Aseguramiento de calidad

The purpose of this study was to examine if spatial thinking skill development differs between analog and digital map instruction and to investigate if any other variables effect spatial thinking skill acquisition. Two specific research questions were posed:

1. Does spatial thinking skill development differ between analog (paper) and digital map instructional delivery?

2. Does spatial thinking skill development differ based on attitudes toward

geography, past travel experience, or demographic variables such as gender, and are there interaction effects among them related to different instructional media?

This dissertation research addressed the above questions by analyzing the differences in STAT scores among students. The analysis progressed through an

investigation of STAT scores analyzed by condition, STAT question, and spatial thinking skill area. Finally, the relationship between student survey responses and STAT score improvement was explored. Survey responses included attitudes towards geography and technology, access to technology, and past travel experience. Demographic variables such as gender, race, academic level, and special education status were also explored. Influence of Different Media on Student Spatial Thinking Skill Acquisition

It was expected that both media would increase spatial thinking skill

development in students. However, it was also anticipated that students who are taught using the paper maps would have a higher increase in spatial thinking skills than those students taught with digital maps. When analyzing the difference in STAT scores among students by condition, there was a highly significant improvement in overall scores from STAT A to STAT B. The Google Earth and the SC MAPS intervention groups both showed highly statistically significant differences. Although there was a highly significant improvement in both instructional intervention groups, the measurable improvement was more in the SC MAPS group than in the Google Earth group. There were no statistically significant differences among STAT scores in the control group.

The overall correct answer percentages for each question in both STAT A and STAT B were also investigated. Students improved their scores from STAT A to STAT

B on 12 of the 16 questions in both the total study population and in the control group. Students improved their scores from STAT A to STAT B on 13 of the 16 questions in the Google Earth group and 14 out of 16 questions in the SC MAPS group.

A frequency table was run for all three conditions in order to evaluate change in scores in each of the eight skill areas. Out of the eight spatial thinking skill areas, students in the Google Earth group improved scores the highest in four skill areas, students in the SC MAPS group increased the highest in three of the skill areas, and students in the control group increased the highest in one skill area. As expected, students in the control group improved the least in the majority of skill areas. Students in the Google Earth group increased in comprehending orientation and direction (skill area I), comparing map information to graphic information (skill area II), correlating spatially distributed

phenomena (skill area V), and comprehending geographic features represented as points, lines, or polygons (skill area VIII). Students in the SC MAPS group increased in

choosing the best location based on several spatial factors (skill area III), mentally visualizing 3D images based on 2D information (skill area VI), and overlaying and dissolving maps (skill area VII). Surprisingly, students in the control group increased the most in imagining a slope profile based on a topographic map (skill area IV).

Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in any of the eight spatial thinking skill categories. However, if the confidence level was adjusted from 95% to 90%, then students in the SC MAPS group would have scored significantly higher than students in the Google Earth and control groups in the Overlay and Dissolve category (VII). Furthermore, if the confidence level was adjusted from 95% to 90%, then

students in the Google Earth group would have scored significantly higher than the

students in the control group in the Comprehending Geographic Features category (VIII). Other Influences on Student Spatial Thinking Skill Acquisition

Many variables may contribute to how a student best learns spatial thinking skills. It was expected that the more favorable the student attitudes towards geography, the higher the spatial thinking skill development would be. It was also assumed that more past travel experience in students would equate to higher spatial thinking skill

development. Additionally, it was also anticipated that males would develop better spatial thinking skills and improve upon existing skills better than females.

The results from the STAT scores analyzed by the student survey showed that there was no correlation between improvements on STAT scores and students’ attitudes toward geography. There was also no correlation found between improvements on STAT scores and students’ access to technology. While there was no correlation found between the improvements in STAT scores and students’ attitudes towards technology in the total population, the Google Earth and SC MAPS groups, there was a weak, positive

correlation among the students in the control group. There was also a weak, positive correlation found between the improvements in STAT scores and students’ past travel experiences among students in the total population and within the control group.

The results from the STAT scores analyzed by demographic variables revealed that there were statistically significant differences between students in College

Preparatory classes and Honors classes. Overall, Honors students increased their scores higher than College Preparatory students. In the SC MAPS group, Honors students increased their scores higher than College Preparatory students. While there were no

significant differences among the different races involved in the study, results showed that overall, white students increased their scores slightly higher than black students. There were no statistical differences among gender or special education versus non- special educations students.

The results from testing all possible combinations of the four demographic variables showed no significant interaction effects among any combination. When condition was added to variables, a statistically significant difference was found between race, academic level, and condition. Stratifying the sample by each of the conditions revealed that a significant difference occurred within the control and the Google Earth groups. There were no statistically significant differences found within the SC MAPS group.