A Geospatial Thinking Multiyear Study

In the field of environmental sustainability and landscape management, geospatial thinking is necessary. A good level of geospatial thinking is related to academic success in engineering degrees. It is relevant, therefore, to detect the possible deficiencies that university students may have in tasks related to geospatial thinking. This research presents the results of a 2014‒2019 multiyear study with agricultural engineering students, in which seven geospatial tasks were analyzed. The statistical analysis shows that geospatial tasks related to slope, stream/water flow, visibility, and relief interpretation are the best at predicting the final course mark. The present research provides quantitative data on the efficiency that four technologies have to reinforce geospatial thinking focused on each task. Augmented Reality is an appropriate 3D technology for geospatial tasks related to route search, stream/water flow, and elevation points. SketchUp Make 2017 and Autodesk 123D Make showed their potential to solve tasks related to terrain slope and visibility analysis. Spatial Data Infrastructure has given the best results in geospatial tasks related to the photointerpretation of the relief and with topographic profiles of the terrain. Our findings will help teachers to select the most appropriate geospatial tasks to include in their courses.

Geospatial Technology Education: Capacity Building for Sustainable Development

Sustainable development requires judicious use of resources which can cater for present need and also makes provision for the future. Geospatial technology operates at a regional level as well as micro level by providing a framework for data visualization and analysis which is crucial to the decision making process. Such a platform provides tools that help decision makers analyze complex situations and complete the task with efficiency. Research shows that Geospatial thinking is critical to survive and operate in today’s digitized world. Research has also shown that education in Geospatial technology will be crucial to make workforce competent across all sectors of the economy and it will be particularly necessary for achieving sustainable development goals. Geospatial education in India is lagging behind the rest of the world due to the specific constraints of the University structure in running Interdisciplinary subject. Geography education largely restricts to bachelor degree with little or no technological grounding. This paper is an attempt to critically analyze Geospatial education scenario in India with special reference to the experiences of the teaching Geospatial curriculum at Symbiosis Institute of Geoinformatics. This paper also attempts to evaluate the efforts of integrating research on sustainable development with the core curriculum.

3D Landform Modeling to Enhance Geospatial Thinking

Geospatial thinking is essential to the visualization–interpretation processes of three-dimensional geographic information. The design of strategies for the interpretation of the Earth’s surface which allow the development of students’ geospatial thinking poses a challenge in higher education. In geospatial education, we often see a practical approach where students are trained in specific GIS and/or geotechnologies. However, in the first stages of geospatial education, geographic literacy and geospatial thinking processes can be supported better through easy-to-use technologies. In this paper we show the results of two workshops performed with engineering students using visuospatial displays in an easy-to-use 3D software environment. This teaching approach improved students’ geospatial thinking, measured using the Topographic Map Assessment (TMA) test—a battery of seven tasks related to relief interpretation along with 18 exercises. Participants also completed a questionnaire relating to the following usability topics: operation (application), improvement, implications for education, and understanding of the concepts related to relief interpretation. The results showed mean gains between 10.7% and 12.6% of the highest score for the TMA. This, together with the results of the questionnaire, confirms the usefulness of this teaching approach using easy-to-use 3D technologies for developing geospatial thinking.

INVESTIGATED THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MAP LITERACY LEARNING MODEL

This article presents the results of the first implementation of map literacy learning model in middle school classes - this is the preliminary test. The implementation of this learning model will gain optimal results when it is conducted by following all the component of the model such as the syntax, theoretical framework, social system, teachers' roles, and support system. After the model implementation has been completed, the results showed that there was significantly different in students' spatial thinking skills before and after the treatment. However, the implementation also revealed that the model has some technical issues and thus to be improved. In a social system revision, the teacher has to be flexibly provide scaffolding every time he/she sees that the students need it. Teacher's book is significantly important to help a teacher lead the learning process. After improvement of the model has been completed, then it is ready to be implemented in the main field testing stage. Keywords: map literacy, social studies learning, spatial thinking References Abbasnasab, S., Rashid, M., & Saad, M. (2012). Knowledge with Professional Practice A Sociocultural Perspective on Assessment for Learning : The Case of a Malaysian Primary School ESL Context, 66, 343–353. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.277 Adeyemi, S. B., & Cishe, E. N. (2015). Effects of Cooperative and Individualistic Learning Strategies on Students’ Map Reading and Interpretation. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 8(7), 383–395. Bednarz, S. W., Acheson, G., & Bednarz, R. S. (2006). Maps and Map Learning in Social Studies. Social Education, 70(7), 398–404. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841273 Brophy, J., & Alleman, J. (2009). Meaningful social studies for elementary students. Teachers and Teaching, 15(3), 357–376. http://doi.org/10.1080/13540600903056700 Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K., & Wyse, D. (2010). A Guide To Teaching Practice (5th ed.). London and New York: Rotledge. Churcher, K. M. A., Downs, E., & Tewksbury, D. (2014). “ Friending ” Vygotsky : A Social Constructivist P edagogy of Knowledge Building Through Classroom Social Media Use, 14(1), 33–50. Durmuş, Y. T. (2016). Effective Learning Environment Characteristics as a requirement of Constructivist Curricula: Teachers’ Needs and School Principals’ Views. International Journal of Instruction, 9(2), 183–198. http://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2016.9213a Fani, T., & Ghaemi, F. (2011). Implications of Vygotsky ’ s Zone of Proximal Development ( ZPD ) in Teacher Education : ZPTD and Self-scaffolding. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29(Iceepsy), 1549–1554. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.396 Gauvain, M. (1993). The Development of Spatial Thinking in Everyday Activity. Developmental Review, 13, 92–121. Hribar, G. C. (2015). Using Map-Based Investigations with Elementary Students. In ESRI Education GIS Conference (pp. 1–26). Huynh, N. T., & Sharpe, B. (2013). An Assessment Instrument to Measure Geospatial Thinking Expertise An Assessment Instrument to Measure Geospatial Thinking Expertise. Journal of Geography, 112(October 2014), 3–41. http://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2012.682227 Ishikawa, T. (2012). Geospatial Thinking and Spatial Ability: An Empirical Examination of Knowledge and Reasoning in Geographical Science. The Professional Geographer, (July 2015), 121018062625002. http://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2012.724350 Jessie A. (1951). Maps and Slow-Learners. Journal of Geography, 50:4, 145-149, DOI: 10.1080/00221345108982661 Jo, I., Bednarz, S., & Metoyer, S. (2010). Selecting and Designing Questions to Facilitate Spatial Thinking. The Geography Teacher, 7(2), 49–55. http://doi.org/10.1080/19338341.2010.510779 Joyce, B.R., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2014). Models of Teaching (8th Ed). New Jersey: Pearson Education. Key, L.V., Bradley, J.A., & Bradley, K.A. (2010).Stimulating Instruction in Social Studies. The Social Studies, 101:3, 117-120, DOI: 10.1080/00377990903283932 Leinhardt, G., Stainton, C., & Bausmith, J. M. (1998). Constructing Maps Collaboratively. Journal of Geography, 97(1), 19–30. http://doi.org/10.1080/00221349808978821 Logan, J. R. (2012). Making a Place for Space: Spatial Thinking in Social Science. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 507–524. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145531 Logan, J. R., Zhang, W., & Xu, H. (2010). Applying spatial thinking in social science research. GeoJournal, 75(1), 15–27. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-010-9343-0 National Reseach Council. (2006). Learning to Think spatially. Washington, D.C.: The National Academic Press. Retrieved from www.nap.edu NCSS. (2016). A Vision of Powerful Teaching and Learning in the Social Studies, 80(3), 180–182. Saekhow, J. (2015). Steps of Cooperative Learning on Social Networking by Integrating Instructional Design based on Constructivist Approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197(February), 1740–1744. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.230 Uttal, D. H. (2000). Maps and spatial thinking: a two-way street. Developmental Science, 3(3), 283–286. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00121 Verma, K. (2014). Geospatial Thinking of Undergraduate Students in Public Universities in The United States. Texas State University. Wiegand, P. (2006). Learning and Teaching with Maps. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from http://cataleg.udg.edu/record=b1373859~S10*cat