 Model development 200 8.4.4 Methodology 203 8.5 Overall outlook 203 9. References 205 10. Appendices 241 10.1 Rasch models (Conquest) 241 10.1.1 Basic model 241 10.1.2 Model with export (pretest) 241 10.1.3 Model with import (posttest) 241 10.2 Tourism in Kenya 242 10.3 GIS data sources 246 10.4 Additional sources for the learning materials 247 11 Table of figures Fig. 1 Structure of selected proposed guiding objectives for geography 36 education Fig. 2 Composition of competency structure models 37 Fig. 3 Example of an empirically derived structure of systemic thinking skills 38 Fig. 4 HEIGIS model after the CogLabs 41 Fig. 5 Frequency of use of geo-media: student answers (%) 44 Fig. 6 Frequency of use of geo-media: teacher answers (%) 44 Fig. 7 Study overview including n used for analysis 61 Fig. 8 Sample description by group and sex 84 Fig. 9 Sample description by group and stream 85 Fig. 10 Sample description by group and type of materials 85 Fig.