The implementation of a geospatial information technology (GIT)-supported land use change curriculum with urban middle school learners to promote spatial thinking

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 281-300

  Bodzin, Alec M ^a  

^a LEHIGH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

geospatial information technology; land use change; middle school; spatial thinking; urban education

Indexed keywords

GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION; LAND USE CHANGE; MIDDLE SCHOOL; SPATIAL THINKING; URBAN EDUCATION;

CURRICULA; EARTH (PLANET); INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; INFORMATION USE; LAND USE; LEARNING SYSTEMS; REMOTE SENSING; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 79951759376     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20409     Document Type: Article

References (104)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2. 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. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 21 (8), 839-857. (Pubitemid 46993213)
3. Anderson L.W., &, Krathwohl D.R., (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
4. Avery, T.E., (1977). Interpretation of aerial photographs (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing Company.
5. Baker, T.R., Palmer, A.M., &, Kerski, J.J., (2009). A national survey to examine teacher professional development and implementation of desktop GIS. Journal of Geography, 108 (4-5), 174-185.
6. Ball, D.L., &, Cohen, D.K., (1996). Reform by the book: What Is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25 (9), 6-8, 14. (Pubitemid 126158387)
7. Battersby, S.E., Golledge, R.G., &, Marsh, M.J., (2006). Incidental learning of geospatial concepts across grade levels: Map overlay. Journal of Geography, 105 (4), 139-146. (Pubitemid 44822798)
8. Bednarz, S.W., (2004). Geographic information systems: A tool to support geography and environmental education? GeoJournal, 60, 191-199.
9. Bell, P.L., Hoadley, C., &, Linn, M.C., (2004). Design-based research as educational inquiry. In, M.C. Linn, E.A. Davis, &, P.L. Bell, (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 73-85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Bishop, I.D., Ye, W.S., &, Karadaglis, C., (2001). Experiential approaches to perception response in virtual worlds. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 115-123. (Pubitemid 32608264)
11. Black, A.A., (2005). Spatial ability and Earth science conceptual understanding. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53 (4), 402-414. (Pubitemid 41599989)
12. Bodzin, A., (2008). Integrating instructional technologies in a local watershed investigation with urban elementary learners. The Journal of Environmental Education, 39 (2), 47-58.
13. Bodzin, A., &, Anastasio, D., (2006). Using Web-based GIS For Earth and environmental systems education. The Journal of Geoscience Education, 54 (3), 295-300.
14. Bodzin, A., Anastasio, D., &, Kulo, V., (in press). Designing Google Earth activities for learning Earth and environmental science. In, J. MaKinster, N. Trautmann, &, M. Barnett, (Eds.) Teaching science and investigating environmental issues with geospatial technology: Designing effective professional development for teachers. Dordrecht: Springer.
15. Bodzin, A., &, Cirucci, L., (2009). Integrating geospatial technologies to examine urban land use change: A design partnership. Journal of Geography, 108 (4-5), 186-197.
16. Bodzin, A., &, Shive, L., (2004). Designing for watershed inquiry. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 3 (4), 249-258.
17. Bransford J., Brown A., &, Cocking A., (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18. Carter, C.S., Larussa, M.A., &, Bodner, G.M., (1987). A study of two measures of spatial ability as predictors of success in different levels of general chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24 (7), 645-657.
19. Carrarra A., &, Fausto G., (Eds.). (1995). Geographical Information Systems in assessing natural hazards. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
20. Chin, C., &, Osborne, J., (2010). Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (7), 883-908.
21. Coe, R., (2002). It's the effect size, stupid: What effect size is and why it is important. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association. England: University of Exeter.
22. Cohen, J., (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Cohen, D.K., Raudenbush, S.W., &, Ball, D.L., (2002). Resources, instruction, and research. In, T. Boruch, &, F. Mosteller, (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research (pp. 30-119). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
24. Davis, E.A., &, Krajcik, J.S., (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 24 (3), 3-14. (Pubitemid 40633192)
25. Ebenezer, J., Kaya, O.N., &, Ebenezer, D.L., (in press). Engaging students in environmental research projects: Perceptions of fluency with innovative technologies and levels of scientific inquiry abilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Available at
26. Edelson, D., (2001). Learning-for-Use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (3), 355-385. (Pubitemid 33629152)
27. Edelson, D., Gordin, D.N., &, Pea, R.D., (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8 (3/4), 391-450.
28. Ellis, E.S., Worthington, L.A., &, Larkin, M.J., (1994). Executive summary of the research synthesis on effective teaching principles and the design of quality tools for educators. University of Oregon: National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators.
29. Endreny, A.H., (2010). Urban 5th graders conceptions during a place-based inquiry unit on watershed. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (5), 501-517.
30. Estes, J.E., Hajic, E.J., &, Tinney, L.R., (1983). Fundamentals of image analysis: Analysis of visible and thermal infrared data. In, R.N. Colwell, (Ed.), Manual of remote sensing (2nd ed., pp. 987-1124). Bethesda, MD: American Society of Photogrammetry.
31. Fradd, S.H., &, Lee, O., (1999). Teacher's roles in promoting science inquiry with students from diverse language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 28 (6), 14-20, 42.
32. Gardner, H., (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligence. New York: Basic Books.
33. Geier, G., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., 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. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (8), 922-939.
34. Geography Education Standards Project. (1994). Geography for Life: The National Geography Standards. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society Committee on Research and Exploration.
35. Gersmehl, P.J., &, Gersmehl, C.A., (2006). Wanted: A concise list of neurologically defensible and assessable spatial thinking skills. Research in Geographic Education, 8, 5-38.
36. Haack, B.N., Guptill, S.C., Holz, R.K., Jampoler, S.M., Jensen, J.R., &, Welch, R.A., (1997). Urban analysis and planning. In, W.R. Philipson, (Ed.), Manual of photographic interpretation (2nd ed., pp. 517-554). Bethesda, MD: American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.
37. Hall-Wallace, M.K., &, McAuliffe, C.M., (2002). Design, implementation, and evalaution of GIS-based learning materials in an introductory geoscience course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50 (1), 5-14. (Pubitemid 34207126)
38. Heit M., Shortried A., &, Parker H.D., (Eds.), (1991). GIS applications in natural resources. Fort Collins, CO: GIS World.
39. Henson, R.K., &, Smith, A.D., (2000). State of the art in statistical significance and effect size reporting: A review of the APA Task Force report and current trends. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33, 285-296.
40. Herold, M., Liu, X., &, Clarke, K.C., (2003). Spatial metrics and image texture for mapping urban land use. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 69 (9), 991-1001. (Pubitemid 37078319)
41. Hochberg, J., (1978). Perception. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
42. Hollingsworth, L., Beard, J.J., &, Proctor, T.P., (2007). An investigation of item type in a standards-based assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 12 (18), Retrieved from.
43. Howe, A.C., &, Doody, W., (1989). Spatial visualization and sex-related differences in science achievement. Science Education, 73 (6), 703-709.
44. Huber, T.P., (1983). Remote sensing in environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 14, 33-36.
45. Jensen, J.R., &, Cowen, D.C., (1999). Remote sensing of urban/suburban infrastructure and socio-economic attributes. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 65 (5), 611-622. (Pubitemid 29245345)
46. Kahle, J.B., Meece, J., &, Scantlebury, K., (2000). Urban African-American middle school science students: Does standards-based teaching make a difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (9), 1019-1041.
47. Kali, Y., (2006). Collaborative knowledge-building using the Design Principles Database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1 (2), 187-201. (Pubitemid 44084598)
48. Kali, Y., &, Orion, N., (1996). Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geologic structures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (4), 369-391. (Pubitemid 126420851)
49. Kantner, D.E., (2009). Doing the project and learning the content: Designing project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding. Science Education, 94 (3), 525-551.
50. Kastens, K.A., &, Ishikawa, T., (2006). Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences: A cross-disciplinary look at the intersection of the two fields. In, C.A. Manduca, &, D.W. Mogk, (Eds.), Earth and mind: How geologists think and learn about the Earth (pp. 53-76). Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America. (Special Paper 413).
51. Kerski, J.J., (2008). The role of GIS in digital Earth education. International Journal of Digital Earth, 1 (4), 326-346.
52. Kirman, J.M., &, Nyitrai, L., (1998). The ability of sixth grade children to use Radarsat satellite images. Journal of Geography, 97 (2), 56-62. (Pubitemid 28444125)
53. Klagges, H., Harbor, J., Shepardson, D., Bell, C., Meyer, J., &, Leuenberger, T., (2002). Teachers as learners examine land-use change in the local environment using remote sensing imagery. Journal of Geography, 101 (4), 137-143.
54. Klein, T.J.B., (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
55. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K.L., &, Reiser, B.J., (2008). Learning-Goals-Driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92 (1), 1-32.
56. Lee, H.-S., Linn, M.C., Varna, K., &, Liu, O.L., (2010). How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (1), 71-90.
57. Lee, H.-S., Liu, O.L., &, Linn, M.C., (2007). TELS Report: Validating inquiry science assessments at the design, construct, and instruction levels. Berkeley: University of California.
58. Lee, O., Buxton, C., Lewis, S., &, LeRoy, K., (2006). Science inquiry and student diversity: Enhanced abilities and continuing difficulties after an instructional intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43 (7), 607-636. (Pubitemid 44369031)
59. Lilles, T.M., &, Keifer, R.W., (1987). Remote sensing and image interpretation, 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
60. Linn M.C., Davis E.A., &, Bell P., (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
61. Linn, M.C., &, Petersen, A.C., (1986). A meta-analysis of gender differences in spatial ability: Implications for mathematics and science achievement. In, J.S. Hyde, &, M.C. Linn, (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 67-101). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
62. Lord, T.R., (1985). Enhancing the visuo-spatial aptitude of students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22 (5), 395-405.
63. Lynch, S.J., (2000). Equity and science education reform. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
64. MaKinster, J., &, Trautmann, N., (in press). Understanding the use of geospatial technologies to teach science: TPACK as a lens for effective teaching. In, J.G. MaKinster, N.M. Trautmann, &, G.M. Barnett, (Eds.), Teaching science and investigating environmental issues with geospatial technology: Designing effective professional development for teachers. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
65. Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., Fishman, B.J., Soloway, E., Geier, R., &, Tal, R.T., (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (10), 1063-1080. (Pubitemid 40002957)
66. Mathewson, J.H., (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83, 33-54.
67. McGee, M.G., (1979). Human spatial abilities: Sources of sex differences. New York: Praeger.
68. McKeown, D.M., (1988). Building knowledge-based systems for detecting man-made structures from remotely-sensed imagery. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, Series A, 324, 423-435.
69. McLaughlin, M.W., &, Mitra, D., (2001). Theory-based change and change-based theory: Going deeper, going broader. Journal of Educational Change, 2 (4), 301-323.
70. National Research Council. (1996). The National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
71. National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially: GIS as a support system in K-12 education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
72. Newcombe, N., &, Dubas, J.S., (1992). A longitudinal study of predictors of spatial ability in adolescent females. Child Development, 63 (1), 37-46.
73. O'Donnell, C., (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78 (1), 33-84.
74. Pallrand, G.J., &, Seeber, F., (1984). Spatial ability and achievement in introductory physics. Journal of Research in College Teaching, 21 (5), 507-516.
75. Pellegrino J.W., Chudowsky N., &, Glaser R., (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
76. Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2007). Academic Standards for Science and Technology. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Education.
77. Piburn, M., (1980). Spatial reasoning as a correlate of formal thought and science achievement for New Zealand students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17 (5), 443-448.
78. Pribyl, J.R., &, Bodner, G.M., (1987). Spatial ability and its role in organic chemistry: A study of four organic courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24 (3), 229-240.
79. Raudenbush, S.W., (2007). Designing field trials of educational innovations. In, B. Schneider, &, S-.K. McDonald, (Eds.), Scale-up in education: Vol. II. Ideas in Practice (pp. 23-40). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
80. Rakshit, R., &, Ogneva-Himmelberger, Y., (2008). Application of virtual globes in education. Geography Compass, 2 (6), 1995-2010.
81. Remillard, J.T., (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers' learning? Two fourth-grade teachers' use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100 (4), 331-350.
82. Rivet, A.E., &, Krajcik, J.S., (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (7), 669-692.
83. Rivet, A.E., &, Krajcik, J.S., (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students' prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (1), 79-100. (Pubitemid 351200384)
84. Russell-Gebbett, J., (1984). Pupils' perceptions of three-dimensional structures in biology lessons. The entity from which ERIC acquires the content, including journal, organization, and conference names, or by means of online submission from the author. Journal of Biological Education, 18 (3), 220-226.
85. Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Shavelson, R.J., Hamilton, L., &, Klein, S., (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (5), 369-393.
86. Schultz, R.B., Kerski, J.J., &, Patterson, T.C., (2008). The use of virtual globes as a spatial teaching tool with suggestions for metadata standards. Journal of Geography, 107 (1), 27-34.
87. Shear, L., Bell, P., &, Linn, M.C., (2004). Partnership models: The case of the deformed frogs. In, M.C. Linn, E.A. Davis, &, P. Bell, (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 289-314). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
88. Sheppard, S.R.J., (2005). Validity, reliability, and ethics in visualization. In, I.D. Bishop, &, E. Lange, (Eds.), Visualization in landscape and environmental planning: Technology and applications (pp. 79-97). London: Taylor and Francis.
89. Sheppard, S.R.J., &, Cizek, P., (2009). The ethics of Google Earth: Crossing thresholds from spatial data to landscape visualization. Journal of Environmental Management, 90 (6), 2102-2117.
90. Sivanpillai, R., &, Driese, K.L., (2008). WyomingView: No-cost remotely sensed data for geographic education. Journal of Geography, 107 (4-5), 154-160.
91. Slavin, R.E., (2008). Perspectives on evidence-based research in education-what works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational Researcher, 37 (1), 5-14.
92. Smith, G.A., (2007). Place-based education: Breaking through the constraining regularities of public school. Environmental Education Research, 13 (2), 189-207.
93. Smith, W.S., &, Litman, C.I., (1979). Early adolescent girls' and boys' learning of a spatial visualization skill. Science Education, 63 (5), 671-676.
94. Sohl, T.L., Gallant, A.L., &, Loveland, T.R., (2004). The characteristics and interpretability of land surface change and implications for project design. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 70 (4), 439-448. (Pubitemid 39081783)
95. Stipek, D.J., (1996). Motivation and instruction. In, D.C. Berliner, &, R.C. Calfee, (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 85-113). New York: MacMillan.
96. Tinker, R., (1992). Mapware: Educational applications of geographic information systems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1 (1), 35-48.
97. Tobin, K., Roth, W.-M., &, Zimmermann, A., (2001). Learning to teach science in urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (8), 941-964. (Pubitemid 33655597)
98. Tuckey, H., &, Selvaratnam, M., (1993). Studies involving three-dimensional visualization skills in chemistry: A review. Studies in Science Education 21, 99-121.
99. Tversky, B., (1996). Spatial constructions. In, N. Stein, P. Ornstein, B. Tversky, &, C. Brainerd, (Eds.), Memory for emotion and everyday events (pp. 181-208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
100. Wai, J., Lubinsky, D., &, Benbow, C.P., (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (4), 817-835.
101. Wavering, M.J., Perry, B., Kelsey, L.J., &, Birdd, D., (1986). Performance of students in grades six, nine, and twelve on five logical, spatial and formal tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23 (4), 321-333.
102. Weiss, I.R., Pasley, J.D., Smith, P.S., Banilower, E.R., &, Heck, D.J., (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
103. Wiggins, G., &, McTighe, J., (2005). Understanding by design, expanded, 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
104. Wu, H.-K., &, Krajcik, J.S., (2006). Inscriptional practices in two inquiry-based classrooms: A case study of seventh graders' use of data tables and graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43 (1), 63-95.