Small-Group Work and Relational Thinking in Geographical Mysteries

Abstract

Relational thinking is a necessary skill for building students’ individual capabilities and a core concept in geography education. Geographical relational thinking refers to being able to give interrelated, causal explanations for geographical phenomena such as regional change. The aim of this study was to gain more insight into differences in relational thinking between small groups of students working together on an assignment to explain a regional event which was framed as a geographical mystery. This insight could help teachers to advance students’ geographical relational thinking skills. Two geographical mysteries were examined with data from 69 small groups in Dutch upper secondary education. The two mysteries resulted in differences in the level of relational thinking, which were partly explained by small-groups’ on-task behaviour. Many student groups showed a low level of geographical relational thinking. Findings point to the need to incorporate exercises into geography lessons which require the use of thinking and reasoning with interrelated causal relationships.

Keywords

• Relational thinking,mystery,small-group work,geography education,secondary education

References

1. Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669–678. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050
2. Assaraf, O. B.-Z., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 518–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20061
3. Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403-436. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_2
4. Biggs, J.B., & Collis, K.F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York: Academic Press.
5. Brown, H. (2018). Infrastructural ecology as a planning paradigm: Two case studies. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 13(2), 187-196. https://doi.org/ 10.2495/SDP-V13-N2-187-196
6. Chee, Y.S. (2010). Studying learners and assessing learning: A process-relational perspective on the learning sciences. Educational Technology, 50(5), 5-9.
7. Cox, M., Elen, J. & Steegen, A. (2017). Systems thinking in geography: Can high school students do it? International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education. https://doi:.org/10.1080/10382046.2017.1386413
8. Cox, M., Steegen, A. & Elen, J. (2018). Using causal diagrams to foster systems thinking in geography education. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 9(1), 34-48.

9. DeVane, B, Durga, S & Squire, K. (2010). Economists who think like ecologists’: Reframing systems thinking in games for learning. E–Learning and Digital Media 7(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2010.7.1.3
10. Favier, T.T. & Van der Schee, J.A. (2014). The effects of geography lessons with geospatial technologies on the development of high school students’ relational thinking. Computers and Education, 76, 225-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.004
11. Fögele, J. (2017). Acquiring powerful thinking through geographical key concept. In C. Brooks, G. Butt & M. Fargher (Eds.), The power of geographical thinking (59-73). Springer: Cham, Switzerland.
12. Goos, M., Galbraith, P. & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics 49(2), 193–223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016209010120
13. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Eberbach, C., & Sinha, S. (2017). Systems learning with a conceptual representation: A quasi-experimental study. Instructional Science, 45(1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9392-y
14. International Geographical Union. (2016). International charter on geographical education. Retrieved from http://www.igu-cge.org/Charters-pdf/2016/IGUç2016çdef.pdf
15. Jackson, P. (2006). Thinking geographically. Geography, 91(3), 199-204.
16. Kali, Y., Orion, N., & Eylon, B. S. (2003). Effect of knowledge integration activities on students’ perception of the earth’s crust as a cyclic system. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 545–565. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10096
17. Karkdijk, J., Van der Schee, J.A. & Admiraal, W.F. (2013). Effects of teaching with mysteries on students’ geographical thinking skills. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 22(3), 183-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2013.817664.
18. Karkdijk, J., Van der Schee, J.A. & Admiraal, W.F. (2019). Students' geographical relational thinking when solving mysteries. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 28(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2018.1426304
19. Lambert, D. (2004). The power of geography [pdf]. Retrieved from http://www.geography.org.uk/download/NPOGPower.doc
20. Lambert. L, Solem, M & Tani, S. (2015) Achieving Human Potential Through Geography Education: A Capabilities Approach to Curriculum Making in Schools. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105(4), 723-735. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2015.1022128
21. Leat, D. (2001). Thinking through geography (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Chris Kington Publishing.
22. Leat, D., & Nichols, A. (2000). Brains on the table: Diagnostic and formative assessment through observation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 7(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/713613327
23. Leat, D., & Nichols, A. (2003). Mysteries make you think. Sheffield: Geographical Association.
24. Lezak, S.B. & Thibodeaux, P.H. (2016). Systems thinking and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 143-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.005.
25. Massey, D. (2014). Taking on the world. Geography 99(1), 36-39.
26. Maude, A. (2017). Applying the concept of powerful knowledge to school geography. In C. Brooks, G. Butt & M. Fargher (Eds.), The power of geographical thinking (27-40). Springer: Cham, Switzerland.
27. McClure, J., Sonak, B., Suen, H.K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475-492. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199904)36:4<475::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-O
28. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. & Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1) 95-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192990250107
29. Mortimer, E.F. & Scott, P.H. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms. Maidenhead/Philadelphia: Open University Press.
30. Novak J.D. & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31. Perkins, D.N. & Grotzer, T.A. (2001). Models and moves: The role of causal and epistemic complexity in students’ understanding of science. Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.126.5075
32. Renshaw, S., & Wood, P. (2011). Holistic understanding in geography education (HUGE) – An alternative approach to curriculum development and learning at Key Stage 3. The Curriculum Journal, 22(3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2011.601656.
33. Richland, L. E., & Simms, N. (2015). Analogy, higher order thinking, and education. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/ wcs.1336
34. Ruiz-Primo, M.A., & Shavelson, R.J., Li, M., & Schultz, S.E. (2001). On the validity of cognitive interpretations of scores from alternative concept-mapping techniques. Educational Assessment, 7(2), 99-141. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326977EA0702_2.
35. Rye, J.A. & Rubba, P.A. (2002). Scoring concept maps: An expert map-based scheme weighted for relationships. School Science and Mathematics, 102(1), 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18194.x.
36. Srinivasan, M., McElvany, M., Shay, J.M., Shavelson, R.J., & West, D.C. (2008). Measuring knowledge structure: Reliability of concept mapping assessment in medical education. Academic Medicine, 83(12), 1196-1203. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31818c6e84
37. Smith, J. (2015). Geographies of interdependence. Geography, 100(1), 12-19.
38. Stimpson, P. (1992). Assessment in geography: An evaluation of the SOLO taxonomy. In H. Schrettenbrunner & J. Van Westrhenen (Eds.), Empirical research and geography teaching (pp. 157-177). Utrecht; Amsterdam: Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap; Centrum voor Educatieve Geografie Vrije Universiteit.
39. Turns, J., Atman, C. J. & Adams, R. (2000). Concept maps for engineering education: A cognitively motivated tool supporting varied assessment functions. IEEE Transactions on Education, 43(2), 164-173. https://doi.org/10.1109/13.848069
40. Uhlenwinkel, A. (2013). Spatial thinking or thinking geographically? On the importance ofavoiding maps without meaning. In T. Jekel et al. (Eds.), GI_Forum 2013. Creating the GISociety (294–305). Berlin: Wichmann.
41. Uhlenwinkel, A. (2017). Geographical Thinking: Is it a Limitation or Powerful Thinking? In C. Brooks, G. Butt & M. Fargher (Eds.), The power of geographical thinking (41-53). Springer: Cham, Switzerland.
42. Van Boxtel, C., Van der Linden, J., Roelofs, E., & Erkens, G. (2002). Collaborative concept mapping: provoking and supporting meaningful discourse. Theory Into Practice, 41(1), 40-46. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4101_7
43. Van der Schee, J.A. (2000). Helping Children to analyse a changing world: Looking for patterns and relationships in space. In: Robertson & Gerber,R. (eds.), The Childs’ world. Triggers for learning (214-231). Melbourne: Acer Press,.
44. Van der Schee, J.A., Trimp, H., Beneker, T. & Favier, T.T. (2015). Digital geography educaton in the twenty-first century: Needs and opportunities. In O. M. Solari, A. Demirci & J. van der Schee (Eds.), Geospatial technologies and geography education in a changing world - Geospatial practices and lessons learned (11-20). Japan: Springer.