Journal of Geography

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjog20

The Problems of Teaching Geospatial Technology

in Developing Countries: Concepts, Curriculum,
and Implementation in Indonesia

Syahrul Ridha & Puspita Annaba Kamil

To cite this article: Syahrul Ridha & Puspita Annaba Kamil (2021) The Problems of Teaching
Geospatial Technology in Developing Countries: Concepts, Curriculum, and Implementation in
Indonesia, Journal of Geography, 120:2, 72-82, DOI: 10.1080/00221341.2021.1872681

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2021.1872681

Published online: 02 Feb 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 301

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjog20
JOURNAL OF GEOGRAPHY
2021, VOL. 120, NO. 2, 71–81
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2021.1872681

The Problems of Teaching Geospatial Technology in Developing Countries:

Concepts, Curriculum, and Implementation in Indonesia
Syahrul Ridha and Puspita Annaba Kamil
Department of Geography Education, STKIP Al-Washliyah, Banda Aceh, Indonesia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study discusses the application of geospatial technology in learning geography in Indonesia in Teaching geospatial
terms of concepts, curriculum, and implementation. The application of geospatial technology in learn- technology; developing
ing geography in Indonesia has been integrated into the national curriculum. This can be seen from countries; concepts;
curriculum; implementation
the content of components of spatial thinking in the basic competencies of knowledge and basic com-
petencies of skills. However, there are still some obstacles to the implementation of geospatial technol-
ogy, such as the lack of facilities for learning geospatial technology. It is indicated by the absence of
GIS software in computer laboratories. Also, geography teachers are less able to use geospatial technol-
ogy due to a lack of training in the use of geospatial technology. Therefore, the synergy between the
government and schools is needed to enhance the application of geospatial technology by the objec-
tives of the geography curriculum.

Introduction 2015; Hong 2015; Schlemper et al. 2019). Further, geospatial

Geospatial technology has been widely used in geography
education to assist students in increasing their geography
knowledge and skills (Perugini and Bodzin 2020; Jant et al.
2020). Research indicates that students who use geospatial
technology show a significant improvement in geographic
knowledge (Egiebor and Foster 2019; Perugini and Bodzin
2020). For example, the integration of an innovative pro-
gram called the Geospatial Semester (GSS) has been used,
with great effect, to teach high school students geospatial
technology in an effort to improve their geographical skills
and environmental literacy (Kolvoord, Keranen, and
Rittenhouse 2019).
In recent years, in Indonesia, geospatial technology has
become a supporting tool in learning, as geospatial technol-
ogy is one of the skills that must be mastered by students in
the 21st century (Permendikbud RI No. 24 24 2016;
Osborne et al. 2020; Ridha et al. 2020). Geospatial learning
improves students’ geographical knowledge (Jo and Hong
2020); knowledge which is fundamental for understanding
spatial concepts and improving spatial thinking (Gonz
alez
et al. 2020).
In addition to knowledge, geospatial technology allows
for the improvement of geography skills (Chen and Wang
2015; Wang and Chen 2013; DeMers 2016). For example,
the standard geography curriculum in Indonesia expects stu-
dents to be able to create maps. This can be accomplished
through use of geospatial technology, supporting the import-
ance of including it in high school geography classrooms in
Indonesia (Alibrandi and Goldstein 2015; Chen and Wang
technology can be used as a tool for spatial planning, for
example creating a map of disaster areas and planning
coastal disaster prevention areas prone to tsunamis (Harada
and Imamura 2005), which directly relates to Indonesia’s
physical geography challenges (Ismail et al. 2018; Sakurai
et al. 2018).
Geospatial technology includes Geographic Information
Systems (GIS), remote sensing, and Global Positioning
Systems (GPS) (Lee et al. 2018). The use of geospatial tech-
nology is recommended in geography education to develop
teacher pedagogical knowledge and students’ ability to use
technology (Curtis 2019). It can be implemented directly, in
classrooms or computer laboratories.
The National Curriculum was implemented in Indonesia
in 2013, yet achievement of geographic skills is not as
expected (Ridha et al. 2019a). Teachers teach the subject of
geography only by collecting students’ assignments, not by
teaching them the skill of creating maps (required by the
national curriculum guidelines) (Kamil et al. 2020). Further,
geospatial technology that should be represented in geog-
raphy is not used in teaching geography in senior high
school. Since the most recent national curriculum was
implemented in 2013, there have been few studies on geo-
spatial technology learning in Indonesia.
Indonesia’s geography curriculum expects students to
have geography competencies, specifically geography know-
ledge and skills. These skills include the ability to read
maps, (map design and direction); the ability to calculate
distances; and the ability to successfully perform compass

CONTACT Syahrul Ridha syahrul.ridha@washliyahbna.ac.id STKIP Al-Washliyah, Department of Geography Education, Jalan AL-Washliyah No. 1, Lam Ara
Rukoh Banda Aceh, No. 1, Banda Aceh 23001, Indonesia.
ß 2021 National Council for Geographic Education
72 S. RIDHA AND P. A. KAMIL
Table 1. Description of senior high school type in Banda Aceh.
Level Grade
Senior High School 10th Grade
11th Grade
12th Grade
Source: adapted from (Kamil et al. 2020b).
activities (Trussell 1986; Alhosani and Yagoub 2015).
Although the 2013 curriculum is the latest in Indonesia, the
expected skills in the curriculum have not been achieved
(Purwanto, Fatchan, and Soekamto 2015). This research
looks to add to the body of knowledge arguing for the use
of geospatial technology in developing countries to increase
geographic knowledge among students (Chen 2012; Demirci
2011, 2012).
Geography knowledge and skills competency are illus-
trated in students’ ability to describe natural phenomena
through maps, and to make thematic maps, for example
maps of disaster-prone areas in Indonesia. The word "create"
is one of the subcategories of spatial thinking under output
(Jo and Bednarz 2009; Anthamatten 2010; Chu et al. 2016).
The subcategory “create” involves high level reasoning skills,
that can be achieved through greater implementation of geo-
spatial technology in schools (Dunn 2011; Metoyer, Bednarz,
and Bednarz 2015; Scholz et al. 2014).
To facilitate the achievement of basic competence under
Indonesia’s curriculum, a special instructional objective is
formulated according to the content standard specified in
the curriculum (Purwanto 2013). For example, the know-
ledge competence of “explaining the basics of mapping,
remote sensing and GIS” has the additional skill competence
of “students can create thematic maps of provincial areas
from data of earth appearance of Indonesia.” These compe-
tencies are expressed in the scope of learning material within
the geography learning content standards, namely spatial
information in the form of maps, remote sensing imagery,
GIS, and their use in national development (Permendikbud
RI No. 21 21 2016).
The school community is uniquely positioned to
strengthen disaster preparedness capacity, both directly and
indirectly. As a social subsystem that cannot be separated
from the community, schools have the potential to be the
main actors in building community response and prepared-
ness to disasters through education (Kamil et al. 2020b).
This study was carried out in the city of Banda Aceh-
Indonesia because the city has a high level of tsunami disas-
ter vulnerability (Sakurai et al. 2018); the estimated arrival
time of the Indian Ocean tsunami to Banda Aceh City was a
mere 35 minutes (Syamsidik, Rasyif, and Kato 2015). After
the devastation from the Indian Ocean tsunami on
December 26, 2004, it is essential that the people of Banda
Aceh City reduce the risk of a tsunami disaster (Ismail et al.
2018; Oktari et al. 2018). The use of geotechnology in
Indonesian schools can foster geography skills through the
creation of a tsunami-disaster-impact-map that would
enhance efforts to reduce risk while nurturing the ability to
think spatially (Fuhrmann et al. 2008; Kamil et al. 2020a).
The adoption of geospatial technology in geography edu-
cation varies from country to country due to availability of
infrastructure and teacher readiness (Chen and Wang 2015).
Age (years) In Indonesia, geospatial technology has not been utilized
15-16 properly in schools because of limitations related to facilities
16-17
17-18 and infrastructure. This has been the main impediment in
implementing geospatial technology in Indonesia. Because of
this challenge, this research seeks to understand the potential
of geospatial technology to students learning geography at
the high school level in Banda Aceh City-Indonesia. To fully
complete this investigation, we first justified the concept of
geospatial technology as a necessity for learning geography
in high school. Secondly, we evaluated the components of
spatial thinking (concepts of space, tools of representation,
and processes of reasoning) contained in knowledge and
skills competencies in the geography curriculum. Finally, we
explored the implementation of geospatial technology in
learning geography at the high school level to determine
obstacles faced. Thus, this study provides a comprehensive
overview of the progress and potential of implementation of
geospatial technology in geography learning in Indonesian
high schools. This research will inform the government,
schools, and teachers on the importance of geospatial tech-
nology education for the future.
Materials and methods
Study site
This study was conducted in Banda Aceh, which is one city
on the Island of Sumatra hit by the tsunami on December
26, 2004. Table 1 describes the type of school, grade, and
age of students in Banda Aceh.
This study focuses on senior high school students in
Banda Aceh to better understand students’ geography know-
ledge and skills in creating disaster mitigation maps in tsu-
nami inundation areas. The map (Figure 1) shows the
distribution of senior high schools in the area of the 2004
tsunami, which are indicated in the red striped zone
(Sakurai et al. 2018; Kamil et al. 2020b).
National curriculum documents
Data on the geography curriculum was obtained from the
Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture of the
Republic of Indonesia number 24 of 2016 concerning core
competencies and basic competencies in geography lessons
in the 2013 Curriculum in Secondary Education. In
Indonesia, the national curriculum is called the 2013
Curriculum. Documents on the basic competencies of know-
ledge and skills are in grade X, XI, and XII. The competen-
cies were evaluated to investigate inclusion of components
of spatial thinking. The taxonomy of spatial thinking aims
to categorize knowledge competencies and skills that apply
to students’ effective use of geospatial technology. Spatial
thinking involves a combination of building cognitive skills
through the concept of space, the use of tools of representa-
tion and the reasoning process (National Research Council
2006; Jo and Bednarz 2009; Lee and Bednarz 2012).

Figure 1. Location of senior high schools within the 2004 tsunami inundation area in Banda Aceh.
Data collection and analysis
This study used a descriptive qualitative approach. Data
sources in this study include the curriculum document,
teachers, and students of geography. The data was collected
through direct observation and structured interviews.
Interviews were conducted with teachers and students in 17
senior high schools in Banda Aceh-Indonesia. Seventeen
teachers were interviewed, specifically chosen because they
were victims of the 2004 tsunami disaster. Thirty-four senior
students were selected for interviews. Additionally, observa-
tion of curriculum implementation was conducted in 17
senior high schools in Banda Aceh. The observation focused
on the availability of computer laboratories and geospatial
technology, such as GIS software and Google Earth. The
data obtained in this study includes types of learning meth-
ods, student motivation, and obstacles faced by teachers in
implementing geospatial technology in learning geography.
All 17 schools were located less than 6 kilometers from
the coast.
The research instruments included a structured interview
and observation. Questions were formulated openly to
encourage teachers and students to express their experiences
and perceptions freely (Angriani et al. 2018; Ollila and Macy
2019). The questions were oriented to ask for the same
JOURNAL OF GEOGRAPHY 73
information, but in different ways, from teachers and stu-
dents. The observation guide follows a matrix checklist
(Miles and Huberman 1994) allowing for an effective and
efficient observation (Purwanto 2014). The observation cen-
tered on the availability of facilities and infrastructure for
learning geospatial technology. Table 2 shows the questions
used in interviews with teachers and students.
This research uses a content analysis method to analyze
all qualitative data collected, including interviews and geog-
raphy curriculum documents. Descriptive statistics were
applied to further analyze interview responses from teachers
and students. Geography curriculum documents were rated
by transforming the information into codes of knowledge
competencies and skills. Coding serves to identify the com-
ponents of spatial thinking contained in geography curricu-
lum documents. The competency document is identified
based on the sub-category of spatial thinking components by
following these steps:
1. Classifying the concepts into categories: non-spatial,
spatial primitives, simple-spatial, and complex-spatial.
2. Determining if a spatial representation tool was used
(use, nonuse).
3. Classifying the reasoning process from competencies
into process type: inputs, processes, and outputs.
74 S. RIDHA AND P. A. KAMIL
Table 2. List of interview questions.
Teacher
1 Did you previously teach geospatial technology
directly in computer laboratory?
2 How do you use the learning methods?
3 What do you think about facilities and
infrastructure for learning geospatial technology
in your school?
4 Do direct learning using computers increase your
motivation to use geospatial technology?
5 Does your school provide a computer laboratory?
6 Does the computer laboratory in your school have
geospatial technology learning software (GIS
and remote sensing)?
Table 3. Examples of coding of competencies in geography knowledge and skills in national curriculum documents.
Knowledge Competencies (3.2): Analyzing the distribution of flora and fauna in Indonesia and the world based on the characteristics of the ecosystem.
Concepts of space Tools of representation
0 1 2 3 0 1
Complex-Spatial Nonuse
Skills Competencies (4.2): Creating maps of the distribution of flora and fauna in Indonesia and the world attached with pictures of animals and plants endemic.
0 1 2 3 0 1
Complex spatial Use
Source: adapted from (Jo 2007).
As demonstrated by the example in Table 3, coding was
done by marking curriculum documents using the taxonomy
of spatial thinking. Each knowledge and skill competency
was encoded using numbers assigned to each sub-category
of spatial thinking components. For example, concepts of
space have four subcategories, namely: non-spatial (0), prim-
itives (1), simple-spatial (2), complex-spatial (3). Use of tools
of representation has two subcategories, namely: nonuse (0),
use (1). Processes of reasoning have three subcategories,
namely: input (1), processing (2), output (3).
Results and discussion
Concept/justification
Computer-based learning is needed in geography education
because of the significant potential of geospatial technology;
high school students can use geospatial technology to under-
stand and overcome economic, political, and environmental
problems on a local, national and global scale (Metoyer,
Bednarz, and Bednarz 2015).
Google Maps/Google Earth have become more popular
location search tools. A three-dimensional image in Google
Eath can become a tool for objective reasoning, hence its abil-
ity to promote spatial thinking (Patterson 2007). Additionally,
the availability of free and easy-to-use GIS software has made
GIS increasingly popular and used by many parties, including
schools, the government, social institutions, personal compa-
nies, and businesses (Ramdani 2017).
The digital globe is one geospatial technology that has
increasing applications in a geography classroom. Although
Student
Did you get geospatial technology learning directly
in your computer laboratory?
How about the learning of using geospatial
technology? Is it interesting?
Does a direct learning use computer increase your
motivation to learn geospatial technology?
Does learning about geospatial technology improve
your knowledge?
Does your school provide a computer laboratory?
Has the computer laboratory at your school been
used for learning geospatial technology?
Processes of reasoning
1 2 3
Processing
1 2 3
Output
the use of a manual globe has advantages, it is becoming
somewhat obsolete compared to virtual globes such as Google
Earth. For example, by using the Google Earth application,
students can see satellite imagery data in the past few years
allowing them to better understand population density in a
region. There are two benefits of using geospatial technology
in geography learning, namely (1) students have free access to
the technology via the internet, and (2) they can see locations
in different parts of the world on any scale (Collins 2018).
Curriculum evaluation with taxonomy of
spatial thinking
The curriculum referred to here includes basic competencies
in both knowledge and skills. The spatial thinking taxonomy
was used to evaluate spatial concepts/skills within the high
school geography curriculum. Spatial thinking is fundamen-
tal to geography education, especially when using geospatial
technology (Metoyer and Bednarz 2017). The spatial think-
ing taxonomy includes subcategories differntiating levels of
thinking, ranging from low, high, to very high, competencies
are classified based on these same levels. Table 4 shows the
results of evaluating the principal competencies of geography
knowledge and skills using the taxonomy of spatial thinking.
The high school geography curriculum has 18 standard
knowledge competencies and 18 standard skills competen-
cies. Based on the results of the evaluation, some differences
exist between basic competencies of knowledge and skills.
The majority of basic competency skills contain components
of spatial thinking at a very high level, and basic

competencies of knowledge also have substance components
of spatial thinking at a high level. This indicates that the
high school geography curriculum in Indonesia expects stu-
dents to be able to think at a high level to understand geog-
raphy through the application of geospatial technology.
The components of spatial thinking are contained in two
basic competencies—knowledge and skill–as indicated in
Table 4 and Figure 2. In the basic competencies related to
knowledge, the highest incidence of spatial thinking concepts
is simple-spatial, such as connection & linkage, movement,
distance, and region at around 39%; complex-spatial con-
cepts like, distribution, pattern, spatial association, and relief
exist at around 33%. Spatial primitives such as location and
place-specific identity are around 17%. The analysis indi-
cated that the majority of basic knowledge competencies
require a high level of thought to understand geography. In
basic skill competencies, complex-spatial skills such as distri-
bution, overlay, and spatial association have the highest per-
centage at about 50%; and simple-spatial skills, such as
movement, connection & linkage, region, and distance com-
prise around 28%. Furthermore, spatial primitives such as
place-specific identity and location, are around 17%; and
nonspatial concepts are about 6%. Therefore the acquisition
of basic competency skills according to Indonesia’s curricu-
lum would imply strong spatial thinking skills.
Table 4. Spatial thinking in the basic competencies of knowledge and basic
competencies of skills in the geography curriculum.
Competencies
Component of Spatial Thinking Knowledge
Number of Competencies 18
Concepts of space Non-spatial 2 (11%)
Spatial primitives 3 (17%)
Simple-spatial 7 (39%)
Complex-spatial 6 (33%)
Using tools of representation Nonuse 14 (78%)
Use 4 (22%)
Processes of reasoning Input 4 (22%)
Processing 13 (72%)
Output 1 (6%)
Figure 2. Content of concepts of space in basic competencies of geography.
JOURNAL OF GEOGRAPHY 75
To develop students’ ability to think spatially, not only
are the use of spatial concepts required, students are add-
itionally required to visualize space using tools of represen-
tation (Jo and Bednarz 2009; Scholz et al. 2014). Figure 3
shows that basic skills competencies require tools of repre-
sentation, such as maps, diagrams, charts, graphs, and pho-
tographs most of the time (94%). However, in contrast,
when investigating the presence of tools of representation
among basic knowledge competencies, the results differ dra-
matically—only 22% of the curriculum mentions these tools.
To understand geography a representation tool is needed
(Patterson 2007; Wehry et al. 2012). Therefore, knowledge
competence requires more representation tools for more
meaningful learning.
Spatial thinking is a cognitive skill that requires complex
reasoning, reasoning "beyond" the information provided,
through high-level cognitive processes. Complex ’’reasoning’’
is expected in the geography curriculum through principal
competencies of knowledge and skills (Jo and Bednarz
2009). The results show that the majority of basic knowledge
competencies contain high levels of reasoning, namely proc-
essing such as explaining and analyzing at around 72%;
inputs such as collecting and remembering at about 22%,
and outputs, a very high level of reasoning, is only
around 6%.
As shown in Figure 4, the basic competencies of ’output’
level reasoning skills such as, “create” and “plan” have a per-
centage of around 55%; and processing skills, like “analyze”,
and “explain” are about 39%. Finally, input skills such as,
“collect”, and “remember information” are about 6%. Skills
Skills related to geospatial technology are primarly in the output
18 category. The geography curriculum expects students’ basic
1 (6%) competency skills to include making maps, such as maps of
3 (17%)
5 (28%)
a region’s potential disasters. For example, students can cre-
9 (50%) ate thematic maps and land use plans in an area to indicate
1 (6%) high-level cognitive processes (Ridha et al. 2019b). Thus, tre-
17 (94%)
1 (6%)
mendous potential exists for high school students facing tsu-
7(39%) nami disasters in Banda Aceh City to improve their
10 (55%)
76 S. RIDHA AND P. A. KAMIL
Figure 3. The content of using tools of representation in the basic competencies of geography.
Figure 4. The content of processes of reasoning in the basic competencies of geography.
geography skills through the application of
tial technology.
Implementation of geospatial technology in
geography learning
The implementation of geospatial technology in schools
aims to improve geography skills. Geography skills include
the ability to create maps that describe natural phenomena.
Table 5 shows the responses of teachers in implementing
geospatial technology in teaching.
The application of the learning method—geospatial tech-
nology–is constrained due to limited facilities and infrastruc-
ture. Although all schools provide computer laboratories, the
learning facilities for using geospatial technology, such as
GIS software, are not available. Computer laboratories are
not run for geography learning but only used for national
final exams. Therefore, teachers only implement conven-
tional learning methods and PowerPoint in learning geospa-
tial technologies such as GIS and remote sensing. The level
geospa- of implementation of geospatial technology in geography
learning can be clarified in Figure 5 below.
To understand current implementation of geospatial tech-
nology, it is good to compare it to previous use of geospatial
technology. Results indicated that teachers previously only
used power point to introduce geospatial technology, which
was 53% of the total; 41% had never used it, and 6% had
used geospatial technology such as analog maps.
Furthermore 53% of teachers applied demonstration meth-
ods using power points, 35% used conventional methods,
and 12% used project and demonstration methods. This
finding was further supported by the following comment:
We teach GIS and remote sensing only using theory without
using geospatial technology. The learning tools and targets are
not supportive, and our abilities to teach it are also inadequate.
This is a barrier to the implementation of geospatial technology
in Indonesia.
Actualizing the application of geospatial technology in
schools cannot be separated from the need for facilities and
infrastructure: 65% of teachers said facilities and
 JOURNAL OF GEOGRAPHY 77

Table 5. Summary of teacher responses regarding geospatial technology.

Response
Question f %
1 Did you teach geospatial technology directly in the computer laboratory?
a. No/Never 7 41
b. Showing geospatial technology through PowerPoint 9 53
c. Yes, I did 1 6
2 How do you use the learning methods?
a. Conventional 6 35
b. Demonstrating through PowerPoint 9 53
c. Project and demonstration 2 12
3 What do you think about the facilities and infrastructure for learning geospatial technology in your school?
a. Less 11 65
b. Enough 5 29
c. Many 1 6
4 Does a direct learning use computer increase your motivation to use geospatial technology?
a. Low 2 12
b. Medium 10 59
c. High 5 29
5 Does the school provide a computer laboratory?
a. Less 11 65
b. Enough 4 23
c. Many 2 12
6 Does the computer laboratory in your school have geospatial technology learning software (GIS and remote sensing)?
a. Less 10 59
b. Enough 5 29
c. Many 2 12
f: Frequency of question.
%: Percentage of answer.

infrastructure for geospatial technology were still lacking,

29% of teachers indicated sufficient facilities, and 6% indi-
cated many facilities. The facilities and infrastructure
referred to here are the availability of computers in schools
that can be used for geography learning:
There is a computer laboratory in this school, but no teachers
are using geospatial technology for learning geography subjects
because there are no teachers who can use geospatial technology
such as GIS. Also, GIS software is not available on the
computer. The laboratory is used for examinations and IT
subjects, but it is not used for learning geography

Finally, teachers have views about the importance of geo-

spatial technology in understanding geography: 59% of
teachers have moderate motivation to include the technol-
ogy, 12% are low, and 29% have high motivation to use geo-
spatial technology.
The availability of computer laboratories is key in the
application of geospatial technology in schools: 65% of
teachers consider computer laboratories in schools to be
lacking, 23% say it is sufficient, and 12% indicate many lab-
oratories. As with the procurement of computer laboratories,
the majority of software usage is still lacking as indicated in
Figure 5. The software used is in the form of a virtual globe
such as Google Earth, and digital maps such as Google
Maps, while GIS software is not available:
The methods of learning GIS and remote sensing that we often
use are lecturing in front of the class and making a note of the
theory on the board. Students are assigned to write the theory.
Then it is explained without using adequate media. We want to
learn GIS directly by practicing, but we have no facilities to
study, and schools do not facilitate it. GIS material should be
practiced so that students can understand well.
These are all problems that must be resolved wisely; all
parties must work together–government, principals, and
Figure 5. Teachers’ responses to the application of geospatial technology
in schools.
teachers–to apply geospatial technology so that curriculum
goals can be achieved. Table 6 shows students’ responses
regarding the implementation of geospatial technology
in learning.
The results indicate that learning of geospatial technology
and spatial thinking has been primarily carried out through
PowerPoint without use of a computer laboratory. As a
result, the learning process becomes unattractive. The use
traditional learning methods, such as a powerpoint lecture,
doesn’t adhere to the expected skill competence, namely
learning to use geospatial technology in a computer labora-
tory, which helps students to create maps. However, direct
learning using a computer can increase student motivation
to learn geospatial technology. Student responses showed to
the level of implementation of geospatial technology in geog-
raphy learning can be clarified in Figure 6 below.
78 S. RIDHA AND P. A. KAMIL

Table 6. Summary of students’ responses regarding geospatial technology.

Response
Question f %
1 Did you get geospatial technology learning directly in your computer laboratory?
a. No/Never 13 38
b. Showing geospatial technology through PowerPoint 19 56
c. Yes, I did 2 6
2 How about the learning of using geospatial technology? Is it interesting?
a. No, it is not 11 32
b. Less 19 56
c. Yes, it is 4 12
3 Does direct learning using computer increase your motivation to learn geospatial technology?
a. No, it does not 9 26
b. Less 23 68
c. Yes, it does 2 6
4 Does learning about geospatial technology improve your knowledge?
a. No, it does not 2 6
b. Less 25 74
c. Yes, it does 7 20
5 Does your school provide a computer laboratory?
a. No, it does not 2 6
b. Availablebutlimited 28 82
c. Yes, it does 4 12
6 Has the computer laboratory at your school been used for learning geospatial technology?
a. No/Never 18 53
b. Yes, it has but conventionally 12 35
c. Yes, using geospatial technology 4 12
f: Frequency of question.
%: Percentage of answer.

Figure 6. Student responses regarding the application of geospatial technology in schools.

Students were asked about their familiarity with geospatial
technology: 56% indicated it was only through teacher presen-
tations using PowerPoint, 38% have never been exposed, and
only 6% have used it. 56% of students find the technology
attractive, while 32% of students said it was unattractive, and
only 12% said it was interesting. Possibly because availability
of computer laboratories and geospatial technology software
is lacking, students demonstrate low motivation levels: only
6% were motivated to use it, but those students recognized its
specific importance to their region:
In this sophisticated era, it is time for us to learn further from
curriculum expectations. We must be able to reduce the risk of
disasters, especially tsunami disasters that may occur in the
future. To do that, we must learn to use geospatial technology,
both formal and informal.
When asked about geography knowledge, only 20% of
students indicated an increase. As was indicated by the
results of the teacher survey, students reported lack of avail-
ability of computer laboratories: 82% said it was not avail-
able. As mentioned earlier, computer laboratories in schools
are typically only used for the preparation of national final
exams. This is a concern because curriculum goals cannot
be achieved optimally. Furthermore, students in the city of
Banda Aceh should have a higher ability to use geospatial

technology to deal with disasters. Much opportunity exists
for greater implementation of geoospatial technology in
Indonesian high schools.
Discussion
As stated earlier in the paper, the goal of the research is to
better inform a wide audience of stakeholders of the status
of geospatial technology within Indonesian high schools. It
is hoped that this research can also shed insight on possible
recommendations for other developing countries that seek
greater implementation of geospatial technologies within
their K-12 schools.
The results indicate a mismatch between curriculum,
motivation, and availability of GIS software and support.
The results indicate that the computer technology and infra-
structure is widely available, but not for GIS software or GIS
instruction. Because geospatial technology exists in the cur-
rent curriculum, teachers resort to conventional methods to
teach the technology, which merely exposes students to its
potential rather than providing them with experience using
this powerful tool. Teachers are meeting knowledge compe-
tencies with these methods, but students are lacking in skills
competencies.
Further, the results indicate that even with conventional
instruction methdos, students understand the powerful
applications of geospatial technology. They know they can
solve environmental problems using GPS, remote sensing,
and GIS. The curriculum expects senior high school students
to be able to use GIS with remote sensing to make thematic
maps (Permendikbud RI No. 21 21 2016). For example, stu-
dents understand the concept of risk potential, and use that
knowledge to construct thematic maps of potential disasters
in an area. The potential applications of the technology
motivate students to want to learn it.
Following up this research, to support strong integration
and application of geospatial technology, professional devel-
opment leaders and other stakeholders need specific infor-
mation about the type of support teachers need to become
confident and competent users of geospatial technology
(Hong 2015; Hong and Melville 2018).
Further, as sustainability education initiatives become
more preavalent, the opportunities for education initiatives
around disaster preparedness abound. Curricular reform,
institutional innovations, and experience can be used to help
design curricula that train students in seeing and utilizing
post-disaster opportunities for change toward sustainability
(Brundiers 2018). Geospatial technology learning design is
one critical aspect needed for disaster preparedness.
Conclusion
The application of geospatial technology in schools, particu-
larly in developing countries, faces significant obstacles.
These include the absence of GIS software in computer labo-
ratories and lack of training for geography teachers in GIS
software. Because the technology is taught conventionally
through the use of presentation software, students are not as
JOURNAL OF GEOGRAPHY 79
engaged. Therefore, the authors recommend that teachers be
provided greater training in use of the software; software
that can be installed in existing computer laboratories. With
training and the appropriate digital infrastructure, teachers
can design new learning that is active, innovative, effective,
fun, while also students to think at a higher level. With these
simple recommendations, the curriculum goals around both
knowledge and skills can b and have the capability to use
geospatial technology. Thus, curriculum goals will be real-
ized optimally.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
The author would like to thank the LPDP Ministry of Finance of the
Republic of Indonesia for providing BUDI-DN scholarships to
Syahrul Ridha.
References
Alhosani, N. M. D., and M. M. Yagoub. 2015. Geographic skills: A case
study of students in the United Arab Emirates. International
Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 24 (1):
95–102. doi: 10.1080/10382046.2014.967513.
Alibrandi, M., and D. Goldstein. 2015. Integrating GIS and other geo-
spatial technologies in middle schools. In Geospatial technologies and
geography education in a changing world: Geospatial practices and
lessons learned, eds. Osvaldo Mu~ niz Solari, Ali Demirci, and Joop
Schee, 53–65. Tokyo: Springer Japan. doi: 10.1007/978-4-431-55519-
3_5.
Angriani, P., Sumarmi, I. N. Ruja, and S. Bachri. 2018. River manage-
ment: The importance of the roles of the public sector and commu-
nity in river preservation in Banjarmasin (A case study of the Kuin
River, Banjarmasin, South Kalimantan – Indonesia). Sustainable
Cities and Society 43 (November):11–20. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2018.08.
004.
Anthamatten, P. 2010. Spatial thinking concepts in early grade-level
geography standards. Journal of Geography 109 (5):169–80. doi: 10.
1080/00221341.2010.498898.
Brundiers, K. 2018. Educating for post-disaster sustainability efforts.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 (March):406–14.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.11.002.
Chen, C. M. 2012. Taiwan: The seed of GIS falls onto good ground. In
International perspectives on teaching and learning with GIS in sec-
ondary schools, eds. Andrew J. Milson, Ali Demirci, and Joseph J.
Kerski, 263–70. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978-
94-007-2120-3_29.
Chen, C. M., and Y. H. Wang. 2015. Geospatial education in high
schools: Curriculums, methodologies, and practices. In Geospatial
technologies and geography education in a changing world: Geospatial
practices and lessons learned, eds. Osvaldo Mu~ niz Solari, Ali
Demirci, and Joop Schee, 67–76. Tokyo: Springer Japan. doi: 10.
1007/978-4-431-55519-3_6.
Chu, G., J. Choi, C. S. Hwang, D. Andersen, K. H. Keller, M.
Robinson, and K. Swanson. 2016. Teaching spatial thinking with the
national atlas of Korea: A valuable resource for advanced placement
human geography. The Geography Teacher 13 (4):166–78. doi: 10.
1080/19338341.2016.1210529.
Collins, L. 2018. The impact of paper versus digital map technology on
students’ spatial thinking skill acquisition. Journal of Geography 117
(4):137–52. doi: 10.1080/00221341.2017.1374990.
80 S. RIDHA AND P. A. KAMIL
Curtis, M. D. 2019. Professional technologies in schools: The Role of
pedagogical knowledge in teaching with geospatial technologies.
Journal of Geography 118 (3):130–42. January,. doi: 10.1080/
00221341.2018.1544267.
DeMers, M. N. 2016. Geospatial technology in geography education.
The Geography Teacher 13 (1):23–5. doi: 10.1080/19338341.2016.
1151722.
Demirci, A. 2011. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) at
schools without a computer laboratory. Journal of Geography 110
(2):49–59. doi: 10.1080/00221341.2011.532563.
Demirci, A. 2012. Turkey: GIS for teachers and the advancement of
GIS in geography education. In International perspectives on teaching
and learning with GIS in secondary schools, eds. Andrew J. Milson,
Ali Demirci, and Joseph J. Kerski, 271–81. Dordrecht: Springer
Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-2120-3_30.
Dunn, J. M. 2011. Location knowledge: Assessment, spatial thinking,
and new national geography standards. Journal of Geography 110
(2):81–9. doi: 10.1080/00221341.2010.511243.
Egiebor, E. E., and E. J. Foster. 2019. Students’ perceptions of their
engagement using GIS-story maps. Journal of Geography 118 (2):
51–65. doi: 10.1080/00221341.2018.1515975.
Fuhrmann, S., L. D. Stone, M. C. Casey, M. D. Curtis, A. L. Doyle,
B. D. Earle, D. D. Jones, P. Rodriguez, and S. M. Schermerhorn.
2008. Teaching disaster preparedness in geographic education.
Journal of Geography 107 (3):112–20. doi: 10.1080/
00221340802458482.
Gonz
alez, A., C. Bonnin, E. O’Mahony, N. N. Hong, and T. N. T.
Minh. 2020. Challenges and prospects of integrating gis education in
development studies in a global south context. Journal of Geography,
October 1–11. doi: 10.1080/00221341.2020.1825773.
Gonz
alez, R. D., Miguel, and M. L. D. L. Torres. 2020. WebGIS imple-
mentation and effectiveness in secondary education using the digital
atlas for schools. Journal of Geography 119 (2):74–85. doi: 10.1080/
00221341.2020.1726991.
Harada, K., and F. Imamura. 2005. Effects of coastal forest on tsunami
hazard mitigation — A preliminary investigation. In Tsunamis: Case
studies and recent developments, eds. Kenji Satake, 279–92.
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-3331-1_17.
Hong, J. E. 2015. Teaching GIS and other geospatial technologies to in-
service teachers. In Geospatial technologies and geography education
in a changing world: Geospatial practices and lessons learned, eds.
Osvaldo Mu~ niz Solari, Ali Demirci, and Joop Schee, 117–26. Tokyo:
Springer Japan. doi: 10.1007/978-4-431-55519-3_10.
Hong, J. E., and A. Melville. 2018. Training social studies teachers to
develop inquiry-based GIS lessons. Journal of Geography 117 (6):
229–16. October,. doi: 10.1080/00221341.2017.1371205.
Ismail, N., K. Okazaki, C. Ochiai, and G. Fernandez. 2018. Livelihood
changes in Banda Aceh, Indonesia after the 2004 Indian Ocean
Tsunami. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 28 (June):
439–49. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.003.
Jant, E. A., D. H. Uttal, R. Kolvoord, K. James, and C. Msall. 2020.
Defining and measuring the influences of GIS-based instruction on
students’ STEM-relevant reasoning. Journal of Geography 119 (1):
22–31. doi: 10.1080/00221341.2019.1676819.
Jo, I. 2007. Aspects of spatial thinking in geography textbook questions.
Thesis., Texas: Texas A&M University.
Jo, I., and S. W. Bednarz. 2009. Evaluating geography textbook ques-
tions from a spatial perspective: Using concepts of space, tools of
representation, and cognitive processes to evaluate spatiality. Journal
of Geography 108 (1):4–13. doi: 10.1080/00221340902758401.
Jo, I., and J. E. Hong. 2020. Effect of learning GIS on spatial concept
understanding. Journal of Geography 119 (3):87–97. doi: 10.1080/
00221341.2020.1745870.
Kamil, P. A., Putri, E. S. Ridha, S. Utaya, Sumarmi, and D. H. Utomo.
2020. Promoting environmental literacy through a green project: A
case study at Adiwiyata School in Banda Aceh City. IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science 485 (June):012035. doi: 10.
1088/1755-1315/485/1/012035.
Kamil, P. A., Utaya, S. Sumarmi, and D. H. Utomo. 2020a. Strengthen
disaster preparedness for effective response on young people
through geography education: A case study at school in the tsunami
affected area of Banda Aceh City, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series:
Earth and Environmental Science 412 (January):012016. doi: 10.1088/
1755-1315/412/1/012016.
Kamil, P. A., Utaya, S. Sumarmi, and D. H. Utomo. 2020b. Improving
disaster knowledge within high school students through geographic
literacy. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 43
(February):101411. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101411.
Kolvoord, B., K. Keranen, and S. Rittenhouse. 2019. The geospatial
semester: Concurrent enrollment in geospatial technologies. Journal
of Geography 118 (1):3–10. doi: 10.1080/00221341.2018.1483961.
Lee, J., I. Jo, X. Xuan, and W. Zhou. 2018. Geography preservice teach-
ers’ disposition toward teaching spatial thinking through geography:
A comparison between China and Korea. International Research in
Geographical and Environmental Education 27 (2):135–48. doi: 10.
1080/10382046.2017.1320898.
Lee, J., and R. S. Bednarz. 2012. Components of spatial thinking:
Evidence from a spatial thinking ability test. Journal of Geography
111 (1):15–26. doi: 10.1080/00221341.2011.583262.
Metoyer, S. K., S. W. Bednarz, and R. S. Bednarz. 2015. Spatial thinking
in education: Concepts, development, and assessment. In Geospatial
technologies and geography education in a changing world: Geospatial
practices and lessons learned, eds. Osvaldo Mu~ niz Solari, Ali
Demirci, and Joop Schee, 21–33. Tokyo: Springer Japan. doi: 10.
1007/978-4-431-55519-3_3.
Metoyer, S. K., and R. S. Bednarz. 2017. Spatial thinking assists geo-
graphic thinking: Evidence from a study exploring the effects of geo-
spatial technology. Journal of Geography 116 (1):20–33. doi: 10.1080/
00221341.2016.1175495.
Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An
expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
National Research Council. 2006., ed. Learning to think spatially.
Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.
Oktari, R. S., Shiwaku, K. K. Munadi, Syamsidik, and R. Shaw. 2018.
Enhancing community resilience towards disaster: The contributing
factors of school-community collaborative network in the Tsunami
affected area in aceh. International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction 29 (August):3–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.07.009.
Ollila, J., and M. Macy. 2019. Social studies curriculum integration in
elementary classrooms: A case study on a Pennsylvania Rural
School. The Journal of Social Studies Research 43 (1):33–45. doi: 10.
1016/j.jssr.2018.02.001.
Osborne, Z. M., S. L. van de Gevel, M. A. Eck, and M. Sugg. 2020. An
assessment of geospatial technology integration in K–12 education.
Journal of Geography 119 (1):12–21. doi: 10.1080/00221341.2019.
1640271.
Patterson, T. C. 2007. Google Earth as a (Not Just) geography educa-
tion tool. Journal of Geography 106 (4):145–52. doi: 10.1080/
00221340701678032.
Permendikbud RI No. 21. 2016. Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Dan
KebudayaanTentang Standar Isi Pendidikan Dasar Dan Menengah.
Menteri Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia. Jakarta,
Indonesia.
Permendikbud RI No. 24. 2016. Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Dan
Kebudayaan Tentang Kompetensi Inti Dan Kompetensi Dasar
Pelajaran Pada Kurikulum 2013 Pada Pendidikan Dasar Dan
Pendidikan Menengah. Menteri Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan
Republik Indonesia. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Perugini, S., and A. M. Bodzin. 2020. Using web-based GIS to assess
students’ geospatial knowledge of hurricanes and spatial habits of
mind. Journal of Geography 119 (2):63–73. doi: 10.1080/00221341.
2019.1710764.
Purwanto, E. 2013. Strategi Pembelajaran Bidang Studi Geografi.
Malang: UM Press.
Purwanto, E. 2014. Evaluasi Proses Dan Hasil Dalam Pembelajaran
Aplikasi Dalam Bidang Studi Geografi. Yogyakarta: Ombak.
Purwanto, E., A. Fatchan, and P. H. Soekamto. 2015. Development of
geography text books used by senior high school teachers case study
at East Java-Indonesia. Journal of Education and Learning 5 (1):
60–7. doi: 10.5539/jel.v5n1p60.

Ramdani, F. 2017. Pengantar Ilmu Geoinformatika. Malang: UB Press.
Ridha, S., E. Putri, P. A. Kamil, S. Utaya, S. Bachri, and B. Handoyo.
2020. The importance of designing GIS learning material based on
spatial thinking. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental
Science 485 (June):012027. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/485/1/012027.
Ridha, S., S. Utaya, S. Bachri, and B. Handoyo. 2019a. Students’ geo-
graphic skills in Indonesia: Evaluating GIS learning material ques-
tions using taxonomy of spatial thinking. Journal of Social Studies
Education Research 10 (4):266–87.
Ridha, S., S. Utaya, S. Bachri, and B. Handoyo. 2019b. Evaluating disas-
ter instructional material questions in geography textbook: Using
taxonomy of spatial thinking to support disaster preparedness. IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 273 (July):
012035. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/273/1/012035.
Sakurai, A., Bisri, M. B. F. T. Oda, R. S. Oktari, Y. Murayama,
Nizammudin, and M. Affan. 2018. Exploring minimum essentials
for sustainable school disaster preparedness: A case of elementary
schools in Banda Aceh City, Indonesia. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction 29 (August):73–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.
08.005.
Schlemper, M. B., B. Athreya, K. Czajkowski, V. C. Stewart, and S.
Shetty. 2019. Teaching spatial thinking and geospatial technologies
JOURNAL OF GEOGRAPHY 81
through citizen mapping and problem-based inquiry in grades 7-12.
Journal of Geography 118 (1):21–34. doi: 10.1080/00221341.2018.
1501083.
Scholz, M. A., N. T. Huynh, C. P. Brysch, and R. W. Scholz. 2014. An
evaluation of university world geography textbook questions for
components of spatial thinking. Journal of Geography 113 (5):
208–19. doi: 10.1080/00221341.2013.872692.
Syamsidik, T. M., Rasyif, and S. Kato. 2015. Development of accurate
Tsunami estimated times of arrival for tsunami-prone cities in Aceh,
Indonesia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14
(December):403–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.09.006.
Trussell, M. E. 1986. Teaching basic geographical skills: Map and com-
pass activities. Journal of Geography 85 (4):169–73. doi: 10.1080/
00221348608979414.
Wang, Y. H., and C. M. Chen. 2013. GIS education in Taiwanese
senior high schools: A national survey among geography teachers.
Journal of Geography 112 (2):75–84. doi: 10.1080/00221341.2011.
637227.
Wehry, S., H. Monroe-Ossi, S. Cobb, and C. Fountain. 2012. Concept
mapping strategies: Content, tools and assessment for human geog-
raphy. Journal of Geography 111 (3):83–92. doi: 10.1080/00221341.
2011.604094.