14.4.1 Assessment Practices
Those responding to this survey were self-selected and presumably more likely to be educators who incorporate geospatial thinking into their teaching. It is of little surprise therefore that the majority of respondents (63 %) indicated that they used some type of geospatial thinking assessment practice. Furthermore, most teachers commented on the importance of geospatial thinking assessment and their desire to see more resources and training in these practices.
Several respondents observed that at the scale of their school district, geospatial assessments were not used, rarely used or unevenly used. In one instance a teacher noted the separation of the geography curriculum between high school and univer- sity such that geospatial concepts and skills are taught in the university but not in the schools. Teachers from several districts noted that in their districts geography courses are not required, let alone geospatial technologies (GSTs) or spatial think- ing. Another respondent stated that “. . .there is little conceptual thinking incorpo- rated in geography education in this country. Geography classes are usually based on everyday knowledge with little reference to the academic discipline.” Still another observed that although there are some references in the curriculum to geospatial assessments, it is neither explicit, nor subject to assessment.
In contrast, school districts in Ontario and Colorado have made geospatial concepts and skills much more explicit. For example, Ontario’s recently revised curriculum includes a continuum of map, globe and graphing skills (Ontario Ministry of Education 2013).6The continuum outlines in detail the skills to be achieved by students as they progress from grades 1 through 12. Likewise,
7%
18%
11%
18%
14%
21%
11%
1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 26 and more no answer Fig. 14.1 Years of teaching
experience, n¼44
6http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/canworld910curr2013.pdf
174 B. Sharpe and N.T. Huynh
Colorado’s revised academic standards in social studies specify a series of geospatial skills and concepts or ‘graduate competencies’ to be mastered from preschool through twelfth grade (Colorado Department of Education).7In neither instance, however, do these districts adopt standardized assessment instruments or practices.
The online survey results suggest that the use of standardized assessment instruments is not widespread. A majority (63 %) of respondents indicated that they were not aware of any particular assessment instrument being used. As previously noted in the literature review, there are a few published assessment instruments that have been tested for validity and reliability which are now avail- able for use in classroom (e.g., Hegarty et al.2002; Huynh and Sharpe2013; Kim and Bednarz 2013; Lee and Bednarz 2009). However, only four respondents indicated that they were using one of these standardized assessment instruments.
The instruments mentioned include the spatial thinking ability test (Lee and Bednarz 2009), and a scale for measuring geospatial thinking expertise (Huynh and Sharpe 2013). These assessment instruments are being used for research purposes and curriculum assessments rather than to support classroom instruction practices.
More characteristic of teaching practices are classroom and desktop assessments including map, atlas and globe reading exercises, as well as multiple-choice quizzes (see Fig.14.2). In most cases these take the form of paper-based tests of location knowledge and place-naming. Answering questions provided by geography-related textbooks is the next most common classroom activity. Although much less com- monly reported, a similar form of testing uses online activities including virtual globes and online GIS. In general, these forms of assessment tend to emphasize student learning of declarative geospatial knowledge rather than configurational and procedural knowledge. Furthermore, as desktop activities, they also tend to limit the scale of the assessment to the classroom or virtual space rather than incorporate large geographic scales.
The frequency of teacher responses across these assessment practices was further analyzed to determine if there were any notable variations among jurisdic- tions. For example, it was hypothesized that in-lab problem-solving using GIS might be more prevalent in North American teaching jurisdictions. This analysis, however, did not suggest any systematic differences in assessment practices among teachers. This finding, however, may be a function of the small sample size, and is worthy of further investigation.
Although the assessment instruments used by some teachers are from published sources, over 50 % of the teachers indicated that they devised their own assessment instruments. Notably, several teachers reported that they made extensive use of field-based activities including sketching, sketch mapping, journal writing and taking field notes. One teacher reported their frequent use of mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets to have students collect, organize and present their
7http://www.cde.state.co.us/cosocialstudies/statestandards
14 A Review of Geospatial Thinking Assessment in High Schools 175
fieldwork. Another respondent provided a link to website that has been developed to apply geospatial skills in environmental problem-solving.8Overall, however, the more sophisticated, inquiry-based techniques such as problem-solving activities using GIS, and field-based problem solving using GPS were the types of assessment practice reported least often.
14.4.2 Assessment of Geospatial Concepts
The geospatial concept assessed most often by teachers is location. All of the respondents who reported undertaking assessments incorporated the concept of location into their activities. Almost as important, were activities that assessed understanding of distance,scale,neighbourhood and region. The concepts least often reported included networks, spatial heterogeneity, spatial dependence and objects and fields. When asked what concepts were missing from this list, the responses suggested that teachers were not entirely familiar with the particular terminology adopted by the survey. Several respondents commented that these
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Other Field-based problem-solving using GPS Assessment practices outside the formal learning
environments
Online virtual-globe reading exercises In-lab problem-solving using GIS Questions in geography-related textbooks In-class multiple choice quizzes In-class map, atlas, globe reading exercises
Fig. 14.2 Frequency of assessment practices commonly used by teachers, n¼44
8http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/eli/index.html
176 B. Sharpe and N.T. Huynh
terms were primarily spatial concepts and failed to capture the geospatial or geographic and environmental content that is the emphasis of their own teaching.
For example, concepts important to geography teaching and yet not explicitly mentioned on the list, include place, direction, spatial pattern and diffusion. In addition, some teachers suggested that the survey tended to overemphasize con- cepts rather than the application and skills in map reading, geographical thinking, environmental interpretation and the framing of geographical questions.
14.4.3 Challenges to Geospatial Assessment
The main challenge to geospatial assessment, as reported by 84 % of respondents, is the lack of teacher training in such practices. A smaller proportion (50 %) reported a lack of awareness of available geospatial assessment instruments. Lack of access to technologies and resources, was reported as a challenge by less than half the teachers, although this remains a significant barrier in some school districts, especially those outside of North America. A challenge, previously noted, is that in many districts geospatial thinking is not an explicit dimension of the local curricula. Another is that existing assessment instruments typically have been designed for particular geographic contexts and require customization to the local curriculum and local geography.