Introduction the National Geographic Society

“The study of geography is about more than just memorizing places on a map. It’s about

understanding the complexity of our world, appreciating the diversity of cultures that exists

across continents. And in the end, it’s about using all that knowledge to help bridge divides and

bring people together.” – Barak Obama, 44th President of the United States, May 24, 2012.

In 2006, the National Geographic Society (NGS) commissioned Roper Public Affairs to

conduct a geographic literacy survey to assess the geographic knowledge and skills of 510

Americans between the ages of 18 and 24. The survey revealed alarming results, indicating that

the majority of young Americans are in fact geographically illiterate (Roper Public Affairs 2006,

6). Specifically, 63% of respondents could not find Iraq on a map, despite heightened news

coverage for multiple years prior to the survey; 74% thought English was the most common

language in the world, not Mandarin Chinese, and 50% could not find New York on a U.S. map

(Roper Public Affairs 2006). Furthermore, results from the National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP) Geography Assessment for 1994, 2001, and 2010 exhibit that the percentage of

students obtaining basic, proficient, and advanced scores remains relatively stagnant (Bednarz,

Heffron, and Huynh 2013). These results indicated to NGS that while their efforts are

worthwhile, they have not adequately increased rates of geographic literacy in the United States

and further education reform is necessary.

There are a multitude of issues inhibiting consistent and effective geography education

practices in the United States. To elaborate, only nine states (ID, NM, OK, AR, AL, GA, IN, OH,

and MD) require a stand-alone geography course in middle school, 12 states do not require any

geography course, and the remaining states allow local school districts to oversee geography

course implementation (McClure and Zadrozny 2015). At the high school level, the number of

states requiring a stand-alone geography course drops from nine to four (UT, SD, MN, and MS),

while 13 states require no geography at all (McClure and Zadrozny 2015). Interestingly, there are

no states that require a standalone geography course in both middle and high schools (McClure

and Zadrozny 2015). On top of inadequate geography requirements across public schools,

geography education suffers from a lack of funding, insufficient pre-service teacher training,

heightened emphasis on STEM curricula, and a deficiency in geographic education research

(Brysch 2014). The combination of the aforementioned issues shed light on the weaknesses that

plague geography education in our country.

Further explanation of our nation’s sub-par performance in geography literacy lies within

the interdisciplinary nature of the subject of geography. The structure of our public school

education system supports curricula designed in a single discipline manner, maintaining

distinctions between subject areas like Math, Science, English, History, and Geography.

Geography, however, is fundamentally interdisciplinary and integrative, and attempting to teach

its content separate from other subjects proves to be difficult for educators who must adhere to

strict state and national content standards. Gershmel and Gershmel (2007b, 42) argue that, “there

is ample evidence that our fuzzy image has cost a place at many pedagogical and policy tables

where a geographic perspective would be a worthy addition.” As such, treating geography as a

single discipline limits its integration into public school curricula.

To help more students attain geographic proficiency, geography experts formed the

Geography Education Research Committee made up of members from the National Geographic

Society (NGS), the Association of American Geographers (AAG), the National Council for

Geographic Education (NCGE), and the American Geographical Society (AGS). The committee

developed a list of 13 recommendations for geographic education research and reform (Bednarz,

Heffron, and Huynh 2013). The recommendations called for an expansion of research in the

following areas: learning progressions, curriculum reviews, effective teaching methods, effect of

fieldwork, teacher preparation, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches, increase in

sample sizes for large scale research projects, effective assessments, partnerships between formal

and informal educators, and more frequent NAEP testing (Bednarz, Heffron, and Huynh 2013).

Since 1986, NGS has funded a Network of Geographic Alliances to help meet the mission of,

“build[ing] a geographically literate society by leading systemic reform and supporting the

continuous improvement of geographic education,” (National Geographic 2017). The Network of

Geographic Alliances are state-based partnerships between K-12 educators and university

faculty. Each state alliance receives annual funding from NGS to fund national initiatives which

function to provide geography education resources and professional development opportunities

to educators. Universities serve as the host for the geographic alliances in each state, and the

University of Montana in Missoula, Montana hosts the Montana Geographic Alliance (MGA).

In 2016, NGS launched a nationwide initiative with the Network of Geographic Alliances

titled the State Giant Traveling Map (SGTM) program. This program draws on the success of the

Giant Traveling Map Program, developed entirely by NGS, in which teachers sign up to receive

gymnasium-sized floor maps of the continents, Pacific Ocean, and Solar System which promote

an interactive, hands-and-feet-on learning experience for third and fourth graders. Contrasting

slightly, the State Giant Traveling Maps are scaled down to classroom-sized floor maps, though

the purpose to engage students in geography while promoting geographic literacy remains.

Each state alliance developed individual plans to implement the State Giant Traveling

Maps within their respective states. In Montana, MGA sends the SGTM of Montana and

associated lessons and materials to teachers for one week at a time. Teachers can use the National

Geographic State Giant Map Lesson Handbook or create their own lessons. MGA created one

state-specific lesson to use with the giant map and is currently recruiting alliance members to

contribute more lessons to the handbook. Last school year, MGA received extremely positive

feedback from classroom teachers who participated in the SGTM program. It is now useful to

evaluate the impact the SGTM of Montana had on Montana students.

Geographic literacy in our country will increase when students not only master

geographical skills, but also learn to appreciate and value the need for a solid understanding of

geographical concepts. Therefore, the purpose of the SGTM program is to not only increase

students’ map skills, but to also promote positive attitudes towards geography while providing

teachers with an adaptive curriculum and new resource to be used in their classroom. NGS pilot

tested the SGTM program in Colorado during the 2015/2016 school year, though results are not

yet accessible to the public. This research will expand on their results while relating them to a

specific population of fourth grade students in western Montana. Specifically, this research aims

to address the following research question: How does the State Giant Traveling Map of Montana

affect students’ attitudes and map skills? This research question is broken down into three

components: (1) Can the SGTM of Montana positively change students’ attitudes regarding

geography; (2) Can the SGTM of Montana help develop students’ map skills; and (3) What are

teacher perceptions regarding the effectiveness and feasibility of implementing the SGTM of

Montana as a resource to teach geography? The results of this research question support the

Geography Education Research Committee’s call for research on exemplary programs and

curricula (recommendation eight, “… researchers develop and study exemplary programs,

curricula, tasks, measures, and assessments to build the body of knowledge about effective

geography teaching and learning,” (Bednarz, Heffron, and Huynh 2013, 8).

Summary: The following sections present the previous research that influenced the development

of the research question, the methodology used to answer the research question, the results of

data collection, interpretations on the results, and suggestions for future research.

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

“What I hear, I forget.

What I see, I remember.

What I do, I understand.” – Confucius, Chinese Philosopher, 551 BC – 479 BC.

This chapter outlines a few prominent theories shared between the fields of geography

and education. These theories, specifically Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development, Kolb’s

Experiential Learning Theory, and various learning modality theories, are essential to support

research on the ability of the SGTM of Montana to promote positive attitudes towards

geography, enhanced achievement on geography assessments, and ultimately geographic literacy.

Additional explanations of frameworks used to develop NAEP assessments and National

Geographic education resources are also provided.

Piaget’s Theory on Cognitive Development

The work of psychologist Jean Piaget in the mid-1900s strongly influences eduactional

resource and curricula design in the field of geography and is often used as the theoretical

framework shaping geography education in the United States. Piaget’s research aimed to answer

the question of how the human brain acquired and retained knowledge (Smith 2000). His

research interests developed from his simple observation that the minds of children and adults are

inherently different. Before Piaget, the consensus on the relation between child and adult minds

was that children’s minds were the same as adults, simply less competent and capable.

During his studies, Piaget recorded children’s responses to simple questions as they attempted to

logically explain their answers, regardless if they were right or wrong, noting that many complex

thinking abilities were evident in the children’s rationalizations (McLeod 2015). Through years

of research and analysis, Piaget drafted the Theory on Cognitive Development, which quickly

integrated into geography education.

Piaget’s research revealed significant insight into how the mind develops cognitively, and

he published his theory in his seminal book entitled The Child’s Conception of Space (Piaget and

Inhelder 1967). In this publication, Piaget describes his studies on how children use spatial

thinking skills to make sense of the world around them. The conclusion of his research indicated

that children pass through four stages of cognitive development. Stage One lasts from birth to

four years, Stage Two lasts from four to seven years, Stage Three lasts from seven to 11 years,

and Stage Four lasts for 11+ years (Piaget and Inhelder 1967). Each stage is further broken down

into periods.

Previous research conducted by Roger M. Downs and Lynn S. Liben provide evidence

that supports Piagetian Theory as a framework to shape geography education. Numerous studies

using Piaget’s transferrable methodologies are cited with results that exhibit the credibility in

Piagetian Theory (Downs, Daggs, and Liben 1988; Downs and Liben 1990; 1991; 1994; Liben

and Downs 1992; 1997; Liben, Kastens, and Stevenson 2002). In conjunction with Piaget and

Inhelder (1967), Downs and Liben (1994) argue that children are not capable of understanding

spatial relations until they reach the concrete operational stage, or when they master the concept

of projective space. To support this claim, Downs and Liben replicated experiments conducted by

Piaget in the early 1900s. Children were evaluated based on their ability to interpret symbols and

aerial photos, and to interpret and draw maps from an overhead perspective.

Students ranging in age from 5-12 received instruction to draw an overhead map of their

classroom, and analysis revealed that students ages 5-8 (grades K-3) struggled significantly with

this task. In this age group, maps typically had an oblique perspective rather than an aerial one,

while some maps referenced both perspectives (Downs and Liben 1994). Contrarily, most

students aged 10-12 (grades 4-7) successfully drew an aerial map of their classroom (Downs and

Liben 1994). This discrepancy indicates that students in fifth and sixth grade have a good grasp

on projective concepts and that they are in the concrete operational stage of cognitive

development. Piaget, Downs, and Liben believe that children can employ spatial thinking skills

when they reach the concrete operational stage of development.

Downs and Liben willingly support Piagetian theory based on the premise that children

are not adults; there is a significant difference in the cognitive abilities of children and adults

(Liben and Downs 1997). They argue that geographic education suffers when teachers do not

acknowledge which stage of cognitive development a student is in (Downs, Daggs, and Liben

1988; Downs and Liben 1991). To increase geographic literacy, educators must focus less on the

presentation of their materials, and more on matching their instruction with the cognitive abilities

of their students (Downs and Liben 1991). Downs and Liben argue that this is accomplished

when Piagetian theory aligns with curriculum design and implementation.

Since the mid-1970s, developments in the field of psychology and geography led some

researchers to believe that children possess spatial thinking skills at earlier ages than outlined

initially by Piaget. Specifically, some preschool children display spatial thinking abilities years

before Piaget predicted (Blaut 1997). In this regard, Piagetian theory frames children’s ability to

think spatially in a pessimistic light by suggesting they are not cognitively ready to develop

spatial thinking skills at a young age (Blaut 1997). Blaut questioned if children necessarily had to

be spatial thinking experts before they should start learning about maps (Blaut and Stea 1971).

Attempts to replicate research conducted by Piaget, Downs and Liben produced results

indicating that mapping is an integral part of cognitive development because children as young as

five possess the capability to develop geographic skills (Blaut and Stea 1971).

Though the arguments – pro-Piaget and anti-Piaget – utilized similar methodologies, their

analysis leads to contrasting conclusions. Drawing on these interpretations, it seems fitting to

suggest that while students may not be able to master spatial thinking concepts until older ages,

waiting to introduce these concepts will not increase rates of geographic literacy, and the notion

to start cultivating spatial thinking skills should begin at younger ages is reasonable. However,

all players in this debate agree that geographic illiteracy is a problem that needs to be addressed

through geography education reform.

Recent Advances in Spatial Thinking Research

The work of Gershmel and Gershmel (2007b; 2011) expands on spatial thinking research

and provides new insight into the minds and abilities of children. Since the mid-1990s,

significant advances in neuroscience technology fueled new research on brain function which

revealed the complexities of spatial thinking. Specifically, it is now accepted that the brain

contains specialized regions for thinking, and that spatial thinking occurs across multiple regions

(Gershmel and Gershmel 2006; 2007a; 2007b). This discovery indicates that the ability to think

spatially is much more complicated than originally thought by Piaget, and involves not only

cognitive ability, but the ability to link different regions of the brain (Gershmel and Gershmel

2007a; 2007b; 2011).

Gershmel and Gershmel reviewed over 3,000 studies within the field of neuro- and

cognitive science to generate a list of the eight different modes of spatial thinking. This list draws

from existing lists on spatial thinking skills but expands to highlight the claim that spatial

thinking is more complex than previously believed by academics and researchers. The existing

lists referenced include the “Five Themes” from the Guidelines for Geographic

EducationElementary and Secondary Schools, National Geography Standards, and a variety of

lists within peer-reviewed literature (Gershmel and Gershmel 2006). The new list, “Eight Modes

of Spatial Thinking,” identifies eight distinct modes of spatial thinking skills and provides neuro-

scientific evidence to support their claim that spatial thinking is complex and occurs across

multiple regions of the brain (Gershmel and Gershmel 2006). The eight modes are: (1)

Comparison; (2) Aura; (3) Region; (4) Hierarchy; (5) Transition; (6) Analogy; (7) Pattern; and (8)

Association (Gershmel and Gershmel 2006; 2007b; 2011). In this list, Gershmel and Gershmel

proceed to suggest the age at which students begin to understand these complex spatial thinking

topics

(Appendix A).

Research conducted by Gershmel and Gershmel helps identify the complex components

involved in spatial thinking which in turn should encourage geography education reform.

Gershmel and Gershmel (2007b) suggest that while Piaget’s research on cognitive development

has an important place within the field of geography education, it does not effectively capture the

realistic spatial thinking abilities of young children. Essentially, Gershmel and Gershmel believe

that the human brain can think spatially at a very early age, that spatial thinking activities should

be introduced during early education, and that teachers must learn how to incorporate spatial

thinking into lessons (2007b). However, children cannot master spatial thinking skills until they

can link different modes of spatial thinking across different regions of their brains, and this

linkage is fundamentally tied to cognition (Gershmel and Gershmel 2007a). Likewise, spatial

thinking abilities respond to outside stimuli such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, language,

and mobility (Gershmel and Gershmel 2007b).

Working with the notion that young children can think spatially, Gershmel and Gershmel

partnered with five kindergarten and four first-grade classes at a school in Harlem, New York to

develop geography lessons that promote spatial thinking at a young age. These lessons involved

hands-on activities coupled with real-world experiences like going on field trips and interpreting

local maps, atypical from conventional teaching methods but still within the realm of geography

education (Gershmel and Gershmel 2007a; 2011). Their findings indicate the great potential for

new curricula to focus more on spatial thinking abilities. Specifically, while reading and math

scores of students did not go up after spatial thinking instruction, they also did not go down,

indicating that no harm was done when schedules were reworked to include more geography

education. Furthermore, most students began to rank geography within their top two favorite

school subjects. Interestingly, when school administrators suggested appointing a geography

specialist within their district, classroom teachers objected because the lessons drafted by

Gershmel and Gershmel emphasized to teachers the importance of connecting different modes of

spatial thinking. Ultimately, while Piaget’s Theory on Cognitive Development can help develop

geography education curricula that ensures students are cognitively ready to meet state and

national standards, geography education can and should begin at earlier ages in the United States

(Gershmel and Gershmel 2011).

Learning Style Theory

In addition to Piaget’s theory, theories of learning style also play a pivotal role in creating

and implementing experiential education curricula that engage students and promote positive

attitudes towards education. Dunn (1984, p 11-12) acknowledged that cognitive style and

learning style are similar concepts and provide clear definitions to distinguish the two; Cognitive

style refers to, “how the mind actually process[es] information…”, while learning style refers to,

“the way in which each person absorbs and retains information and/or skills.” Since research on

learning style theory began in the 1970s, multiple articles document increased student success

when instruction accommodates multiple learning styles (Dunn 1984; Ballinger & Ballinger

1982; Cavanaugh 1981; K. Dunn 1981; Fiske 1981; Hodges 1982, 1983; Jenkins, 1982;

Lemmon, 1982). These findings support the idea that learning style varies between students, and

that under the same instruction, some students may succeed while others may struggle (Dunn and

Dunn 1979). There are numerous theories on learning style, though this research focuses only on

Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory and Modality Preference Theory because they are most

relevant to the SGTM of Montana.

Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Theory draws on the work of Dewey, Lewin, and

Piaget, stating that real-world experience is essential to the learning process (Kolb and Kolb

2011; Kolb and Kolb 2013; Kolb 1984). Lewin proposed that learning is a four-stage cycle with

personal experience driving the cycle back and forth between observation and reflection.

Dewey’s Model of Learning parallels Lewin’s theory by stating that observation and reflection

are critical components of learning, but expands by adding a third component – action. Lastly,

Piaget suggested that as students mature from children to adults, they pass through four distinct

stages of cognitive development, and these stages are based on the child’s ability to

accommodate (process real world experiences) and to assimilate (relate new experiences to old

experiences; Kolb 1984). Through his analysis, Kolb generated a foundation for this Experiential

Learning Theory that includes six propositions for experiential learning (Appendix B).

In Kolb’s (1984, p. 38) Experiential Learning Theory, he defines learning as, “the process

whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience.” This process, known as

the Experiential Learning Cycle, is a four-step cycle that outlines the interplay between four

distinct learning styles: diverging, assimilating, converging, and accommodating (Kolb and Kolb

2013). Kolb’s definition of learning style varies slightly from that of Dunn (1984) and states that

learning style “describes individual differences in learning based on the learner’s preference for

employing different phases of the learning cycle” (Kolb and Kolb 2011, p 46). In other words,

the learning cycle describes the different ways in which individuals construct knowledge through

experience.

In this model, an individual’s learning style – diverging, assimilating, converging, and

accommodating – is dependent on how he/she grasps and transforms experiences (Kolb and Kolb

2011). The model contains two dimensions of learning, perceiving (y-axis) and processing (x-

axis), and these dimensions intersect to form four quadrants. Each of the four learning styles sits

within one of the four quadrants (Appendix C). Each dimension forms a continuum between two

dialectically opposed modes of learning, with the perceiving continuum spanning between

Concrete Experience (CE) and Abstract Conceptualization (AC), and the processing continuum

spanning between Active Experimentation (AE) and Reflective Observation (RO) (Rayner and

Riding 1997). Individuals can determine their experiential learning style by using Kolb’s

Learning Style Inventory, a self-reporting questionnaire in which individuals are ranked along

the two continuums to reveal which learning style quadrant they fall under (Kolb and Kolb 2013;

Rayner and Riding 1997).

Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Theory effectively outlines how students construct

knowledge through real-world experiences, however, it does not effectively identify individual

differences in learning modality preferences. Powell (2005, p. 62) defines learning modalities as,

“how students use their senses in the learning process.” In other words, learning modalities

determine the modes in which students prefer to obtain new information. Learning modalities

include visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic. Learning modalities are not specific to Kolb’s

four learning styles, and most students can learn using all learning modalities, though it is typical

for students to prefer one modality over the rest (Powell 2005).

Learning modality preferences are identified in The Dunn and Dunn Learning-Style

Model (1993). This model outlines at least 20 elements of learning style that are affected by

various stimuli including environmental, emotional, sociological, physiological, and

psychological, with learning modality preference falling under physiological stimuli (Dunn and

Dunn 1979; Dunn 1984; Dunn 1990; Dunn et al. 2009). While developing this model, research

conducted by Dunn and Dunn (1979) indicated that when teaching-style matched with learning-

style, student motivation and academic achievement excelled. Additionally, their studies proved

that students perform better when they are actively engaged in learning rather than passively

absorbing lectures (Dunn et al. 2009). For clarification, active learning is, “any instructional

method that engages students in the learning process,” (Prince 2004, p 223) and is synonymous

with experiential, non-traditional, and unconventional teaching, whereas passive learning

involves traditional or conventional teaching methods like lectures and fact regurgitation.

The concept of modality preference is further explained through research conducted by

Barbe, Milone, and Swassing. In their (1979) study, 1,000 students from California completed a

modality preference assessment which involved recreating patterns that were communicated

visually, auditorily, and kinesthetically. Results revealed that: 30% of learners prefer the visual

modality, 25% of learners prefer the auditory modality, and 15% of learners prefer the kinesthetic

modality (Barbe, Swassing, and Milone 1979). Additionally, modality preference changes with

time, though for children between kindergarten and 6th grade, the visual and kinesthetic modality

dominate (Barbe, Swassing, and Milone 1979). For further clarification, visual learners learn best

by reading and analyzing figures, auditory learners learn best through listening and speaking, and

kinesthetic learners learn best when physical movement is incorporated into lessons (Gage 1995).

An additional learning modality exists, known as tactile, in which students learn best when

touching and manipulating three dimensional resources (Gadt-

Johnson and Price 2000; Price and Dunn 1997; Semple and Pascale 1984).

The following quotation by Dunn and Dunn (1993, p 30) reveals their standpoint on

instructional design with regards to learning styles: “If individuals have significantly different

learning styles – as they appear to have – is it not unprofessional, irresponsible and immoral to

teach all students the same lesson in the same way without identifying their unique strengths and

then providing responsive instruction?” Further studies provide statistically significant results to

confirm Dunn and Dunn’s standpoint that student academic performance excels when instruction

incorporates multiple learning modalities (Cruse 1993).

During the 1970s, teachers and researchers began acknowledging a disparity between the

performance of students in the same class under the same instruction. Up until this point,

conventional teaching methods promoted the use of lectures to convey information to students

who listened and took notes (Gage 1995). Auditory learners benefit most from lecturing. Visual

learners can benefit from lectures if notes and images are projected during instruction. However,

conventional teaching methods typically overlook kinesthetic learners who make up 15% of the

student population (Gage 1995; Barbe Swassing and Milone 1979). This statement refers to

conventional classrooms which favor auditory and visual modalities, therefore auditory and

visual learners excel over kinesthetic learners in these settings. As a result, visual and auditory

learners are often considered to be gifted as they excel under conventional teaching methods

(Dunn and Dunn 2005).

The determination that many gifted students learn best through visual and auditory

modalities leads into a discussion on students who are overachievers and those who are

underachievers. Research proves that students excel when instruction matches their dominant

learning modality. Interestingly, gifted students tend to prefer the auditory and visual modalities,

while many special education students prefer the kinesthetic and tactile modality (Dunn and

Dunn 2005). Therefore, it can be assumed that the learning modalities of underachieving students

do not align with conventional teaching methods which cater to visual and auditory learners.

It is necessary to define the specific characteristics of kinesthetic and tactile learners in

order to effectively design resources that promote learning for all students. These learners require

hands-on activities that incorporate frequent movement, and therefore, the most effective

educational resources get students out of their seats and onto their feet (Honigsfeld and Dunn

2009). When movement is not incorporated into instruction and visual/auditory tactics dominate,

kinesthetic/tactile learners are likely to forget 70% of information that they read or hear

(Honigsfeld and Dunn 2009; Restak 1979).

Resources that cater to auditory and visual learners should be three-dimensional so that

students can feel and manipulate them during instruction (Gadt-Johnson and Price 2000; Price

and Dunn 1997; Gage 1995; Semple and Pascale 1984). Examples of effective resource design

also incorporate nontraditional measures of assessment. Multiple-choice exams and essays reflect

visual and auditory modalities, and therefore are not accurate assessments of kinesthetic and

tactile learners. For example, when testing a class on aspects of literature, Gage (1995) provides

many examples of how to engage kinesthetic and tactile learners in the assessment process.

Specifically, he suggests that the use of dioramas, mobiles, role playing, and videotaping cater to

kinesthetic learners because they involved more than simply memorizing facts (Gage 1995).

Honigsfeld and Dunn (2009) expand on Gage’s (1995) list and also suggest

using task cards and floor or tabletop games.

Hundreds of existing studies highlight the strengths of teaching to multiple learning

modalities. Lister (2004, 2005) taught social studies lessons with the same content using

traditional and kinesthetic approaches, and found that her special education student scores

improved significantly using the kinesthetic approach (Honigsfeld and Dunn 2009). In a study

conducted by Cruse (1993), results indicate that of the three learning modalities that dominated

his sample – visual, kinesthetic, and auditory – all students achieved cognitive and academic

gains after completing lessons that promoted cooperative learning, movement, and interaction.

There is a void in research conducted in the United States on the application of

kinesthetic teaching styles in geography education. However, within the broader field of Social

Studies, Çalışkan and Kılınç (2012) conducted research on the relationship between the learning

styles of students and their attitudes towards social studies courses. The researchers conducted

surveys in a sample of 320 students spanning between fourth and seventh grade. Their results

indicate that students with an auditory modality preference have the most positive attitudes

towards social studies, followed by tactile-kinesthetic and then visual modalities.

Research proves that there are many benefits to active, or kinesthetic learning. In the real

world, it is rare to be affected by only one stimulus at a time, and instead daily activities

stimulate multiple senses at the same time (Shams and Seitz 2008). Multitasking occurs regularly

and the human brain must already be adapted to dealing with multisensory stimuli (Shams and

Seitz 2008). If the human brain is accustomed to processing stimuli from multiple sources, then

the structure of our education system should reflect that. Other researchers support this statement

claiming that, “students should also be encouraged to strengthen their weaker learning styles

because they become more versatile learners (Gadt-Johnson and Price 2000; Graham and

Kershner 1996). Likewise, Guild and Garger (1985, p 64) argue that, “in terms of achievement,

students with mixed modality strengths often have a better chance at success than do those with a

single modality strength, because they can process information in whatever way it is presented.

History of NAEP

Many of the issues facing public school curricula became evident after 1964 once the

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) began conducting systemic evaluations of

student achievement levels. NAEP, also known as “The Nation’s Report Card,” developed

assessments for 12 subject areas including geography, economics, civics, the arts, foreign

language, mathematics, reading, science, technology and engineering literacy, U.S. history, world

history, and writing (NCES 2017). To better comprehend the need for and value of the NAEP

assessments, a detailed explanation of the history of public school education in the United

States is necessary.

Following the development of the first Department of Education in 1867, public

education began to gain funding in the United States. These funds helped develop and implement

curriculum across the 50 states, however, no tools existed to measure if curricula met specified

goals and objectives. In the 1960s, after skepticism of the federal government’s involvement in

public education became widespread, a new conversation on how to maximize public school

education potential began (Vinovskis 1998).

Establishment of the first assessment committee, the Exploratory Committee on

Assessing the Progress of Education (ECAPE), occurred in 1964. This organization intended to

assess a small sample of students to determine their proficiency in a variety of subject areas. This

plan did not gain full support by the public, as concerns arose that this was an attempt by the

federal government to control the curriculum. Rather, the government simply aimed to gather

data on what students learned during their public education. Public resentment towards the

national assessment proposed by ECAPE subsided in 1969 when the Education Commission of

the States (ECS) assumed control over assessment development. Under supervision of ECS, the

NAEP project came to life and assessment results that highlighted national achievement became

available. However, many educators expressed concern that results should be communicated at

the state level because national achievement results did not provide details at a resolution high

enough to enact significant policy change. Thus, ECS dissolved into the Educational Assessment

Council (EAC) to oversee the NAEP assessments and report results at the state level for almost

twenty years (Vinovskis 1998).

In 1988, a Senate bill prompted a transition of responsibilities from the EAC to the new

National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). NAGB began to design, supervise, and conduct

NAEP assessments. In addition, the Senate mandated that the following subjects be included in

the national assessments: reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, geography, and civics.

NAGB established student performance standards for each subject to measure if curriculum met

the intended goals. These performance standards, which first appeared on the 1990 NAEP

assessments, ranked students as either proficient, advanced, or basic (Vinovskis 1998).

Currently, NAEP is still under the supervision of NAGB. Assessments take place in

fourth grade, eighth grade, and twelfth grade classes. Of the 12 subject areas covered by NAEP

assessments, only about three or four subjects are assessed annually. This study utilized NAEP

geography assessments which occurred in 1994, 2001, and 2010. NAEP issued a geography

assessment again in 2014 though the results are not yet available to the public. NAEP does not

provide a state-by-state breakdown of geography assessments results.

Framework for the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

In 2010, NAGB published a framework to help design NAEP geography assessment

questions and to evaluate results of the assessments for grades 4, 8, and 12. NAGB created the

NAEP geography framework with the following mission statement in mind:

“The purpose of geography education is to foster the development of citizens who will

actively seek and systematically apply the knowledge and skills of geography in life

situations. Geography education must be responsive to the abilities and needs of students

and to the societal and workplace requirements of the community, the nation, and the

world. Through rigorous instruction and an adaptable K-12 curriculum, geography

education helps prepare students to cope with the complexities of contemporary life,”

(NAGB 2010, p vii).

A well-rounded geography curriculum provides students with a solid foundation of spatial

thinking skills that they can utilize to think critically and function within our complex society.

While NAEP was in its early stages, a separate committee, the Joint Committee on

Geographic Education, published the first set of national standards for geography in 1994. These

standards, titled Guidelines for Geographic Education-Elementary and Secondary Schools, broke

the subject of geography down into five main themes: (1) Location; (2) Place; (3)

Human/Environment Interaction; (4) Movement; and (5) Regions. The NAEP Geography

Assessment Framework functions in a similar way, but simplified the five instructional themes

into three content areas: (1) Space and Place; (2) Environment and Society; and (3) Spatial

Dynamics and Connections.

Content area one, Space and Place, outlines that students should be able to identify

specific locations and recognize patterns that vary spatially. According to the framework, fourth

grade students should be able to use basic geographic tools to examine the world through a

spatial lens. Specifically, they should be able to use grids and scales and to measure topographic

relief. In addition, they should have a basic understanding of map projections.

Content area two, Environment and Society, states that students should have a clear

understanding of how humans rely on the environment, and how human action modifies the

environment. Fourth grade students should be presented with basic, fundamental principles

regarding weather and climate and other natural processes. They should also be able to identify

major environmental issues and begin to understand that their actions could affect the

environment on a global scale.

Content area three, Spatial Dynamics and Connections, is centered on the idea that there

are complicated networks that connect people across a global scale such as transportation,

economics, cultural diversity, politics, migration, disease, and tourism. Fourth-grade students

should have a basic understanding of the effects of globalization. They should be able to identify

and compare cultures and varying perspectives, and realize that environmental issues vary with

space.

Each content area is broken down into three cognitive dimensions: (1) knowing; (2)

understanding; (3) applying. In cognitive dimension one, knowing, students should be able to

make observations and recall information. In cognitive dimension two, understanding, students

should be able to attach meaning and context to their observations. In cognitive dimension three,

applying, students should be able to synthesize their observations and understandings to classify,

hypothesize, and use reasoning to solve geographic problems. These cognitive dimensions follow

a progression through the grade 4, 8, and 12 assessments. Grade 4 assessments heavily

emphasizes knowing, and little attention is on understanding and applying. Comparatively, grade

12 assessments transition to focus mainly on applying. Conversely, there is no difference in the

amount of questions per content area on the grade 4, 8, and 12 assessments.

In addition to content areas and cognitive dimensions, the NAEP geography framework

also outlines three achievement levels: (1) basic; (2) proficient; (3) advanced. These achievement

levels set a standard for what students should know about geography in grades 4, 8, and 12.

Students at the basic achievement level exhibit rudimentary knowledge and thinking skills, but

are capable of answering geographic questions adequately. Students at the proficient level are

able to deal with complicated geographical concepts and exhibit a solid understanding of

geography. Students at the advanced level exhibit critical thinking skills that allow them to

analyze geographical data and apply that to solve real-world issues. According to NAGB,

students at the proficient level have mastered the knowledge and skills they need to function in

our globalizing society.

National Geographic Learning Framework

Similar to the guidelines produced by NAGB, NGS researchers developed a learning

framework to guide the development of their resources. The purpose of the National Geographic

Learning Framework is to, “… teach kids about the world and how it works, empowering them

to succeed and to make it a better place,” (National Geographic 2016b). Through this framework,

National Geographic outlines the Attitudes, Skills, and Knowledge – aptly forming the acronym

“ASK” – that students must master in order to, “respond to rapid change, understand

connections, and make informed decisions,” or in other words, to become an explorer (National

Geographic 2016b).

Each category of the National Geographic Learning Framework – Attitudes, Skills, and

Knowledge – breaks down into multiple components (Appendix D). In the Attitudes category,

explorers exhibit curiosity about how the world works, responsibility for their actions that affect

the living and non-living components of our planet and society, and empowerment to act on their

feelings of curiosity and responsibility. In the Skills category, explorers make and document real

world observations, communicate experiences and ideas through a wide variety of media outlets,

collaborate with other students and explorers, and solve problems through careful decision

making. In the Knowledge category, explorers display proficiency in our human story, our

changing planet, and wildlife and wild places (National Geographic 2016). This framework

supported the development of the SGTM of Montana.

The Giant Traveling Map Program: A Brief Overview

Researchers Audrey and Lindsey Mohan worked collaboratively with NGS to develop a

document that outlines the spatial thinking abilities of children at the K-8 grade levels. This

report, Spatial Thinking About Maps (2013), identifies the spatial thinking concepts that students

are capable of understanding and those that still cause confusion across different grade levels.

This report provides the necessary data to help develop appropriate geography curricula to

increase the geographic literacy of American students.

In the report, Spatial Thinking About Maps (2013), Audrey and Lindsey Mohan analyzed

over 80 books, journal articles, and reports that focused on the progression of spatial thinking

skills that develop in children. They first frame their research by defining the concept of spatial

thinking, “Spatial thinking involves knowing and understanding spatial concepts and relations,

how we represent those concepts and relations in different ways, and also how we can reason

with spatial information,” (Mohan and Mohan 2013, p 4). They base their theoretical framework

on Piaget’s work on cognitive development and his suggestion that spatial thinking concepts be

taught through a constructivist lens.

Mohan and Mohan (2013) briefly summarized both sides of the debate regarding

designing geographic curricula between Downs and Liben, and Blaut. Blaut and his colleagues

believe that young children possess relatively sophisticated spatial thinking abilities without

prior instruction. In contrast, Downs and Liben believe that spatial thinking skills in children

younger than seven are severely limited and instruction is required to deal with complex topics.

Mohan and Mohan (2013) side with Downs and Liben.

Mohan and Mohan (2013) created a series of tables that outline the spatial thinking

progression of children from pre-K through sixth grade. The tables describe the common

understandings of children in age groups from 3-6, 7-9, and 10+, as well as common

misconceptions about spatial thinking abilities and suggested lessons. These tables highlight the

high variation observed in the spatial thinking abilities of children. National Geographic

references these tables during State Giant Traveling Map lesson design and they are referenced in

the State Giant Traveling Map Lesson Handbook (Appendix E).

The State Giant Traveling Maps and Lesson Handbook are unique in that NGS

incorporated a kinesthetic component into resources and curriculum design. Students are

physically standing and moving on the map while learning local geography and basic map skills.

By doing this, NGS essentially created a multisensory resource which accommodates all learning

styles. Honigsfeld and Dunn (2009) suggest the use of large materials like table-top maps, or

even better, large floor maps, as a means to include kinesthetics in classroom resources. The

classroom-sized State Giant Traveling Maps fit this specification. Additionally, the State Giant

Traveling Maps support Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory because the resource promotes a

“real-world” experience that stands out from conventional education methods. Fundamentally,

the State Giant Traveling Map of Montana is expected to help promote geographic literacy

because it teaches to all learning styles through active and engaging experiences.

Summary: This chapter presented the main theories to support the SGTM of Montana as a

resource to increase geographic literacy. Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development identifies the

age at which to begin formal geographic education. Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory

explains how educational strategies that utilize real-world experiences promote deeper

understanding of content. Learning modality theories describe the observed differences in an

individual’s preferred mode of perceiving and processing new knowledge. Further explanation of

the NAEP Framework and the National Geographic Learning Framework provide necessary

context understand how the unique design of the SGTM of Montana is capable of promoting

geographic literacy.

Chapter 3: Methodology

“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” – Xun Kuang, Chinese

Confucian Philosopher, 312-230 BC.

This chapter presents the methodology utilized to gather data on the geographic literacy

of fourth graders in the State of Montana using the SGTM of Montana. In this case, the SGTM of

Montana acted as an educational treatment for students. Data collection occurred through the use

of a quantitative student pre- and post-treatment assessment and a qualitative teacher survey.

Results from pre- and post-treatment assessments and teacher surveys were tabulated in

Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, and SPSS software was used to test for statistical significance.

Sample Population

The sample population consisted of a total of 114 fourth graders and four teachers from

four public elementary schools in western Montana (Table 1). The study focused on fourth grade

students for two reasons. First, the National Geographic curriculum associated with the SGTM of

Montana aligns with the cognitive abilities of fourth graders. Second, the National Assessment of

Education Progress (NAEP) administers a geography assessment to fourth, eighth, and twelfth

graders, and the national results are accessible to the public. Phone calls acted as the main

recruitment method for this study, and after speaking with school principals on the phone, they

chose whether or not to grant permission for their teachers and classrooms to participate in this

study. Schools were selected for initial contact based on proximity to Missoula, Montana, where

the research took place. Of the 15 schools that were recruited, four school principals granted

permission for their fourth grade classes to participate. Of the four schools that participated, three

were in rural settings and one was in an urban setting, the majority of students were white in all

settings, and poverty rates ranged between 10.8-13.8 % (Table 2). School D falls within an urban

setting but is the only school within the district, which is why the population within that school

district seems as if it should be rural setting.

School

Total Number of Students from Each

School that Took Both Pre- and

PostTreatment Assessments

School A

School B

School C

School D

n =

114

Table 1: Participating schools and number of students from each school (n = 114).

School

Rural

Urban

Population

within

School

District

White

Native

Black

Other

Median

Household

Income

($)

Poverty

Rural

3,364

93.88

0.41

5.71

42,985

10.8

Rural

1,052

96.76

3.24

40,000

13.8

Rural

775

96.05

0.62

0.26

3.07

42,471

12.6

Urban

3,277

97.07

0.58

2.35

56,125

12.9

Table 2: Demographic data of the four participating schools. Source: ProximityOne 2018 (census

data from 2010).

Student Assessment Design

Students completed a pre-treatment assessment and an identical post-treatment

assessment to evaluate how the SGTM of Montana affected their attitudes and skills (Appendix

F). In this case, the treatment refers to the completion of two lessons using the SGTM of

Montana. Students completed the post-treatment assessment three-weeks after completing the

treatment. The pre- and post-treatment assessment contained eight questions: questions 1-4

measure students’ attitudes towards geography and questions 5-8 measure students’ skills.

Questions 1-4 were created specifically for this research while paying careful attention to

proper Lexile content to ensure suitability for the fourth grade reading level. According to The

Lexile Framework for Reading (2016), the Lexile content for Grade 4 should be between 480L

and 830L (MetaMetrics 2016). An online application measured the Lexile content of questions 1-

4 at 740L, which falls within the accepted range for fourth graders. For all attitude questions

(14), choice A reflected a positive attitude towards geography, choice B reflected a negative

attitude, and choice C reflected an indifferent attitude.

Questions 5-8 came directly from the NAEP Questions Tool for Grade 4 (NCES 2016).

On the pre- and post-treatment assessments, the word choice and formatting of questions 5-8 is a

direct replica from the NAEP assessments. The national results to questions 5-8 serve as the

control in this project. Specifically, by comparing the sample population assessment results to the

NAEP national results, it will be possible to determine whether the SGTM of Montana is more

effective at teaching map skills over conventional methods.

Question 5 (Mark X on your State/District) is considered a short constructed response

(SCR) question. This question falls under NAEP content area one, Space and Place, and has a

difficulty rating of easy. Full credit, partial credit, and no credit responses are referred to by

NAEP as complete (2 points), partial (1 point), and inappropriate (0 points) respectively. To

receive a complete score, students needed to write the name of the state or district where they live

and to mark an X on a map of the United States on the location of their state or district.

Partial answers had an X marked in a different location as the written state or district.

Inappropriate answers had an X in a different location as the written state or district, if the X was

missing, and if the state or district was missing. Omitted answers had no response written.

Question 6 (Draw Map of Little Town) is considered an extended constructed response

(ECR) question. This question falls under content area one, Space and Place, and has a difficulty

rating of hard. In this question, NAEP broke up partial credit into two categories. Full credit,

partial credit, and no credit responses are referred to by NAEP as complete (3 points), essential

(2 points), partial (1 point) and inappropriate (0 points). The question provided students with a

grid, a map key and a list of town features that they had to draw on the grid using the provided

symbols. The list of town features instructed students to draw town borders that ran 4.0 miles

east to west and 3.0 miles north to south and include Main Street, the school, a park, and a river.

To receive a complete score, student maps needed to be drawn to scale with all four features in

the correct location. Essential answers had all four features drawn in the correct locations but not

to scale, or three features drawn in the correct location and to scale. Partial answers had two

features drawn to scale in the correct location or three features drawn in the correct location but

not to scale. Inappropriate answers had none of the features drawn in the correct location or to

scale. Omitted answers had no response written.

Questions 7 and 8 were multiple choice (MC) questions worth one point each, and

therefore students’ answers could either be right or wrong (Table 4). Question 7 falls under

content area one, Space and Place, and has a difficulty rating of hard. Question 8 falls under

content area three, Spatial Dynamics and Connections, and has a difficulty rating of easy.

Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Levels were assigned to each of the four NAEP

questions to clearly outline the level of knowledge each question assessed. Question 5, 7, and 8

are considered Level One (Recall) Questions, and students made simple measurements and

identified locations. Question 6 is considered a Level Two (Skill/Concept) Question and students

applied their knowledge of scales and symbols to draw their own map.

Two experimental controls were embedded in the pre- and post-treatment assessments,

the first being the pre-treatment assessment results and the second being the NAEP Geography

Assessment national average results. Pre-treatment assessment results acted as the base level of

students’ attitudes and skills to compare with post-treatment assessment results. Additionally,

NAEP Geography Assessment results indicated whether the sample population results followed

similar trends to the national average results for the selected NAEP questions.

Teachers administered the pre-treatment assessment, the two lesson map treatment, and

the post-treatment assessment. The only people present during administration of the pre- and

post-treatment assessments and the two map lessons were the students and their teacher. To

protect students’ privacy, teachers translated student names into codes on their assessments. Each

unique code contained identifiers to indicate the school, teacher name, student number, and

gender. For the purpose of comparison, students received the same exact code for their pre- and

post-treatment assessment. Teachers then returned the assessments for data analysis. This method

was pilot tested on fourth graders at a private school in Missoula, Montana. The pilot test results

helped inform the process moving forward, and the results were not included in the final

analysis.

Lesson Implementation

Teachers had the SGTM of Montana for one week and they chose the time, location, and

order of lesson implementation. Overall, teachers administered two lessons using the SGTM of

Montana and the National Geographic State Giant Maps Lesson Handbook (2016a). Each of the

six lessons in this curriculum align with national geography education standards. National

Geographic Society researchers pilot tested these lessons during the 2015/2016 school year in

Colorado, though the results are not accessible at this time.

Teachers administered two lessons titled, Lesson 4 – Cardinal Directions, and Lesson 5 –

Map Scale and Measuring Distances (Appendix E). Teachers administered only two lessons to

minimize the time commitment necessary to meet the requirements for participation. Teachers

followed the directions in the lesson book, though they also used supplemental directions with

slight modifications to the two lessons. During pilot testing, teachers indicated that additional

clarification would be appreciated. The pilot test also revealed that it took approximately 65

minutes to complete the two lessons using the SGTM of Montana.

The Cardinal Directions lesson objectives outlined that students should understand

cardinal directions and how to use cardinal directions to navigate across the giant map to find

specific locations in the state. To accomplish this task, students completed a relay game using

cardinal directions. After breaking up into four equal groups, each group received a stack of

cards with town names written on them. Each group nominated one navigator and one explorer

to begin the lesson. The navigator drew a location card, read the location, and kept that location a

secret from the rest of his or her group. The navigator’s job was to guide the explorer to the

correct location using only cardinal directions. The explorer walked out onto the map and the

navigator told the explorer to take one step north, south, east, or west until the explorer reached

the final destination. When the explorer was on the correct location, he or she placed a post-it

note on the location signifying that the team successfully used cardinal directions to find the

place. During this relay, students rotated roles. The explorer moved to the back of the line, the

navigator became the explorer, and a new student took on the role of navigator. Once every

group member acted as both an explorer and a navigator, the team sat down. The first team to

complete this task won the relay. It took approximately 45 minutes to complete this lesson.

The Map Scale and Measuring Distance lesson objectives outlined that students should

become familiar with using a scale bar to measure the distance between features on their state

map. For this project, students only completed Part 2 of this lesson, and within Part 2, only steps

1 and 2 were completed. After breaking up into four equal groups, students formed pairs within

those groups. Each pair received a Map Measurement Table to record their measurements.

Student pairs made the following measurements: (1) Distance from their current location to the

state capital; (2) Distance of any river; (3) Length of border to the east; (4) Length of border to

the south; (5) Length of border to the west; (5) Length of border to the north. Students chose

whichever method they wanted to use to make measurements on the giant map. For example,

they could have used a piece of string, the length of their hand, or the length of their stride. It

took approximately 20 minutes to complete this lesson.

Based on the lesson objectives, these two lessons introduced students to the specific skills

they needed to answer questions 5-8 on their assessments. Specifically, the lesson, Cardinal

Directions, prepared students to answer part of question six and all of question eight. The lesson,

Map Scale and Measuring Distance, prepared students to answer part of question six and all of

question seven.

Teacher Survey Design

A survey instrument gathered data on teachers’ perceptions of the SGTM of Montana as a

resource to teach geography (Appendix J). Survey questions called for short-answer responses,

and they were qualitative in nature. In total, there were 13 questions, and some were broken

down into multiple parts. Survey responses revealed if teachers enjoyed using the resource, if

they would like to see changes made to the curriculum, and if they would recommend and use

this resource again.

Data Analysis

This study utilized a mixed-methods approach for data collection and data analysis, with

the student assessments analyzed quantitatively and the teacher survey analyzed qualitatively.

Student Assessment

Student pre- and post-treatment analysis took place over two parts, with questions 1-4

analyzed in Part 1 and questions 5-8 analyzed in Part 2. The Part 1 analysis revealed the ability

of the SGTM of Montana to promote positive attitudes towards geography. The Part 2 analysis

revealed the ability of the SGTM of Montana to teach students map skills and if this method of

instruction altered student achievement levels as compared to the NAEP Geography Assessment

national average results. SPSS software facilitated a chi-squared statistical analysis of the

observed change between Part 1 and Part 2 results on the pre- and post-treatment assessments

(Appendix I).

In the Part 1 analysis, student pre- and post-treatment assessment responses were

transcribed into a spreadsheet using Microsoft Excel (Appendix H). For these questions, students

could choose answers A, B, or C, and results in Excel follow the same letter convention. I totaled

the number of students who answered A, B, and C on both assessments then compared pre- and

post-treatment responses for each individual student. Total values for each answer choice on the

pre- and post-treatment assessments were converted into percentages and graphed to reveal

percent change between the pre- and post-treatment assessments for each answer choice.

In the Part 2 analysis, student pre- and post-treatment assessment responses were

transcribed into a spreadsheet using Microsoft Excel. I replicated the exact scoring procedures

outlined in the available NAEP scoring guides (Appendix G), and each question received a point

value. Full credit answers for question five received two points, full credit answers for question

six received three points, and full credit answers for questions seven and eight both received one

point for a total of seven points maximum.

Utilizing an identical graphing procedure as in Part 1, Part 2 graphs revealed the percent

change between the pre- and post-treatment assessments for each answer in addition to the NAEP

national average results. An additional graph displayed the percent change of individual students’

Part 2 scores between the pre- and post-treatment assessments.

Teacher Survey

Teacher surveys were analyzed qualitatively by coding survey responses. The coding

procedure followed did not require the use of any software. First I followed open coding

procedures and thoroughly read through and transcribed each response. This first process helped

familiarize myself with the survey responses. Second, I followed thematic coding procedures and

read through each response to pull out words that appeared repeatedly and captured the major

themes communicated through survey responses. After generating a list of codes, I translated the

list of codes into themes and then expanded these themes into specific concepts. Coding revealed

the common themes that were shared between responses. Did teachers enjoy using this resource?

Would they use this resource again? What were some of the associated challenges with using this

resource? The emerging themes disclosed if teachers believe that the State Giant Traveling Map

of Montana is a useful and effective tool to teach geography.

Chapter 4: Results

“Our society needs the knowledge-and the understanding based on such knowledge-to cope with

the problems and the opportunities of its industrial maturity, its now immutable dependence on

foreign economies and money markets, and its political commitments over broad reaches of the

world. The new purpose for geography is to help America understand globalism as it once

helped us understand regionalism,” Gilbert M. Grosvenor, Former Chairman of the National

Geographic Society, November 1984.

This chapter includes an analysis of student pre- and post-treatment assessment results

and teacher survey responses. Examples of student responses are presented in Appendix L. Pre-

and post-treatment assessment data is presented through both descriptive and inferential statistics

(chi-squared analysis). Teacher survey coding results are displayed in tabular form. Results

indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) in answers between the pre- and post-treatment

assessments for questions 1-7 (Table 2).

Ho: The SGTM of MT has no effect on

student attitudes and skills.

Ha: The SGTM of MT does have an effect

on student attitudes and skills.

Question

P-Value

Accept OR Reject

p < 0.05

reject null

p < 0.05

reject null

p < 0.05

reject null

p < 0.05

reject null

p < 0.05

reject null

p < 0.05

reject null

p < 0.05

reject null

p > 0.05

accept null

Table 3: Chi-squared analysis results with corresponding p-values.

Attitude Questions (1-4)

Questions 1-4 revealed the capability of the SGTM of Montana to promote positive

attitudes towards geography. Results for each question indicate the percent change between

answer choices on the pre- and post-treatment assessments as well as a breakdown of exactly

how answers on the post-treatment assessment changed from the pre-treatment assessment. The

figures listed below indicate whether the map treatment supported a positive or negative

attitudinal shift.

A chi-squared analysis of question one (In this school year, have you studied

geography?) showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the pre- and

posttreatment assessment results. To determine whether the statistically significant change

reflected an increase in positive attitudes towards geography requires a closer look at the data

and the directional change of individual answers. On the pre- and post-treatment assessments, the

percentage of students who answered yes (A) increased by 18%, the percentage of students who

answered no (B) decreased by 10%, and the percentage of students who answered I don’t know

the positive answer choice, meaning the treatment supported an increase in positive attitudes.

Specifically, this increase came from 8% of students who first answered no (B) and 15% who

first answered I don’t know (C). After using the SGTM of Montana, 23% of students switched

their answer from a negative attitude to a positive attitude on the post-treatment assessment, and

only 5% of students switched their answer from a positive attitude to a negative attitude on the

post-treatment assessment. Overall, more students acknowledged that they studied geography

during that school year in the post-treatment assessment than in the pre-treatment assessment

(Figure 1).

F 1: P cha between responses on the pre- and post- assessment results f Que 1 (In this school

, you studied geography).

A chi-squared analysis of

question two (How much do you like studying geography?)

showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the pre- and post-treatment

assessment results. To determine whether the statistically significant change reflected an increase

in positive attitudes towards geography requires a closer look at the data and the directional

change of individual answers. On the pre- and post-treatment assessments, the percentage of

students who answered favorite (A) increased by 5%, the percentage of students who answered

like others better (B) increased by 4%, and the percentage of students who answered never

studied (C) decreased by 9% (Figure 2). This indicates that initially, a lower percentage of

students chose the positive answer choice, meaning the treatment supported an increase in

positive attitudes. Likewise, on the initial assessment, a lower percentage of students answered

like others better (B), meaning the treatment also supported an increase in negative attitudes.

The increase in positive attitudes came from 12% of students who first answered like others

better (B) and 3% of students who first answered never studied (C). After using the SGTM of

Montana, 15% of students switched their answer from a negative attitude on the pre-treatment

assessment to a positive attitude on the post-treatment assessment, and 10% of students switched

their answer from a positive attitude on the pre-treatment assessment to a negative attitude on the

post-treatment assessment. Overall, the number of students who said geography was their

favorite increased, while the amount of students who said the like others better also increased

(Figure 2).

F 2: P cha between responses on the pre- and post- assessment results f Que 2 (How much do

lik s geograph ).

A chi-squared analysis of

question three (Do you like learning about maps?) showed a

statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the pre- and post-treatment assessment

results. To determine whether the statistically significant change reflected an increase in positive

attitudes towards geography requires a closer look at the data and the directional change of

individual answers. On the pre- and post-treatment assessments, the percentage of students who

answered yes (A) increased by 9%, the percentage of students who answered no (B) decreased by

5%, and the percentage of students who answered I don’t know (C) decreased by 5% (Figure 3).

This indicates that initially, a lower percentage of students chose the positive answer choice,

meaning that the treatment supported an increase in positive attitudes. Specifically, this increase

came from 9% of students who first answered no (B) and 4% of students who first answered I

don’t know (C). After using the SGTM of Montana, 13% of students switched their answer from

a negative attitude on the pre-treatment assessment to a positive attitude on the post-treatment

assessment, and 4% of students switched their answer from a positive attitude on the

pretreatment assessment to a negative attitude on the post-treatment assessment. Overall, more

students said they like learning about maps and less students said they did not or they did not

know (Figure 3).

F 3: P cha between responses on the pre- and post- assessment results f Que 3 (Do you like

maps).

A chi-squared analysis of

question four (Is knowing how to read a map a useful skill?)

showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the pre- and post-treatment

assessment results. To determine whether the statistically significant change reflected an increase

in positive attitudes towards geography requires a closer look at the data and the directional

change of individual answers. On the pre- and post-treatment assessments, the percentage of

students who answered yes (A) decreased by 1%, the percentage of students who answered no

(B) remained the same, and the percentage of students who answered I don’t know (C) increased

by 1% (Figure 4). This indicates that the map treatment had very little effect on student attitudes,

both positive and negative ones. However, 3% of students who first answered no (B) switched to

yes (A), and 4% first answered I don’t know (C) switched to yes (A). After using the SGTM of

Montana, 6% of students switched their answer from a negative attitude on the pre-treatment

assessment to a positive attitude on the post-treatment assessment, and 7% of students switched

their answer from a positive attitude on the pre-treatment assessment to a negative attitude on the

post-treatment assessment. Overall, minimal change occurred between answers to the pre- and

post-treatment assessments (Figure 4).

F 4: P cha between responses on the pre- and post- assessment results f Que 3 4 (Is knowing

to r a map a useful skill).

Skills Questions (5-8)

Questions 5-8 revealed the capability of the SGTM of Montana to teach students map

skills like using a scale bar and coordinate grid, and interpreting different symbology. Results for

each question indicate the percent change between answers on the pre- and post-treatment

assessments as well as an answer-by-answer breakdown of individual changes between pre- and

post-treatment assessment results. An additional comparison between post-treatment assessment

results and the NAEP Geography Assessment results reveal whether the sample population

scored better or worse than the experimental control.

(Results continue on the following page)

squared analysis of question

A chi- five (Mark X on Your State/District) showed a

statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the pre- and post-treatment assessment

results. Answers to question five received a point value based on the exact NAEP Scoring Guide

used to grade the national assessments (Appendix G). For this specific question, a complete

response received two points, a partial response received one point, an inappropriate response

received zero points, and an omitted response received zero points. To determine whether the

statistically significant change reflected an increase in student ability to identify their state of

residence requires a closer look at the data and the directional change of individual answers. On

the pre- and post-treatment assessments, the percentage of students who scored complete (2

points) increased by 4% between the pre- and post-treatment assessment, the percentage of

students that scored partial (1 point) decreased by 2%, the percentage of students that scored

inappropriate (0 points) decreased by 2%, and the percentage of students who chose to omit (0

points) the question decreased by 1% (Figure 5). This indicates that initially, a lower percentage

of students did not yet understand how to identify their home state on a map of North America,

meaning the treatment supported an increase in skills. Specifically, this increase came from 1%

of students who first scored partial, 6% of students who first scored inappropriate, and 3% of

students who first chose to omit. After using the SGTM of Montana 10% of students increased

their score to a perfect score (complete/2 points), 11% of students’ scores increased by at least 1

point, and 6% of students’ scores decreased by at least 1 point (Figure 5). The sample population

scored the same as the control group on both the pre- and post-treatment assessment, with the

highest percentage of students attaining a complete score on both assessments.

pos -

squared analysis of question

F 5: P cha between responses on the pre- assessment re for Q 3 5 (Mark X on your

/ [G0122201]: 2001).

A chi-squared analysis of question

six (Draw a map of Little Town) showed a

statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the pre- and post-treatment assessment

results. Answers to question six received a point value based on the exact NAEP Scoring Guide

used to grade the national assessments (Appendix G). For this specific question, a complete

response received three points, an essential response received two points, a partial response

received one point, an inappropriate response received zero points, and an omitted response

received zero points. To determine whether the statistically significant change reflected an

increase in student ability to use a scale bar and compass rose, and to create their own map

requires a closer look at the data and the directional change of individual answers. On the pre-

and post-treatment assessments, the percentage of students who scored complete (3 points)

increased by 6%, the percentage of students who scored essential (2 points) decreased by 2%, the

percentage of students who scored partial (1 point) decreased by 5%, the percentage of students

who scored inappropriate (0 points) increased by 3%, and the percentage of students who chose

to omit (0 points) decreased by 2% (Figure 6). This indicates that initially, a lower percentage of

students did not yet understand how to use a grid, scale bar, and interpret different symbols,

meaning the treatment supported an increase in skills. Specifically, this increase came from 5%

of students who first scored essential, 2% who first scored partial, 1% who first scored

inappropriate, and 1% who first chose to omit. After using the SGTM of Montana 9% of students

increased their score to a perfect score (complete/3 points), 24% of students’ scores increased by

at least 1 point, and 17% of students’ scores decreased by at least 1 point. The sample population

scored the same as the control group on the pre-treatment assessment. On the post-treatment

assessment, the sample population scored the same as the control group in the inappropriate

category, but better than the control group in the complete category.

A chi-squared analysis of question

F 6: P cha between responses on the pre- assessment re for Q 6 (Draw map of Little

T [G013001]: 2001).

pos -

seven (Identify how far Lake Hood is from Lake

Major) showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the pre- and posttreatment

assessment results. Answers to question seven received a point value based on the exact NAEP

Scoring Guide used to grade the national assessments (Appendix G). For this specific question,

choice D received one point, and all other choices received zero points. To determine whether the

statistically significant change reflected an increase in student ability to use a scale bar requires a

closer look at the data and the directional change of individual answers. On the pre- and post-

treatment assessments, the percentage of students who answered D increased by 3%, the

percentage of students who answered A remained the same, the percentage of students who

answered B remained the same, the percentage of students who answered C decreased by 2%,

and the percentage of students who chose to omit decreased by 2% (Figure 7). This indicates that

initially, a lower percentage of students did not yet understand how to use a scale bar, meaning

the treatment supported an increase in skills. Specifically, this increase came from 4% of students

who first answered A, 4% who first answered B, 7% who first answered C, and 0% who first

chose to omit. After using the SGTM of Montana, 18% of students who answered incorrectly on

the pre-treatment assessment answered correctly on the post-treatment assessment, and 13% of

students who answered correctly on the pre-treatment assessment answered incorrectly on the

post-treatment assessment. The sample population scored the same as the control group, with the

highest percentage of students choosing D as the correct answer on the post-treatment

assessment.

A chi-squared analysis of question

F 7: P cha between responses on the pre- assessment re for Q 7 (Identify how far L

H is from Lak Major on map [G009401]: 2010).

pos -

eight (Map: Direction, LA to Salt Lake) did not show

a statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) between the pre- and post-treatment assessment

results. However, there is an observable change between answers on the pre- and postassessment

and to determine whether this change reflected an increase in student ability to use a compass

rose requires a closer look at the data and the directional change of individual answers. Answers

to question seven received a point value based on the exact NAEP Scoring Guide used to grade

the national assessments (Appendix G). For this specific question, choice C received one point,

and all other choices received zero points. On the pre- and post-treatment assessments, the

percentage of students who answered C decreased by 3%, the percentage of students who

answered A increased by 10%, the percentage of students who answered B increased by 5%, the

percentage of students who answered D decreased by 2%, and the percentage of students who

chose to omit decreased by 1% (Figure 8). This indicates that initially, a higher number of

students understood how to use a compass rose compared to after the map treatment was

administered, meaning the treatment did not result in an increase in skills. However, some

students did in fact switch from the incorrect to the correct answer on the post-treatment

assessment. Specifically, 4% of students first chose A, 9% first chose B, 8% first chose D, and

2% first chose to omit. After using the SGTM of Montana, 22% of students who answered

incorrectly on the pre-treatment assessment answered correctly on the post-treatment assessment,

and 25% of students who answered correctly on the pre-treatment assessment answered

incorrectly on the post-treatment assessment (Figure 8). The sample population scored the same

as the control group with the highest percentage of students choosing choice C as the correct

answer on the post-treatment assessment.

A chi-squared analysis of question

F 8: P cha between responses on the pre- assessment re for Q 8 (Mark X on your

/ [G0122201]: 2001).

Questions five through eight received scores based on NAEP scoring guides. Overall,

42% of students received an increased score on the post-treatment assessment compared to the

pre-treatment assessment, 31% of students’ scores decreased, and 27% of students’ scores did not

change (Figure 9).

Change in Score (%)

Figure 9: Change in score (%) between questions 5-8 on the pre- and post-treatment assessments.

Teacher Survey

Teacher surveys collected qualitative data on the effectiveness, ease of implementation,

and overall teacher satisfaction with regards to the SGTM of Montana. Coding of six surveys in

total revealed five emerging themes associated with the SGTM of Montana: (1) Teachers enjoy

using the SGTM of Montana; (2) Students enjoy using the SGTM of Montana; (3) The SGTM of

Montana has major strengths as a geography education resource; (4) The SGTM of Montana has

some constraints associated with its use; and (5) The SGTM Lesson Handbook is easy to use

(Table 4).

Increase

Decrease

No Change

Themes

Codes

Concepts

Teachers enjoy using the

SGTM of Montana.

1. Engaging

2. Interactive

Teachers enjoy using the SGTM of

Montana because they like to see their

students interacting and engaging in

activities, and teachers want to use the

map multiple times in one school year.

Students enjoy using the

SGTM of Montana.

1. Excited

2. Active

3. Curiosity

4. Eager

Students get excited and curious when

they first see the SGTM of Montana

and are eager to begin an active

exploration of the map.

The SGTM of Montana

has major strengths as a

geography education

resource.

1. Engaging

2. Hands-On

3. Moving

4. Interactive

The SGTM of Montana presents

information to students in a new and

exciting way. Lessons are hands-on

which in turn engages students and

allows them to move and interact while

learning about geography.

The SGTM of Montana has

some constraints associated

with its use.

1. Size

2. Content Standards

3. Overwhelming

4. Time

The large size of the SGTM makes it

difficult to use because teachers must

move around furniture every time they

want to open the map. Content

standards limit the amount of time that

can be devoted to geography education.

Students with behavioral issues are

easily overwhelmed by the map.

The SGTM Lesson

Handbook is easy to use.

1. Sequential

2. Clear

3. Outlined

4. Detailed

The clear, sequential, and outlined

format of lessons in the SGTM Lesson

Handbook presents material in a way

that is easily implemented by teachers.

It provides enough detail but not too

much detail.

Table 4: Teacher survey data coding results.

Summary: This chapter presented the results from the student pre- and post-treatment assessment

and the teacher surveys. The next chapter focuses on data interpretation and relates the observed

results to the initial research question of the extent to which the SGTM of Montana affects

student attitudes and skills while providing additional interpretation on teacher perceptions.

Chapter 5: Discussion

“We have not invested in helping children to understand the world the way they’re going to need

to understand it in their adult lives. We are at an inflection point. We have to make some

decisions if we are a short-term culture that doesn’t value well-reasoned decision making. Or we

dramatically change the preparedness of our young people to make geographic and far reaching

decisions throughout their lives.” – Daniel Edelson, former Vice President of Education,

National Geographic Society, May 2012.

This chapter outlines the interpretations of the results from the pre- and post-treatment

assessments and the teacher surveys, and the extent to which these results support the hypothesis

that the SGTM of Montana effectively promotes positive attitudes towards geography and

increased achievement on geography assessments.

Results on the Attitude Questions

Results from questions one, two, and three support the claim that the SGTM of Montana

promotes positive attitudes towards geography. After using the SGTM of Montana, more

students acknowledged that they studied geography during the school year, more students

claimed that geography was their favorite subject to study, and more students claimed to like

learning about maps. Likewise, questions one and three saw a decrease in answers associated

with negative attitudes towards geography and an increase in answers associated with positive

attitudes. In question four, initial pre-treatment assessment results indicated that students already

thought that knowing how to read a map was a useful skill, and negligible change occurred on

post-treatment assessment results.

Analysis of responses to question two exhibited inconsistent results. While there was an

increase in answers associated with positive attitudes on the post-treatment assessment, there was

also an increase in answers associated with negative attitudes. These results contradict the

assertion that the SGTM of Montana promotes positive attitudes towards geography. What about

the SGTM of Montana caused some students who initially answered that geography was their

favorite to switch to liking others better? Data and observations during this research supports that

the observed contradiction resulted from poor wording on the survey question. Specifically,

question two asked students how much they like studying geography, not if geography was their

favorite subject. The term “studying” holds a different connotation to a fourth grader as

compared to a graduate student or university professor. For example, it is common for graduate

students and professors to indicate their field of expertise by stating that they “study” that subject

and have likely been “studying” the same subject for multiple years, though that does not

necessarily mean that they sit at their desks and “study” all day. In contrast, a fourth grader likely

interprets the term “studying” as the act of sitting down, concentrating, and preparing for an

exam. In elementary school, “studying” typically takes place outside of school, where “learning”

takes place in school. Students may like “learning” about geography, but that does not mean they

like “studying” geography. That being said, by replacing the word “studying” with the word

“learning,” assessment results may have followed trends different than observed. This same

discrepancy also explains why 8% of students said they never studied geography during the

school year on the post-treatment assessment. These students might be aware that they learned

about geography using the SGTM of Montana, but that does not mean they studied geography on

their own time.

Results on the Skills Questions

Results from questions five, six, and seven support the claim that the SGTM of Montana

is an effective resource to teach students map skills. These questions assessed students’ abilities

to identify their home state, use a scale bar and coordinate grid, and to interpret different

symbology. After using the SGTM of Montana, more students received complete answers than

on the pre-treatment assessment on questions five, six, and seven. Likewise, question five saw a

decrease in partial, inappropriate, and omitted answers, and question seven saw either a decrease

or no change in the percentage of students who chose wrong answers. However, while question

six saw an increase in complete answers, it also saw an increase in inappropriate answers.

Similarly, question eight saw a decrease in the correct answer and an increase in the incorrect

answers.

It is difficult to say what exactly caused these unexpected trends. The skills questions

required much more thought than the attitude questions, and these questions mimicked exam

questions, whereas attitude questions mimicked simple survey questions. While it was stressed to

students that the assessments were not exams, some may have still felt intimidated by specific

questions, causing them to skip the question entirely. Behavioral issues may also explain some of

the observed inconsistences. For example, in question six, one student who scored complete on

the pre-treatment assessment switched to inappropriate on the post-treatment assessment.

Perhaps on the day of the post-treatment assessment, that particular student had a negative

experience that affected his/her behavior so that he/she saw no importance in actually trying to

answer the question correctly.

Disregarding these discrepancies, student assessment results paralleled national average

results for each question (5-8). This supports that the SGTM of Montana is at least just as

effective as traditional geography teaching methods. In no cases did the sample population score

worse than the national average for the complete and/or correct responses. Unfortunately, NAEP

does not provide a state-by-state breakdown of geography assessment results, so it was not

possible to compare the sample population results to the Montana average results.

Additional evidence to support the claim that the SGTM of Montana is an effective

resource to teach map skills comes from analysis of the changes in total points received by each

student between the pre- and post-treatment assessments. After using the SGTM of Montana,

42% of students received a higher score than on the pre-treatment assessment. However, not all

students increased their scores, and 31% of student scores decreased on the post-treatment

assessment. This negative change may be associated with behavioral issues and lack of

motivation by students to try their hardest to answer the question correctly, similar to the issues

that arose in question six.

Teacher Survey

Teacher survey results support the claim that teachers like using the SGTM of Montana in

their classrooms. Of the four teachers surveyed, all expressed interest in bringing the SGTM of

Montana into their classroom multiple times during the school year and all said they would

recommend this resource to other teachers. All teachers noted that the SGTM of Montana

sparked curiosity and excitement within their students, and that students were very engaged in

the two map lessons. In all classes, teachers administered the map lessons with no assistant

teacher, and all teachers felt that they could handle this task without extra assistance. In some of

the larger classes, teachers stated that all students did not participate equally in the map activities,

however, they acknowledged that this likely occurred due to personal choice and poor attitude,

and that lack of participation was not related to the map activities. No teachers gave any

suggestions on significant changes to the SGTM of Montana, though some expressed interest in

creating more Montana-specific lessons. The only problems teachers had with the SGTM of

Montana involved its large size and the necessity to move furniture around each time they used

the map. Likewise, all teachers agree that implementing SGTM of Montana lessons in Montana

will be difficult as there is little time to devote to geography education as a higher importance is

placed on other subject areas. For example, the teacher from School C said, “Time is always an

issue. I wish I had more time to devote to more in-depth geography education. Other subject

areas often have to be prioritized.” Teachers must prioritize subjects that are more frequently

assessed on standardized examinations and do not have excess time to include more geography

education activities in their lesson plans.

The teacher survey design missed an opportunity to capture more useful information to

support the claim that the SGTM of Montana has a positive effect on student knowledge and

attitudes. Specifically, survey questions can be rewritten to capture information on individual

teacher variation in regards to geography education. Did teachers undergo any sort of

professional geography training prior to administering geography lessons using the SGTM of

Montana? Were some teachers better suited to instruct geography lessons over other teachers? In

addition to modified survey questions, in-class observations conducted by the researcher would

provide additional context on classroom experience, teacher involvement, and teacher

preparedness.

Summary: This chapter presented interpretations of the student pre- and post-treatment

assessment word choice and results as well as the teacher survey. Analysis helped to determine

whether or not the SGTM of Montana promoted positive attitudes towards geography and

increased student achievement on the NAEP geography assessment. The final chapter concludes

with a synopsis of large scale issues facing geography education that inhibit significant increases

in geographic literacy.

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations

“Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education. Our requirements

for world leadership, our hopes for economic growth, and the demands of citizenship itself in an

era such as this all require the maximum development of every young American’s capacity. The

human mind is our fundamental resource.” – John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United

States, February 20, 1961.

This chapter addresses some of the shortcomings associated with the SGTM of Montana

and how to address the issues. The SGTM of Montana does have some effect on the attitudes and

map skills of fourth grade students in western Montana. However, variation in assessment results

suggests that the SGTM of Montana did not affect all students in the same way. The SGTM of

Montana alone may not be enough to influence substantial increases in geographic education. A

better understanding of the status of geography education in the state of Montana, the structure of

the NAEP assessments, and the strict Common Core requirements provides insight into issues

that continue to inhibit geographic literacy.

Status of Geography Education in Montana

The Montana Office of Public Instruction published the Montana Standards for Social

Studies in 2000 and includes geography as one component within these standards rather than

offering geography as a standalone discipline. Specifically, geography surfaces in Montana

Content Standard 3 which states that, “Students apply geographic knowledge and skills (e.g.,

location, place, human/environment interactions, movement, and regions)” (OPI 2000). This

standard is an exact replica of the five main themes of geography outlined in Guidelines for

Geographic Education-Elementary and Secondary Schools, which divides the subject of

geography into five main themes: (1) Location; (2) Place; (3) Human/Environment Interaction;

(4) Movement; and (5) Regions (Natoli et al. 1984). The five themes outlined in the Guidelines

“provide teachers with a recognizable conceptual base for organizing the structure of the core of

geography in the schools” (Natoli 1994 p. 5). In Montana, the five themes are grouped together

as one standard which fundamentally obscures the intricate relationships between each of the

five themes. In contrast to the Montana Office of Public Instruction, the NAEP Geography

Framework found value in maintaining distinct geography standards, yet modified the five

themes slightly to create the three content areas covered on their geography examinations.

Despite the fact that the five themes were condensed, the three NAEP content areas still capture

the full essence of geography because they highlight the intricate relationship between people,

the environment, and place.

The structure, or lack thereof, of Montana geography standards is not surprising

considering that both middle and high schools in the state do not require a standalone geography

course. Instead, local districts determine geography education requirements, meaning that there

is no consistency in geography education across the state. For instance, of the four schools

involved in this research project, no districts require geography as a standalone course. Instead,

like most schools in Montana, geography is taught within Content Standard 3 of the Montana

Standards for Social Studies. Thus, while each of the four districts involved claim to teach

geography using Content Standard 3, there is no guarantee that each district uses the same

techniques to teach the content and that each district devotes the same amount of time to

geography education as the rest. If the Montana Office of Public Instruction prioritized

geography as a core subject in Montana, then more infrastructure would be in place to ensure

adequate instruction.

By merging geography with social studies, the Montana Office of Public Instruction

(OPI) supports the idea that geography is not a distinct subject, and this opinion filters into the

minds of teachers and students. The Montana Office of Public Instruction defines social studies

as an, “integrated study of the social sciences and humanities designed to foster citizenship in an

interdependent world,” (OPI 2000). In comparison, the National Geographic Society (NGS)

defines geography as the study of how, “human culture interacts with the natural environment,

and the way that locations and places can have an impact on people,” (National Geographic

2017b). The definition of social studies clearly lacks any reference to space and place. As a

result, there is no way that social studies alone can capture the full essence of social and

humanitarian issues because it disregards the fact that location matters. Gritzner (2002) attempts

to delineate the difference between social studies and geography by suggesting that social studies

operates on a temporal framework (i.e., when) while geography operates on a spatial framework

(i.e., where). By merging geography with social studies, the spatial framework is obscured and

the definition of geography is lost.

It comes as no surprise that students in Montana do not have a clear understanding of

what the subject of geography entails as evidenced in results to assessment questions one and

two. After using the SGTM of Montana, I anticipated that all students would acknowledge that

they did in fact study geography during the school year; however, some students still could not

identify that they did learn geography during that school year. The experience of using the

SGTM of Montana should not be the only time that students studied geography during that

school year, and even under traditional geography teaching methods that follow the Montana

Standards for Social Studies, students were unable to attribute time with the SGTM of Montana

as geography education.

Regional variability in geography course requirements exists, and in contrast to Montana,

Idaho does require geography as a stand-alone course to graduate middle school. Idaho does not

have standalone geography standards to complement their middle school requirement, and

similar to Montana, geography standards are included within social studies standards. However,

the Idaho geography standards contain multiple sub-standards that outline specific content areas

in great detail and parallels recommendations set forth by the Guidelines, which is lacking in the

Montana standards. In the Idaho Content Standards for Social Studies, geography falls under

Standard 2 and is broken down into five goals: (2.1) Analyze the spatial organizations of people,

places, and environment on the earth’s surface; (2.2) Explain how human actions modify the

physical environment and how physical systems affect human activity and living conditions;

(2.3) Trace the migration and settlement of human populations on the earth’s surface; (2.4)

Analyze the human and physical characteristics of different places and regions; and (2.5) Explain

how geography enables people to comprehend the relationships between people, places, and the

environment over time (Idaho Department of Education 2016). This example illustrates the in-

depth measures taken by Idaho to effectively integrate geography into its core curriculum,

something that is lacking in Montana.

In theory, a more comprehensive list of content standards for geography should support a

population of geographically literate students. Unfortunately, data on geographic literacy is not

available on a state-by-state basis. Additional data collection is necessary to prove that

geographic literacy is enhanced through instruction based on standards written with greater

detail.

Issues with the NAEP Geography Assessment

For all Part 2 assessment questions, sample population results followed closely with

NAEP national average results, indicating that students do not miss out on important geography

instruction when taught using the SGTM of Montana. In fact, post-treatment assessment results

for questions six indicate that a higher percentage of students in the sample population received a

complete score over the control group. This observed difference in rates of achievement suggests

that the SGTM of Montana has potential to improve student scores over national average results,

though results from this research do not provide enough evidence to support that claim. The

NAEP Geography Assessment is the main tool utilized by the federal government to assess and

restructure geography education in the United States. However, drawing on learning modality

theories, the methods used to assess student achievement on the NAEP Assessments are multiple

choice and short answer questions and therefore do not cater to all learning styles equally.

Instead, this format favors visual learners who can process written words with ease. As such,

students who favor kinesthetic learning modalities will likely preform worse on these

assessments than their visual learning counterparts. The SGTM of Montana is an effective

resource because it involves kinesthetic learners who are often at a disadvantage when taught

under conventional methods. Assessments should be more dynamic to target kinesthetic learners

instead of focusing mainly on visual learners.

Instructors express concern with creating lessons that engage all learners because they

take a longer time to create, a longer time to implement in the classroom, and active learning

resources are not easily accessible (Rao and DiCarlo 2001). The same can be said about

designing assessments to actively engage all learners. Teachers are reluctant to transition away

from traditional assessments because multiple choice exams significantly simplify the grading

process (McConnell, Steer, and Owens 2003). Since NAEP assesses hundreds of thousands of

students yearly, modifying the assessment to focus less on multiple choice questions is not

realistic, however, there are other changes that NAEP can make to assist curriculum developers

in their goal to develop a population of geographically literate high school graduates. NAEP

assesses students in the following subject areas: the arts, civics, economics, geography,

mathematics, reading, science, technology and engineering literacy, U.S. History, and Writing

(NCES 2017). For each of the 10 subject areas listed, national average results are available to

reference. However, a state-by-state breakdown of assessment results are only available for four

out of the 10 subject areas, including only mathematics, reading, science, and writing. As a

result, it is impossible to determine where Montana stands in relation to national achievement

levels on the NAEP Geography Assessment, and also impossible to determine if the sample

population scored better than the rest of Montana students after learning geography using the

SGTM of Montana. If NAEP Geography Assessment results were available on a state-bystate

basis, then the Montana Office of Public Instruction could better understand how their geography

requirements affect student achievement by comparing this data with states who require

geography as a standalone course supported by highly detailed content standards. In

addition to modifying assessment styles, assessments should also be administered to younger

students to gather data on cognitive development in relation to geographical skills. In

Piaget’s Theory on Cognitive Development, he hypothesized that students cannot begin to think

spatially until reaching the concrete operational stage of development which occurs around age

nine. In public schools, the first geography assessment is administered during fourth grade, when

students are expected to be able to begin thinking spatially based on Piaget’s theory. However,

there is no data available on the geographic literacy of children younger than fourth grade.

Assessing students’ ability to think spatially at earlier ages will provide information to support or

refute Piaget’s claim that geography education should wait until students reach the concreate

operational stage of cognitive development. Lowering the age at which geography assessments

begin also supports the claim made by Gershmel and Gershmel (2006; 2007a; 2007b, 2011) that

geography education should begin at an earlier age.

The Constraints of Common Core

Common Core Standards, first developed in 2009, provide consistent standards across all

states to ensure that all students receive effective instruction within public schools to assure they

can successfully transition into higher education and the workforce (CCSSI 2017). Individual

states can decide whether or not to adopt the Common Core Standards, and those that do choose

to adopt the standards theoretically also decide how to implement the standards (CCSSI 2017).

NAEP assessment frameworks influenced the development of the Common Core Standards so

that the new standards paralleled expectations set forth in the national assessments (CCSSI

2017). In theory, Common Core Standards are beneficial to public education in the United States

because they ensure consistency in content standards across state boundaries so that all students

entering higher education receive adequate equitable preparation.

Surveys conducted between 2013 and 2015 evaluated teachers’ opinions on the new

Common Core Standards and associated tests. Surveys revealed an increase in teacher opposition

to the Common Core Standards and associated tests, from 12% in 2013 to 40% in 2014 to 50%

in 2015 (Henderson, Peterson, and West 2016). Likewise, analysis of Common Core

Standardized Test results for five states revealed that the number of students reaching proficiency

on the new Common Core Standardized Tests saw a decline from the first assessment (Sullivan

2016).

The State of Montana adopted the Common Core Standards for English Language Arts &

Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects in 2011. The largest teachers’

union in Montana, MEA-MFT, openly supports Common Core as an appropriate curriculum to

maintain consistency across state boundaries (Schontzler 2014). However, since

2011, some Montana educators and parents have acted apprehensive towards new requirements.

In fact, concerned citizen Debra Lamm founded Montanans Against Common Core (MACC) in

May 2013 to unite educators and parents as one group to speak out against the implementation of

Common Core in the state; and to support local control over curriculum (MACC 2016). Teachers

who participated in this research project feel incredibly limited in time available to teach

geography lessons in their classroom since there is heightened stress to teach only content

assessed in Common Core Standardized Tests, as indicated in teacher survey responses. Their

concern were underscored when the first district that was invited to participate in this research

rejected the invitation based on concerns that participation would demand or require too much of

a time committment. However, the largest teachers’ union in Montana, MEA-MFT, openly

supports Common Core as an appropriate curriculum to maintain consistency across state

boundaries (Schontzler 2014). While Common Core may continue to persist within the realm of

public education in Montana, ongoing evaluation of teacher perceptions and student achievement

will guide modifications to existing Common Core curricula and provide insight on how to

integrate geography into the new standards.

Suggestions for Future Research

While this research produced data that supports the claim that the SGTM of Montana

promotes positive attitudes towards geography and increases students’ map skills, modifications

to future pedagogical techniques will strengthen this conclusion. I proceed to provide some

suggestions on how to improve and enhance data collection and analysis in regards to evaluating

a geographic education resource such as the SGTM of Montana.

National Geographic created the State Giant Maps Lesson Handbook (2016a) based on

the cognitive ability of third and fourth graders. As such, this thesis evaluated the effect of the

SGTM of Montana on fourth grade students’ attitudes and skills. Drawing on arguments made by

Gershmel and Gershmel (2006; 2007a; 2007b; 2011), researchers should conduct spatial thinking

research projects on younger populations of students to assist in efforts to increase geographic

literacy. This research will stimulate the creation of new curricula to teach spatial thinking skills

to younger children. For example, this kind of research can be referenced to create additional

SGTM lessons for kindergarten through second grade students.

The State Giant Maps Lesson Handbook (2016a) functions as an adaptive curriculum and

there is no specified sequence to complete the six map lessons. This condition made it possible to

only include two of the six lessons in this research. To reiterate, requiring teachers to administer

only two lessons ensured a reasonable time commitment, and completing six lessons would be

cumbersome. Perhaps limiting instruction to two lessons inhibited students from retaining the

newly learned skills, whereas treating the State Giant Maps Lesson Handbook as an adoptive

curriculum and requiring teachers to administer all six lessons may support increased retention of

skills. Likewise, it may be more effective to complete each lesson more than once to guarantee

each student had ample time to process and perceive the new information.

Four teachers from separate schools participated in this project, and while all teachers

specialized in elementary education, variation between teaching styles is unavoidable. As such,

these distinctions can translate into a lack of consistency in lesson administration. If time

allowed, data collection could be limited to one class taught by the same teacher over a time

frame of multiple years. New students would be assessed yearly, while teaching style would

remain consistent over the course of data collection. This method requires a significant time

commitment to assure a large enough data set to run statistical analyses on.

Another limitation to this study is the small sample size of teachers who participated in

this study. Based on survey results, it is clear that these four teachers value geography education;

however, this interest or enthusiasm is not likely for all teachers. Teachers themselves may be

geographically illiterate, especially if they did not receive formal geographic education during

their time as public school students. As such, states should expand professional development

opportunities for teachers to enhance their pedagogical approach to geography education.

The student assessment can be restructured in a way that mimics the ability of lessons taught

using the SGTM of Montana to actively engage students. For instance, instead of assessing

student map skills using a traditional multiple choice format, assessments can occur directly on

the map. In this format, assessment will cater to all learning modalities, thus producing more

inclusive results. The following instruction outlines an example of how the SGTM of Montana

could be used for performance assessment: have students pick one town in the northeast region

of the state and another in the southwest region, then have students measure the distance between

the two locations. This assessment evaluates students’ ability to orient themselves and employs

compass directions as well as their ability to make measurements using a scale bar in a similar

manner to the NAEP student assessment questions 6, 7, and 8. However, an assessment

completed entirely on the SGTM of Montana will ensure that kinesthetic learners have an equal

opportunity to excel as visual learners do on multiple choice assessments. The chi-

squared statistical analysis completed in this research provided clear evidence that the SGTM of

Montana had some effect on student attitudes and map skills; however, the analysis did not

capture the exact component of each question that resulted in the statistically significant change.

For example, results to question two saw a statistically significant change between the pre- and

post-assessments, but visual evaluation of that change reveals change in both the positive and

negative answer choices. A more in-depth statistical analysis such as logistic regressions would

allow for conclusions to be made on exactly which part of each question experienced statistical

significant change.

Lastly, in responding to concerns expressed by teachers, future research must work to

evaluate the effectiveness of Common Core standards. Specifically, research should focus on the

ability of the Common Core standards to promote geographic literacy. Do Common Core

standards effectively incorporate spatial thinking into instruction so that students develop the

skills needed to think critically on issues in our globalized world? If not, are there ways to

restructure Common Core to ensure that spatial thinking topics are not overlooked? With the

current assumption that Common Core will remain in place for many years to come, additional

research is essential to ensuring the curricula encompass the critical components of what it

means to be geographically literate.

Students also viewed