Keywords
geoinformation technologies
age-related characteristics
basic school
cognitive development
adolescence
How to Cite
Abstract
Abstract. The article substantiates the psychological and pedagogical characteristics of basic school students that determine the specificity and psychological favorability of this age period for the formation of STEM competencies through geoinformation technologies (GIT). It is emphasized that this is a theoretically substantiated assumption requiring further empirical verification rather than a strictly established sensitive period in the clinical sense of the term.
Based on theoretical analysis, it is identified that students’ readiness for GIT-mediated activities is determined by three interrelated factors: the development of cognitive ability to work with spatial abstractions, the need for social interaction with peers, and the increasing significance of autonomy and independence.
The author’s original contribution is the differentiation of requirements for GIT-mediated educational activities according to the cycles of basic school: the adaptation cycle (grades 5–6) and the cycle of basic subject learning (grades 7–9). This differentiation was obtained through the synthesis of the age-related progression of the American educational framework NGSS (Next Generation Science Standards) with the author’s three-stage model of GIT implementation in the educational process; this differentiation is a result of theoretical synthesis rather than an empirically established regularity.
It is substantiated that within the adaptation cycle, appropriate activities include the interpretation of ready-made maps and data layers, performing tasks according to instructions, and working with concretely represented spatial objects. Within the cycle of basic subject learning, independently formulating geospatial research tasks, operating with abstract spatial concepts, and combining multiple data sources to obtain new results become progressively more accessible.
It is shown that the cognitive and socio-communicative components of students’ development converge within the same age range, providing theoretical grounds for considering basic school as a psychologically favorable period for the systematic formation of STEM competencies through GIT in team-based project activities. Further research should focus on the empirical verification of the proposed age differentiation within a pedagogical experiment.
References
Бех, І. Д. (2015). Вибрані наукові праці. Виховання особистості (т. 1). Букрек.
Гриньова, М. В. (2024). Виховання лідерських якостей учнів основної школи у процесі е-партисипативного проєктування (Дисертація доктора філософії). КЗВО «Одеська академія неперервної освіти Одеської обласної ради». https://static.klasnaocinka.com.ua/uploads/editor/9324/732394/sitepage_692/files/disertaciya_vihovannya_liderskih_yakostey_uchniv_osnovnoi_shkoli_u_procesi_e_partisipativnogo_proektuvannya_grinova_m__v.pdf
Мандруляк, Л., & Муковіз, О. (2025, 24 жовтня). Модернізація освітнього процесу базової школи засобами геоінформаційних технологій. У Педагогічна освіта: традиції, реалії, перспективи (Збірник матеріалів Всеукраїнської науково-практичної інтернет-конференції). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17623999
Arikan, S., Erktin, E., & Pesen, M. (2022). Development and validation of a STEM competencies assessment framework. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10132-3
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the construction of formal operational structures (A. Parsons & S. Milgram, Trans.). Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.1037/10034-000
Krammer, I., Schrank, B., Pollak, I., Stiehl, K. A. M., Nater, U. M., & Woodcock, K. A. (2023). Early adolescents' perspectives on factors that facilitate and hinder friendship development with peers at the time of school transition. Journal of School Psychology, (98), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2023.03.001
Mathews, A. J., DeChano-Cook, L. M., & Bloom, C. (2023). Enhancing middle school learning about geography and topographic maps using hands-on play and geospatial technologies. Journal of Geography, 122(5), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2023.2226156
National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially: GIS as a support system in the K-12 curriculum. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11019
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18290
Peterson, E. G., Weinberger, A. B., Uttal, D. H., Kolvoord, B., & Green, A. E. (2020). Spatial activity participation in childhood and adolescence: Consistency and relations to spatial thinking in adolescence. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, (5), art. 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00239-0
Portillo-Blanco, A., Deprez, H., De Cock, M., Guisasola, J., & Zuza, K. (2024). A systematic literature review of integrated STEM education: Uncovering consensus and diversity in principles and characteristics. Education Sciences, 14(9), 1028. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091028
Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (1981). Towards a science of science teaching: Cognitive development and curriculum demand. Heinemann Educational Books.
Taber, K. S. (2025). Developing intellectual sophistication and scientific thinking—The schemes of William G. Perry and Deanna Kuhn. In B. Akpan & T. Kennedy (Eds.). Science education in theory and practice: An introductory guide to learning theory (2nd ed., pp. 215–231). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-81351-1_13
Tang, K.-S., McLure, F., Williams, J., & Donnelly, C. (2024). Investigating the role of self-selected STEM projects in fostering student autonomy and self-directed learning. The Australian Educational Researcher, 51(5), 2355–2379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-024-00696-2
Arikan, S., Erktin, E., & Pesen, M. (2022). Development and validation of a STEM competencies assessment framework. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10132-3 (in English).
Bekh, I. D. (2015). Vybrani naukovi pratsi. Vykhovannia osobystosti (vol. 1) [Selected scientific works. Personality upbringing]. Bukrek (in Ukrainian).
Hrynova, M. V. (2024). Vykhovannia liderskykh yakostei uchniv osnovnoi shkoly u protsesi e-partysypatyvnoho proektuvannia [Development of leadership qualities in basic school students through e-participatory design] (Doctoral Dissertation). Odesa Regional Academy of In-Service Education. https://static.klasnaocinka.com.ua/uploads/editor/9324/732394/sitepage_692/files/disertaciya_vihovannya_liderskih_yakostey_uchniv_osnovnoi_shkoli_u_procesi_e_partisipativnogo_proektuvannya_grinova_m__v.pdf (in Ukrainian).
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the construction of formal operational structures (A. Parsons & S. Milgram, Trans.). Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.1037/10034-000 (in English).
Krammer, I., Schrank, B., Pollak, I., Stiehl, K. A. M., Nater, U. M., & Woodcock, K. A. (2023). Early adolescents' perspectives on factors that facilitate and hinder friendship development with peers at the time of school transition. Journal of School Psychology, (98), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2023.03.001 (in English).
Mandruliak, L., & Mukoviz, O. (2025, October 24). Modernizatsiia osvitnoho protsesu bazovoi shkoly zasobamy heoinformatsiinykh tekhnolohii [Modernization of the educational process of the basic school using geoinformation technologies]. In Pedahohichna osvita: Tradytsii, realii, perspektyvy (Zbirnyk materialiv Vseukrainskoi naukovo-praktychnoi internet-konferentsii). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17623999 (in Ukrainian).
Mathews, A. J., DeChano-Cook, L. M., & Bloom, C. (2023). Enhancing middle school learning about geography and topographic maps using hands-on play and geospatial technologies. Journal of Geography, 122(5), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2023.2226156 (in English).
National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially: GIS as a support system in the K-12 curriculum. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11019 (in English).
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press (in English).
Peterson, E. G., Weinberger, A. B., Uttal, D. H., Kolvoord, B., & Green, A. E. (2020). Spatial activity participation in childhood and adolescence: Consistency and relations to spatial thinking in adolescence. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, (5), art. 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00239-0 (in English).
Portillo-Blanco, A., Deprez, H., De Cock, M., Guisasola, J., & Zuza, K. (2024). A systematic literature review of integrated STEM education: Uncovering consensus and diversity in principles and characteristics. Education Sciences, 14(9), 1028. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091028 (in English).
Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (1981). Towards a science of science teaching: Cognitive development and curriculum demand. Heinemann Educational Books.
Taber, K. S. (2025). Developing intellectual sophistication and scientific thinking—The schemes of William G. Perry and Deanna Kuhn. In B. Akpan & T. Kennedy (Eds.). Science education in theory and practice: An introductory guide to learning theory (2nd ed., pp. 215–231). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-81351-1_13 (in English).
Tang, K.-S., McLure, F., Williams, J., & Donnelly, C. (2024). Investigating the role of self-selected STEM projects in fostering student autonomy and self-directed learning. The Australian Educational Researcher, 51(5), 2355–2379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-024-00696-2 (in English).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.