學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 文本地理資訊時空分析系統輔助高中地理科探究式學習成效影響研究
The Effects of a Textual Geographic Information system with Spatial-Temporal Analysis on Supporting Senior High School Geography Inquiry and Practical Teaching作者 廖怡婷
Liao, Yi-Ting貢獻者 陳志銘
Chen, Chih-Ming
廖怡婷
Liao, Yi-Ting關鍵詞 空間人文學
地理資訊系統
探究式學習
高中地理課程
認知風格
空間思考能力
探究學習成效
自我效能
Spatial humanities
Geographic information system
Inquiry based learning
Geography curriculum
Cognitive style
Spatial thinking skills
Inquiry learning effectiveness
Self-efficacy日期 2022 上傳時間 2-九月-2022 14:59:51 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究採用單組前實驗設計研究法，以台北市某高中一年級一個班級共19名學生為研究對象，探討學習者使用具「地理資訊探究模組」之「數位人文學習平台」支援地理科探究學習活動前後，對於探究學習成效、自我效能，以及科技接受度的影響，希望學習者透過此一系統輔助地理科探究學習活動，促進其探究學習成效與自我效能。此外，本研究亦探討不同認知風格與空間思考能力之學習者，在探究學習成效、自我效能與科技接受度上是否具有顯著的差異，並以半結構式訪談了解學習者對於使用此一系統輔以地理探究學習活動的學習感受與建議。最後，本研究採用滯後序列分析進一步探討學習者使用具「地理資訊探究模組」之「數位人文學習平台」進行探究學習的有效行為轉移模式。研究結果發現，在探究學習表現方面，使用具「地理資訊探究模組」之「數位人文學習平台」支援地理科探究學習活動，對於整體學習者、圖像型認知風格學習者，以及空間思考能力中分組學習者在探究學習成效上具有顯著的助益；在自我效能方面，不論是整體學習者、不同認知風格與空間思考能力的學習者，於實驗活動前後的自我效能表現皆不具有顯著差異。根據訪談結果推測係因整體學習活動的時間不足，導致學習者無法在短時間熟悉系統功能，並針對探究議題進行深入探索，致使自我效能的表現並無顯著提升。在科技接受度方面，不論是整體學習者、不同認知風格與空間思考能力的學習者，對於系統使用感受均持相當高的肯定態度。在學習行為模式方面，顯示當學習者能夠同時充分運用一般文章瀏覽檢索功能與地理資訊探究模組功能輔以進行議題探索，不僅能加深其對於探討議題的觀察與理解，也能獲得更好的探究學習表現。最後基於研究結果，本研究提出將此一系統應用於地理科探究學習活動之教學與系統功能改善建議。在未來研究方向上，本研究建議可嘗試改變研究實驗設計，加入控制組比較有無此一系統輔以探究學習之學習成效差異。此外，亦可嘗試在系統中增加不同類型的資源內容，或小組討論工具供學習者交流與討論，輔助地理科探究學習活動。整體而言，本研究結合地圖與文本資訊，發展具「地理資訊探究模組」之「數位人文學習平台」支援高中地理科探究學習活動，提供學習者從時間維度與空間維度更有效率的探究地理議題，對於促進地理科探究學習發展具有貢獻。
This research adopted a one-group pre-experimental design with 19 tenth-graders from one class of a senior high school in Taipei city, Taiwan to investigate the effects of using “Digital Humanities Learning Platform” with “Geographic Information Inquiry Module” to support inquiry learning activities in a geography course on inquiry learning effectiveness, self-efficacy, and technology acceptance. It is hoped that this system can promote the learners’ inquiry learning effectiveness and self-efficacy. In addition, with cognitive style and spatial thinking abilities as background variable, the influences on learners’ inquiry learning effectiveness, self-efficacy, and technology acceptance were also examined, and semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand learners’ feelings and suggestions on using this system to support geographic inquiry learning activities. Finally, lag sequential analysis was used to further investigate the effective behavioral transfer patterns of learners’ inquiry learning using “Digital Humanities Learning Platform” with “Geographic Information Inquiry Module.”The research findings of this study that, using “Digital Humanities Learning Platform” with “Geographic Information Inquiry Module” to support inquiry learning activities in a geography course had significant benefits for overall learners, visualizers, and learners with moderate levels of spatial thinking ability in terms of inquiry learning effectiveness. However, no significant promotion in self-efficacy performance was found for overall learners, learners with different cognitive styles and spatial thinking abilities who used “Digital Humanities Learning Platform” with “Geographic Information Inquiry Module” to support inquiry learning activities in a geography course. Based on the interviews, this study found that the lack of time for the learning activity prevented the learners from familiarizing themselves with the system and exploring the inquiry topic in depth in a short period of time, resulting in no significant promotion in self-efficacy performance. In terms of technology acceptance, learners with different cognitive styles and spatial thinking skills were all very positive toward using the system to support inquiry learning activities in a geography course. In terms of learning behavior patterns, it was found that when learners could fully utilize the functions of the traditional text search and “Geographic Information Inquiry Module” to assist in the exploration of interested geographic issues, they not only deepened their observations and understanding of the geographic issues, but also achieved better inquiry learning effectiveness.Based on the research results, this study suggests the application of this system to the teaching of inquiry learning activities in a geography course and the further improvement directions of system functions. In the future research directions, future study try to change the experimental design of the study to include a control group to compare the differences in inquiry learning effectiveness, self-efficacy, and technology acceptance between learners using the “Digital Humanities Learning Platform” with and without “Geographic Information Inquiry Module” to support inquiry learning activities in a geography course. Overall, this study simultaneously integrates map and text information to develop a “Digital Humanities Learning Platform” with a “Geographic Information Inquiry Module” to support inquiry learning activities in a high school’s geography course, providing learners with the opportunity to explore geographic issues in both temporal and spatial dimensions, and contributing to the promotion of their inquiry learning effectiveness.參考文獻 一、中文文獻108課綱資訊網。十二年國民基本教育。上網日期：2021年12月27日。檢自：http://12basic.edu.tw/12about-3-1.php丁志堅、黃雅彙（2009）。地理資訊系統在社會學習領域教學的應用。載於林祥偉（主編），台灣人文地理資訊系統的案例與硏究（215-234頁）。花蓮縣：國立東華大學鄉土文化學系。中央研究院（2022）。地理資訊數位加值與空間人文學發展計畫。上網日期：111年1月22日，檢自：https://ascdc.sinica.edu.tw/project/ASCDC/535白璧玲（2014）。歷史地理資訊系統於史料數位化成果之應用價值與發展趨勢。國史研究通訊，7，10-14。白璧玲、吳承翰、蔡融易、蔡宗翰、范毅軍（2019）。數位人文與時空資訊整合分析－個人歷史文本分析工具及其應用於明代倭寇研究之案例。數位典藏與數位人文，(4)，1-25。行政院農業委員會水土保持局全球資訊網。上網日期：2022年1月21日。檢自：https://www.swcb.gov.tw/杜協昌(2018)。DocuSky：個人文字資料庫的建構與分析平台。數位典藏與數位人文, 2, 71-90。李宗信、顧雅文（2014）。近二十年來應用歷史地理資訊系統的回顧與展望：以台灣區域史研究為例。台灣史研究，21(2)，167–196。李宗信、李妍慧（2021）。應用地理資訊系統（GIS）於歷史教學上的挑戰和優勢。台灣教育，727，23-30。周睿（2020）。基於歷史地理軟體的中國古典詩研究教學的新嘗試—以唐宋文學編年地圖平台為例。數位典藏與數位人文，(6)，97-120。doi:10.6853/DADH.202010_(6).0004林琿、張捷、楊萍、劉佳（2008）。有關空間綜合人文學與社會科學研究的進展。載於賴進貴（主編），數位典藏地理資訊（1-22頁）。臺北市：國立台灣大學地理環境資源學系。林敬智（2020）。道教開光儀式疏文之文本探勘與數位人文探索：以府城延陵道壇為例。圖資與檔案學刊，(97)，44-75。doi:10.6575/JILA.202012_(97).0002邱斯嘉、郭潔、蘇郁尹（2012）。「太平洋史前Lapita陶器線上數位資料庫。載於項潔（主編），數位人文要義：尋找類型與軌跡(231-255頁)。臺北市：國立台灣大學出版中心。洪瑩發、范毅軍、張智傑、廖泫銘（2020）。空間視野與地方知識：台灣宗教與時空分析的回顧與展望。華人宗教研究，(16)，99-136。范毅軍、廖泫銘（2008）。歷史地理資訊系統建立與發展。地理資訊系統季刊，2(1)，23-30。doi:10.6628/GIS.2008.2(1).4教育部（2005）。普通高級中學課程暫行綱要。臺北市：教育部。教育部（2009）。普通高級中學課程綱要。臺北市：教育部。郭俊麟（2008）。台灣數位典藏地理資訊在教育與資料提供機制之探討─從學程與工作坊的規劃談起。載於賴進貴（主編），數位典藏地理資訊（67-85頁）。臺北市：國立台灣大學地理環境資源學系。陳志銘（2021）。數位人文研究平台之技術發展現況與支援人文研究及教育應用評析。載於吳美美（主編），圖書資訊學研究回顧與前瞻2.0（494-532頁）。臺北市 : 元華文創股份有限公司。項潔（2018）。發刊詞：從數位典藏到數位人文。數位典藏與數位人文，(1)，i-v。doi:10.6853/DADH.201804_1.0000黄靖、袁金国、王娅静（2017）。地理信息技术在中学地理教学中应用研究综述。信息与电脑，22，246-248。黃琇苓（2022年04月22日）。結合GIS-VR數位閱讀的創意國文課國文～行尞。貓裏。新北市教育電子報。取自：https://epaper.ntpc.edu.tw/index/EpaSubShow.aspx?CDE=EPS20220407085936CC0&e=EPA2021121614190965I賴進貴、荘婉瑩（2009）。數位典藏地理資訊於高中地理教學應用。地圖：中華民國地圖學會會刊, 19, 33–48. https://doi.org/10.30006/JC.200910.0003蕭顯勝、洪琬諦、簡正杰（2009）。行動地理資訊系統應用於國小鄉土地理教學之研究。地理學報，(56)，59-81。 https://doi.org/10.6161/jgs.2009.56.04顧雅文（2008）。再現、認知與解釋歷史的新工具─GIS與台灣史研究的對話。載於賴進貴（主編），數位典藏地理資訊（103-120頁）。臺北市：國立台灣大學地理環境資源學系。二、英文文獻Baker, T. R., & White, S. H. (2003). The effects of GIS on students’ attitudes, self-efficacy, and achievement in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Geography, 102(6), 243-254. doi:10.1080/00221340308978556Battistini, A., Segoni, S., Manzo, G., Catani, F., & Casagli, N. (2013). Web data mining for automatic inventory of geohazards at national scale. Applied Geography, 43, 147-158. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.06.012Bednarz, & Schee, J. van der. (2006). Europe and the United States: the implementation of geographic information systems in secondary education in two contexts. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390600769573Blessinger, P., & Carfora, J. M. (2014). Innovative approaches in teaching and learning: An introduction to inquiry-based learning for the arts, humanities, and social sciences. In Inquiry-Based Learning for the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators (Vol. 2, pp. 3-25). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000002030Buckley, J., Seery, N., & Canty, D. (2019). Investigating the use of spatial reasoning strategies in geometric problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 341-362. doi:10.1007/s10798-018-9446-3Chen, S. Y., & Liu, X. (2011). Mining students’ learning patterns and performance in Web-based instruction: a cognitive style approach. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(2), 179-192. doi:10.1080/10494820802667256Chen, C. M., & Wang, Y. H. (2015). Geospatial education in high schools: Curriculums, methodologies, and practices. In O. Muñiz Solari, A. Demirci, & J. Schee (Eds.), Geospatial Technologies and Geography Education in a Changing World: Geospatial Practices and Lessons Learned (pp. 67-76). Tokyo: Springer Japan. doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55519-3_6Chen, C. M., Li, M. C., & Chen, Y. T. (2022). The effects of web-based inquiry learning mode with the support of collaborative digital reading annotation system on information literacy instruction. Computers & Education, 179, 104428. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104428Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers & Education, 63, 160-175. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.003Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 125-134. doi:10.1086/208501Cope, M. P., Mikhailova, E. A., Post, C. J., Schlautman, M. A., & Carbajales-Dale, P. (2018). Developing and evaluating an ESRI story map as an educational tool. Natural Sciences Education, 47(1), 180008. doi:10.4195/nse2018.04.0008Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. doi:10.2307/249008Duever, & McGinn, E. (2020). Teaching GIS in a digital humanities environment. Journal of Map & Geography Libraries, 16(3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/15420353.2021.1944951Dunn, S. (2017). Praxes of “The Human” and “The Digital”: Spatial humanities and the digitization of place. GeoHumanities, 3(1), 88-107. doi:10.1080/2373566X.2016.1245107Favier, T. T., & van der Schee, J. A. (2012). Exploring the characteristics of an optimal design for inquiry-based geography education with geographic information systems. Computers & Education, 58(1), 666-677. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.007Favier, T. T., & van der Schee, J. A. (2014). The effects of geography lessons with geospatial technologies on the development of high school students’ relational thinking. Computers & Education, 76, 225-236. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.004Gregory, I., Donaldson, C., Murrieta-Flores, P., & Rayson, P. (2015). Geoparsing, GIS, and textual analysis: Current developments in spatial humanities research. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 9(1), 1-14. doi:10.3366/ijhac.2015.0135Grindsted, A. (2005). Interactive resources used in semi-structured research interviewing. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(7), 1015-1035. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.011Gupta, & Devillers, R. (2017). Geographic visualization in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 24(3), 852–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9298-7Hadi, B. S., Mukminan, Siasah, M. M., & Sariyono, K. E. (2021). The effect of google earth-assisted remote sensing learning on students ’spatial thinking ability in solving disaster mitigation problems. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 884(1), 012013. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/884/1/012013Heylen, A. (2018). Expressing dynamic maps through seventeenth-century taiwan dutch manuscripts. In S. H. Chen (Ed.), Big Data in Computational Social Science and Humanities (pp. 95-116). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95465-3_4Hong, J. E. (2017). Designing GIS learning materials for K–12 teachers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(3), 323-345. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2016.1224777Hou, Yu, T.-F., Wu, Y.-X., Sung, Y.-T., & Chang, K.-E. (2016). Development and evaluation of a web map mind tool environment with the theory of spatial thinking and project-based learning strategy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 390–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12241Hu, Y. (2018). Geo-text data and data-driven geospatial semantics. Geography Compass, 12(11), e12404. doi:10.1111/gec3.12404Hu, Y., & Adams, B. (2021). Harvesting big geospatial data from natural language texts. In M. Werner & Y. Y. Chiang (Eds.), Handbook of Big Geospatial Data (pp. 487-507). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-55462-0_19Huang, Y. M., Hwang, J. P., & Chen, S. Y. (2016). Matching/mismatching in web-based learning: a perspective based on cognitive styles and physiological factors. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1198-1214. doi:10.1080/10494820.2014.978791Huynh, N. T., & Sharpe, B. (2013). An assessment instrument to measure geospatial thinking expertise. Journal of Geography, 112(1), 3-17. doi:10.1080/00221341.2012.682227In Gregory, I. N., & In Geddes, A. (2014). Toward spatial humanities: Historical GIS and spatial history.Ishikawa, T. (2016). Spatial thinking in geographic information science: Students’ geospatial conceptions, map-based reasoning, and spatial visualization ability. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106(1), 76-95. doi:10.1080/00045608.2015.1064342Iyamu, T. (2018). Collecting qualitative data for information systems studies: The reality in practice. Education and Information Technologies, 23(5), 2249-2264. doi:10.1007/s10639-018-9718-2Juvan, M. (2015). From spatial turn to GIS-mapping of literary cultures. European Review, 23(1), 81-96. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1062798714000568Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.-M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. doi:10.1111/jan.13031LaFrance, J. A., & Beck, D. (2018). Learner self-efficacy in K-12 Online environments. In C. B. Hodges (Ed.), Self-Efficacy in Instructional Technology Contexts (pp. 229-243). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99858-9_13Lay, J. G., Chen, Y. W., & Chi, Y. L. (2013). GIS adoption among senior high school geography teachers in taiwan. Journal of Geography, 112(3), 120-130. doi:10.1080/00221341.2012.682226Lay, J. G., Chi, Y. L., Hsieh, Y. S., & Chen, Y. W. (2013). What influences geography teachers’ usage of geographic information systems? A structural equation analysis. Computers & Education, 62, 191-195. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.014Lee, C. H. M., Cheng, Y. W., Rai, S., & Depickere, A. (2005). What affect student cognitive style in the development of hypermedia learning system? Computers & Education, 45(1), 1-19. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.04.006Lee, J., & Boling, E. (2008). Information-conveying approaches and cognitive styles of mental modeling in a hypermedia-based learning environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 644-661. doi:10.1002/asi.20778Lloyd, R. E., & Bunch, R. L. (2010). Learning geographic information from a map and text: Learning environment and individual differences. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 45(3), 169-184. doi:10.3138/carto.45.3.169Liu, S., & Zhu, X. (2008). Designing a structured and interactive learning environment based on GIS for secondary geography education. Journal of Geography, 107(1), 12-19. doi:10.1080/00221340801944425Liu, Y., Bui, E. N., Chang, C. H., & Lossman, H. G. (2010). PBL-GIS in secondary geography education: Does it result in higher-order learning outcomes? Journal of Geography, 109(4), 150-158. doi:10.1080/00221341.2010.497541Liu, T. C., Kinshuk, Lin, Y. C., & Wang, S. C. (2012). Can verbalisers learn as well as visualisers in simulation-based CAL with predominantly visual representations? Preliminary evidence from a pilot study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 965-980. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01262.xLü, G., Batty, M., Strobl, J., Lin, H., Zhu, A. X., & Chen, M. (2019). Reflections and speculations on the progress in Geographic Information Systems (GIS): a geographic perspective. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 33(2), 346-367. doi:10.1080/13658816.2018.1533136Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 833-846. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.833McDonough, K., Ludovic, M., & Matje, V. D. C. (2019). Named entity recognition goes to old regime France: geographic text analysis for early modern French corpora. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 33, 2498-2522. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2019.1620235Milson, A. J., Kerski, J. J., & Demirci, A. (2012). The world at their fingertips: A new age for spatial thinking. In A. J. Milson, A. Demirci, & J. J. Kerski (Eds.), International Perspectives on Teaching and Learning with GIS in Secondary Schools (pp. 1-11). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2120-3_1Mitchell, J. T., Roy, G., Fritch, S., & Wood, B. (2018). GIS professional development for teachers: lessons learned from high-needs schools. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 45(4), 292-304. doi:10.1080/15230406.2017.1421482Moretti. (2004). Graphs, maps, trees-2. New Left Review., 26.Murrieta-Flores, P., & Martins, B. (2019). The geospatial humanities: past, present and future. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 33(12), 2424-2429. doi:10.1080/13658816.2019.1645336Muñiz Solari, O., Demirci, A., & van der Schee, J. (2015). Geospatial technology in geography education. In O. Muñiz Solari, A. Demirci, & J. Schee (Eds.), Geospatial Technologies and Geography Education in a Changing World: Geospatial Practices and Lessons Learned (pp. 1-7). Tokyo: Springer Japan. doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55519-3_1National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.https://doi.org/10.17226/11019.Pazzaglia, & Moè, A. (2013). Cognitive styles and mental rotation ability in map learning. Cognitive Processing, 14(4), 391–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0572-2Perugini, S., & Bodzin, A. M. (2020). Using web-based GIS to assess students’ geospatial knowledge of hurricanes and spatial habits of mind. Journal of Geography, 119(2), 63-73. doi:10.1080/00221341.2019.1710764Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338122)Pohl, M., Wallner, G., & Kriglstein, S. (2016). Using lag-sequential analysis for understanding interaction sequences in visualizations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 96, 54-66. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.07.006Porter. (2018). Introduction: The importance of place and openness in spatial humanities research. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 12(2), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.3366/ijhac.2018.0216Schulze, U., Kanwischer, D., & Reudenbach, C. (2013). Essential competences for GIS learning in higher education: a synthesis of international curricular documents in the GIS&T domain. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 37(2), 257-275. doi:10.1080/03098265.2012.763162Shen, K. M., Lee, M. H., Tsai, C. C., & Chang, C. Y. (2016). Undergraduate students’ earth science learning: relationships among conceptions, approaches, and learning self-efficacy in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1527-1547. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1198060Sinaga, Z. V. B., Hamid, K. A., & Sugiharto. (2020). The influence of learning models and cognitive styles on geography learning outcomes in SMA N 2 Percut Sei Tuan. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1485(1), 012058. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1485/1/012058Spronken-Smith, R., Bullard, J., Ray, W., Roberts, C., & Keiffer, A. (2008). Where might sand dunes be on mars? Engaging students through inquiry-based learning in geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(1), 71-86. doi:10.1080/03098260701731520Songer, L. C. (2010). Using web-based GIS in introductory human geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(3), 401-417. doi:10.1080/03098265.2010.487202Taylor, Gregory, I. N., & Donaldson, C. (2018). Combining close and distant reading: A multiscalar analysis of the english lake district’s historical soundscape. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 12(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.3366/ijhac.2018.0220Unamuno, E. S. (2017). GIS and telescopic reading: between spatial and digital humanities. Neohelicon, 44(1), 65-81. doi:10.1007/s11059-017-0381-1Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Chapter four - spatial thinking and STEM education: when, why, and how? In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 57, pp. 147-181). Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394293-7.00004-2Wang, W. (2007). Learning experiences in terms of verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style: Interviewing verbal and visual learners (Order No. 1446246). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (304776716). Retrieved from https://login.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/learning-experiences-terms-verbalizer-visualizer/docview/304776716/se-2?accountid=10067Wilson, D., Jones, D., Bocell, F., Crawford, J., Kim, M. J., Veilleux, N., et al. (2015). Belonging and academic engagement among undergraduate STEM students: A multi-institutional study. Research in Higher Education, 56(7), 750-776. doi:10.1007/s11162-015-9367-xWitkin, Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543047001001Xiang, X., & Liu, Y. (2019). Exploring and enhancing spatial thinking skills: Learning differences of university students within a web-based GIS mapping environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1865-1881. doi:10.1111/bjet.12677Zheng, L., Dong, Y., Huang, R., Chang, C. Y., & Bhagat, K. K. (2018). Investigating the interrelationships among conceptions of, approaches to, and self-efficacy in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 40(2), 139-158. doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1402142 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
圖書資訊與檔案學研究所
109155016資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109155016 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 陳志銘 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Chen, Chih-Ming en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 廖怡婷 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Liao, Yi-Ting en_US dc.creator (作者) 廖怡婷 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Liao, Yi-Ting en_US dc.date (日期) 2022 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-九月-2022 14:59:51 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-九月-2022 14:59:51 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-九月-2022 14:59:51 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0109155016 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141616 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 圖書資訊與檔案學研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 109155016 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究採用單組前實驗設計研究法，以台北市某高中一年級一個班級共19名學生為研究對象，探討學習者使用具「地理資訊探究模組」之「數位人文學習平台」支援地理科探究學習活動前後，對於探究學習成效、自我效能，以及科技接受度的影響，希望學習者透過此一系統輔助地理科探究學習活動，促進其探究學習成效與自我效能。此外，本研究亦探討不同認知風格與空間思考能力之學習者，在探究學習成效、自我效能與科技接受度上是否具有顯著的差異，並以半結構式訪談了解學習者對於使用此一系統輔以地理探究學習活動的學習感受與建議。最後，本研究採用滯後序列分析進一步探討學習者使用具「地理資訊探究模組」之「數位人文學習平台」進行探究學習的有效行為轉移模式。研究結果發現，在探究學習表現方面，使用具「地理資訊探究模組」之「數位人文學習平台」支援地理科探究學習活動，對於整體學習者、圖像型認知風格學習者，以及空間思考能力中分組學習者在探究學習成效上具有顯著的助益；在自我效能方面，不論是整體學習者、不同認知風格與空間思考能力的學習者，於實驗活動前後的自我效能表現皆不具有顯著差異。根據訪談結果推測係因整體學習活動的時間不足，導致學習者無法在短時間熟悉系統功能，並針對探究議題進行深入探索，致使自我效能的表現並無顯著提升。在科技接受度方面，不論是整體學習者、不同認知風格與空間思考能力的學習者，對於系統使用感受均持相當高的肯定態度。在學習行為模式方面，顯示當學習者能夠同時充分運用一般文章瀏覽檢索功能與地理資訊探究模組功能輔以進行議題探索，不僅能加深其對於探討議題的觀察與理解，也能獲得更好的探究學習表現。最後基於研究結果，本研究提出將此一系統應用於地理科探究學習活動之教學與系統功能改善建議。在未來研究方向上，本研究建議可嘗試改變研究實驗設計，加入控制組比較有無此一系統輔以探究學習之學習成效差異。此外，亦可嘗試在系統中增加不同類型的資源內容，或小組討論工具供學習者交流與討論，輔助地理科探究學習活動。整體而言，本研究結合地圖與文本資訊，發展具「地理資訊探究模組」之「數位人文學習平台」支援高中地理科探究學習活動，提供學習者從時間維度與空間維度更有效率的探究地理議題，對於促進地理科探究學習發展具有貢獻。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This research adopted a one-group pre-experimental design with 19 tenth-graders from one class of a senior high school in Taipei city, Taiwan to investigate the effects of using “Digital Humanities Learning Platform” with “Geographic Information Inquiry Module” to support inquiry learning activities in a geography course on inquiry learning effectiveness, self-efficacy, and technology acceptance. It is hoped that this system can promote the learners’ inquiry learning effectiveness and self-efficacy. In addition, with cognitive style and spatial thinking abilities as background variable, the influences on learners’ inquiry learning effectiveness, self-efficacy, and technology acceptance were also examined, and semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand learners’ feelings and suggestions on using this system to support geographic inquiry learning activities. Finally, lag sequential analysis was used to further investigate the effective behavioral transfer patterns of learners’ inquiry learning using “Digital Humanities Learning Platform” with “Geographic Information Inquiry Module.”The research findings of this study that, using “Digital Humanities Learning Platform” with “Geographic Information Inquiry Module” to support inquiry learning activities in a geography course had significant benefits for overall learners, visualizers, and learners with moderate levels of spatial thinking ability in terms of inquiry learning effectiveness. However, no significant promotion in self-efficacy performance was found for overall learners, learners with different cognitive styles and spatial thinking abilities who used “Digital Humanities Learning Platform” with “Geographic Information Inquiry Module” to support inquiry learning activities in a geography course. Based on the interviews, this study found that the lack of time for the learning activity prevented the learners from familiarizing themselves with the system and exploring the inquiry topic in depth in a short period of time, resulting in no significant promotion in self-efficacy performance. In terms of technology acceptance, learners with different cognitive styles and spatial thinking skills were all very positive toward using the system to support inquiry learning activities in a geography course. In terms of learning behavior patterns, it was found that when learners could fully utilize the functions of the traditional text search and “Geographic Information Inquiry Module” to assist in the exploration of interested geographic issues, they not only deepened their observations and understanding of the geographic issues, but also achieved better inquiry learning effectiveness.Based on the research results, this study suggests the application of this system to the teaching of inquiry learning activities in a geography course and the further improvement directions of system functions. In the future research directions, future study try to change the experimental design of the study to include a control group to compare the differences in inquiry learning effectiveness, self-efficacy, and technology acceptance between learners using the “Digital Humanities Learning Platform” with and without “Geographic Information Inquiry Module” to support inquiry learning activities in a geography course. Overall, this study simultaneously integrates map and text information to develop a “Digital Humanities Learning Platform” with a “Geographic Information Inquiry Module” to support inquiry learning activities in a high school’s geography course, providing learners with the opportunity to explore geographic issues in both temporal and spatial dimensions, and contributing to the promotion of their inquiry learning effectiveness. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景與動機 1第二節 研究目的 6第三節 研究問題 7第四節 研究範圍與限制 8第五節 名詞解釋 9第二章 文獻探討 12第一節 空間人文學 12第二節 地理資訊系統支援社會科探究式學習 18第三節 影響探究學習成效之相關因素 22第三章 系統設計 25第一節 系統設計理念 25第二節 資料蒐集與文本詮釋資料設計 27第三節 系統架構 34第四節 系統介面與功能 36第五節 系統開發環境 44第四章 研究設計與實施 45第一節 研究架構 45第二節 研究方法 49第三節 研究對象 50第四節 研究工具 51第五節 實驗設計與流程 59第六節 資料與分析 63第七節 研究實施步驟 66第五章 實驗結果分析 68第一節 使用具「地理資訊探究模組」之「數位人文學習平台」的學習者在探究學習成效、自我效能及科技接受度分析 69第二節 使用具「地理資訊探究模組」之「數位人文學習平台」的不同認知風格學習者在探究學習成效、自我效能及科技接受度分析 72第三節 使用具「地理資訊探究模組」之「數位人文學習平台」的不同空間思考能力學習者在探究學習成效、自我效能及科技接受度分析 76第四節 使用具「地理資訊探究模組」之「數位人文學習平台」的學習者操作行為歷程分析 80第五節 訪談資料之分析 109第六節 綜合討論 121第六章 結論與建議 129第一節 結論 129第二節 教學實施與系統改善建議 135第三節 未來研究方向 138參考文獻 140附錄一 坡地災害探究式學習單 150附錄二 自我效能量表 154附錄三 科技接受度量表 155附錄四 認知風格SOP量表 157附錄五 空間思考能力量表 159附錄六 訪談大綱 175附錄七 受試者參與研究同意書 180 zh_TW dc.format.extent 7837193 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109155016 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 空間人文學 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 地理資訊系統 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 探究式學習 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 高中地理課程 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 認知風格 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 空間思考能力 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 探究學習成效 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 自我效能 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Spatial humanities en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Geographic information system en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Inquiry based learning en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Geography curriculum en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Cognitive style en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Spatial thinking skills en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Inquiry learning effectiveness en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Self-efficacy en_US dc.title (題名) 文本地理資訊時空分析系統輔助高中地理科探究式學習成效影響研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Effects of a Textual Geographic Information system with Spatial-Temporal Analysis on Supporting Senior High School Geography Inquiry and Practical Teaching en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文文獻108課綱資訊網。十二年國民基本教育。上網日期：2021年12月27日。檢自：http://12basic.edu.tw/12about-3-1.php丁志堅、黃雅彙（2009）。地理資訊系統在社會學習領域教學的應用。載於林祥偉（主編），台灣人文地理資訊系統的案例與硏究（215-234頁）。花蓮縣：國立東華大學鄉土文化學系。中央研究院（2022）。地理資訊數位加值與空間人文學發展計畫。上網日期：111年1月22日，檢自：https://ascdc.sinica.edu.tw/project/ASCDC/535白璧玲（2014）。歷史地理資訊系統於史料數位化成果之應用價值與發展趨勢。國史研究通訊，7，10-14。白璧玲、吳承翰、蔡融易、蔡宗翰、范毅軍（2019）。數位人文與時空資訊整合分析－個人歷史文本分析工具及其應用於明代倭寇研究之案例。數位典藏與數位人文，(4)，1-25。行政院農業委員會水土保持局全球資訊網。上網日期：2022年1月21日。檢自：https://www.swcb.gov.tw/杜協昌(2018)。DocuSky：個人文字資料庫的建構與分析平台。數位典藏與數位人文, 2, 71-90。李宗信、顧雅文（2014）。近二十年來應用歷史地理資訊系統的回顧與展望：以台灣區域史研究為例。台灣史研究，21(2)，167–196。李宗信、李妍慧（2021）。應用地理資訊系統（GIS）於歷史教學上的挑戰和優勢。台灣教育，727，23-30。周睿（2020）。基於歷史地理軟體的中國古典詩研究教學的新嘗試—以唐宋文學編年地圖平台為例。數位典藏與數位人文，(6)，97-120。doi:10.6853/DADH.202010_(6).0004林琿、張捷、楊萍、劉佳（2008）。有關空間綜合人文學與社會科學研究的進展。載於賴進貴（主編），數位典藏地理資訊（1-22頁）。臺北市：國立台灣大學地理環境資源學系。林敬智（2020）。道教開光儀式疏文之文本探勘與數位人文探索：以府城延陵道壇為例。圖資與檔案學刊，(97)，44-75。doi:10.6575/JILA.202012_(97).0002邱斯嘉、郭潔、蘇郁尹（2012）。「太平洋史前Lapita陶器線上數位資料庫。載於項潔（主編），數位人文要義：尋找類型與軌跡(231-255頁)。臺北市：國立台灣大學出版中心。洪瑩發、范毅軍、張智傑、廖泫銘（2020）。空間視野與地方知識：台灣宗教與時空分析的回顧與展望。華人宗教研究，(16)，99-136。范毅軍、廖泫銘（2008）。歷史地理資訊系統建立與發展。地理資訊系統季刊，2(1)，23-30。doi:10.6628/GIS.2008.2(1).4教育部（2005）。普通高級中學課程暫行綱要。臺北市：教育部。教育部（2009）。普通高級中學課程綱要。臺北市：教育部。郭俊麟（2008）。台灣數位典藏地理資訊在教育與資料提供機制之探討─從學程與工作坊的規劃談起。載於賴進貴（主編），數位典藏地理資訊（67-85頁）。臺北市：國立台灣大學地理環境資源學系。陳志銘（2021）。數位人文研究平台之技術發展現況與支援人文研究及教育應用評析。載於吳美美（主編），圖書資訊學研究回顧與前瞻2.0（494-532頁）。臺北市 : 元華文創股份有限公司。項潔（2018）。發刊詞：從數位典藏到數位人文。數位典藏與數位人文，(1)，i-v。doi:10.6853/DADH.201804_1.0000黄靖、袁金国、王娅静（2017）。地理信息技术在中学地理教学中应用研究综述。信息与电脑，22，246-248。黃琇苓（2022年04月22日）。結合GIS-VR數位閱讀的創意國文課國文～行尞。貓裏。新北市教育電子報。取自：https://epaper.ntpc.edu.tw/index/EpaSubShow.aspx?CDE=EPS20220407085936CC0&e=EPA2021121614190965I賴進貴、荘婉瑩（2009）。數位典藏地理資訊於高中地理教學應用。地圖：中華民國地圖學會會刊, 19, 33–48. https://doi.org/10.30006/JC.200910.0003蕭顯勝、洪琬諦、簡正杰（2009）。行動地理資訊系統應用於國小鄉土地理教學之研究。地理學報，(56)，59-81。 https://doi.org/10.6161/jgs.2009.56.04顧雅文（2008）。再現、認知與解釋歷史的新工具─GIS與台灣史研究的對話。載於賴進貴（主編），數位典藏地理資訊（103-120頁）。臺北市：國立台灣大學地理環境資源學系。二、英文文獻Baker, T. R., & White, S. H. (2003). The effects of GIS on students’ attitudes, self-efficacy, and achievement in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Geography, 102(6), 243-254. doi:10.1080/00221340308978556Battistini, A., Segoni, S., Manzo, G., Catani, F., & Casagli, N. (2013). Web data mining for automatic inventory of geohazards at national scale. Applied Geography, 43, 147-158. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.06.012Bednarz, & Schee, J. van der. (2006). Europe and the United States: the implementation of geographic information systems in secondary education in two contexts. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390600769573Blessinger, P., & Carfora, J. M. (2014). Innovative approaches in teaching and learning: An introduction to inquiry-based learning for the arts, humanities, and social sciences. In Inquiry-Based Learning for the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators (Vol. 2, pp. 3-25). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000002030Buckley, J., Seery, N., & Canty, D. (2019). Investigating the use of spatial reasoning strategies in geometric problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 341-362. doi:10.1007/s10798-018-9446-3Chen, S. Y., & Liu, X. (2011). Mining students’ learning patterns and performance in Web-based instruction: a cognitive style approach. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(2), 179-192. doi:10.1080/10494820802667256Chen, C. M., & Wang, Y. H. (2015). Geospatial education in high schools: Curriculums, methodologies, and practices. In O. Muñiz Solari, A. Demirci, & J. Schee (Eds.), Geospatial Technologies and Geography Education in a Changing World: Geospatial Practices and Lessons Learned (pp. 67-76). Tokyo: Springer Japan. doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55519-3_6Chen, C. M., Li, M. C., & Chen, Y. T. (2022). The effects of web-based inquiry learning mode with the support of collaborative digital reading annotation system on information literacy instruction. Computers & Education, 179, 104428. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104428Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers & Education, 63, 160-175. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.003Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 125-134. doi:10.1086/208501Cope, M. P., Mikhailova, E. A., Post, C. J., Schlautman, M. A., & Carbajales-Dale, P. (2018). Developing and evaluating an ESRI story map as an educational tool. Natural Sciences Education, 47(1), 180008. doi:10.4195/nse2018.04.0008Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. doi:10.2307/249008Duever, & McGinn, E. (2020). Teaching GIS in a digital humanities environment. Journal of Map & Geography Libraries, 16(3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/15420353.2021.1944951Dunn, S. (2017). Praxes of “The Human” and “The Digital”: Spatial humanities and the digitization of place. GeoHumanities, 3(1), 88-107. doi:10.1080/2373566X.2016.1245107Favier, T. T., & van der Schee, J. A. (2012). Exploring the characteristics of an optimal design for inquiry-based geography education with geographic information systems. Computers & Education, 58(1), 666-677. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.007Favier, T. T., & van der Schee, J. A. (2014). The effects of geography lessons with geospatial technologies on the development of high school students’ relational thinking. Computers & Education, 76, 225-236. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.004Gregory, I., Donaldson, C., Murrieta-Flores, P., & Rayson, P. (2015). Geoparsing, GIS, and textual analysis: Current developments in spatial humanities research. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 9(1), 1-14. doi:10.3366/ijhac.2015.0135Grindsted, A. (2005). Interactive resources used in semi-structured research interviewing. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(7), 1015-1035. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.011Gupta, & Devillers, R. (2017). Geographic visualization in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 24(3), 852–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9298-7Hadi, B. S., Mukminan, Siasah, M. M., & Sariyono, K. E. (2021). The effect of google earth-assisted remote sensing learning on students ’spatial thinking ability in solving disaster mitigation problems. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 884(1), 012013. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/884/1/012013Heylen, A. (2018). Expressing dynamic maps through seventeenth-century taiwan dutch manuscripts. In S. H. Chen (Ed.), Big Data in Computational Social Science and Humanities (pp. 95-116). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95465-3_4Hong, J. E. (2017). Designing GIS learning materials for K–12 teachers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(3), 323-345. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2016.1224777Hou, Yu, T.-F., Wu, Y.-X., Sung, Y.-T., & Chang, K.-E. (2016). Development and evaluation of a web map mind tool environment with the theory of spatial thinking and project-based learning strategy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 390–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12241Hu, Y. (2018). Geo-text data and data-driven geospatial semantics. Geography Compass, 12(11), e12404. doi:10.1111/gec3.12404Hu, Y., & Adams, B. (2021). Harvesting big geospatial data from natural language texts. In M. Werner & Y. Y. Chiang (Eds.), Handbook of Big Geospatial Data (pp. 487-507). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-55462-0_19Huang, Y. M., Hwang, J. P., & Chen, S. Y. (2016). Matching/mismatching in web-based learning: a perspective based on cognitive styles and physiological factors. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1198-1214. doi:10.1080/10494820.2014.978791Huynh, N. T., & Sharpe, B. (2013). An assessment instrument to measure geospatial thinking expertise. Journal of Geography, 112(1), 3-17. doi:10.1080/00221341.2012.682227In Gregory, I. N., & In Geddes, A. (2014). Toward spatial humanities: Historical GIS and spatial history.Ishikawa, T. (2016). Spatial thinking in geographic information science: Students’ geospatial conceptions, map-based reasoning, and spatial visualization ability. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106(1), 76-95. doi:10.1080/00045608.2015.1064342Iyamu, T. (2018). Collecting qualitative data for information systems studies: The reality in practice. Education and Information Technologies, 23(5), 2249-2264. doi:10.1007/s10639-018-9718-2Juvan, M. (2015). From spatial turn to GIS-mapping of literary cultures. European Review, 23(1), 81-96. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1062798714000568Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.-M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. doi:10.1111/jan.13031LaFrance, J. A., & Beck, D. (2018). Learner self-efficacy in K-12 Online environments. In C. B. Hodges (Ed.), Self-Efficacy in Instructional Technology Contexts (pp. 229-243). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99858-9_13Lay, J. G., Chen, Y. W., & Chi, Y. L. (2013). GIS adoption among senior high school geography teachers in taiwan. Journal of Geography, 112(3), 120-130. doi:10.1080/00221341.2012.682226Lay, J. G., Chi, Y. L., Hsieh, Y. S., & Chen, Y. W. (2013). What influences geography teachers’ usage of geographic information systems? A structural equation analysis. Computers & Education, 62, 191-195. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.014Lee, C. H. M., Cheng, Y. W., Rai, S., & Depickere, A. (2005). What affect student cognitive style in the development of hypermedia learning system? Computers & Education, 45(1), 1-19. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.04.006Lee, J., & Boling, E. (2008). Information-conveying approaches and cognitive styles of mental modeling in a hypermedia-based learning environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 644-661. doi:10.1002/asi.20778Lloyd, R. E., & Bunch, R. L. (2010). Learning geographic information from a map and text: Learning environment and individual differences. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 45(3), 169-184. doi:10.3138/carto.45.3.169Liu, S., & Zhu, X. (2008). Designing a structured and interactive learning environment based on GIS for secondary geography education. Journal of Geography, 107(1), 12-19. doi:10.1080/00221340801944425Liu, Y., Bui, E. N., Chang, C. H., & Lossman, H. G. (2010). PBL-GIS in secondary geography education: Does it result in higher-order learning outcomes? Journal of Geography, 109(4), 150-158. doi:10.1080/00221341.2010.497541Liu, T. C., Kinshuk, Lin, Y. C., & Wang, S. C. (2012). Can verbalisers learn as well as visualisers in simulation-based CAL with predominantly visual representations? Preliminary evidence from a pilot study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 965-980. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01262.xLü, G., Batty, M., Strobl, J., Lin, H., Zhu, A. X., & Chen, M. (2019). Reflections and speculations on the progress in Geographic Information Systems (GIS): a geographic perspective. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 33(2), 346-367. doi:10.1080/13658816.2018.1533136Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 833-846. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.833McDonough, K., Ludovic, M., & Matje, V. D. C. (2019). Named entity recognition goes to old regime France: geographic text analysis for early modern French corpora. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 33, 2498-2522. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2019.1620235Milson, A. J., Kerski, J. J., & Demirci, A. (2012). The world at their fingertips: A new age for spatial thinking. In A. J. Milson, A. Demirci, & J. J. Kerski (Eds.), International Perspectives on Teaching and Learning with GIS in Secondary Schools (pp. 1-11). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2120-3_1Mitchell, J. T., Roy, G., Fritch, S., & Wood, B. (2018). GIS professional development for teachers: lessons learned from high-needs schools. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 45(4), 292-304. doi:10.1080/15230406.2017.1421482Moretti. (2004). Graphs, maps, trees-2. New Left Review., 26.Murrieta-Flores, P., & Martins, B. (2019). The geospatial humanities: past, present and future. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 33(12), 2424-2429. doi:10.1080/13658816.2019.1645336Muñiz Solari, O., Demirci, A., & van der Schee, J. (2015). Geospatial technology in geography education. In O. Muñiz Solari, A. Demirci, & J. Schee (Eds.), Geospatial Technologies and Geography Education in a Changing World: Geospatial Practices and Lessons Learned (pp. 1-7). Tokyo: Springer Japan. doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55519-3_1National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.https://doi.org/10.17226/11019.Pazzaglia, & Moè, A. (2013). Cognitive styles and mental rotation ability in map learning. Cognitive Processing, 14(4), 391–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0572-2Perugini, S., & Bodzin, A. M. (2020). Using web-based GIS to assess students’ geospatial knowledge of hurricanes and spatial habits of mind. Journal of Geography, 119(2), 63-73. doi:10.1080/00221341.2019.1710764Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338122)Pohl, M., Wallner, G., & Kriglstein, S. (2016). Using lag-sequential analysis for understanding interaction sequences in visualizations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 96, 54-66. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.07.006Porter. (2018). Introduction: The importance of place and openness in spatial humanities research. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 12(2), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.3366/ijhac.2018.0216Schulze, U., Kanwischer, D., & Reudenbach, C. (2013). Essential competences for GIS learning in higher education: a synthesis of international curricular documents in the GIS&T domain. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 37(2), 257-275. doi:10.1080/03098265.2012.763162Shen, K. M., Lee, M. H., Tsai, C. C., & Chang, C. Y. (2016). Undergraduate students’ earth science learning: relationships among conceptions, approaches, and learning self-efficacy in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1527-1547. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1198060Sinaga, Z. V. B., Hamid, K. A., & Sugiharto. (2020). The influence of learning models and cognitive styles on geography learning outcomes in SMA N 2 Percut Sei Tuan. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1485(1), 012058. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1485/1/012058Spronken-Smith, R., Bullard, J., Ray, W., Roberts, C., & Keiffer, A. (2008). Where might sand dunes be on mars? Engaging students through inquiry-based learning in geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(1), 71-86. doi:10.1080/03098260701731520Songer, L. C. (2010). Using web-based GIS in introductory human geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(3), 401-417. doi:10.1080/03098265.2010.487202Taylor, Gregory, I. N., & Donaldson, C. (2018). Combining close and distant reading: A multiscalar analysis of the english lake district’s historical soundscape. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 12(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.3366/ijhac.2018.0220Unamuno, E. S. (2017). GIS and telescopic reading: between spatial and digital humanities. Neohelicon, 44(1), 65-81. doi:10.1007/s11059-017-0381-1Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Chapter four - spatial thinking and STEM education: when, why, and how? In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 57, pp. 147-181). Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394293-7.00004-2Wang, W. (2007). Learning experiences in terms of verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style: Interviewing verbal and visual learners (Order No. 1446246). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (304776716). Retrieved from https://login.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/learning-experiences-terms-verbalizer-visualizer/docview/304776716/se-2?accountid=10067Wilson, D., Jones, D., Bocell, F., Crawford, J., Kim, M. J., Veilleux, N., et al. (2015). Belonging and academic engagement among undergraduate STEM students: A multi-institutional study. Research in Higher Education, 56(7), 750-776. doi:10.1007/s11162-015-9367-xWitkin, Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543047001001Xiang, X., & Liu, Y. (2019). Exploring and enhancing spatial thinking skills: Learning differences of university students within a web-based GIS mapping environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1865-1881. doi:10.1111/bjet.12677Zheng, L., Dong, Y., Huang, R., Chang, C. Y., & Bhagat, K. K. (2018). Investigating the interrelationships among conceptions of, approaches to, and self-efficacy in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 40(2), 139-158. doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1402142 zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202201161 en_US
