九年一貫思潮強調以學生為中心的教學，施添福也曾點出「空間」概念是地理學中重要的研究傳統。因此地理要教好，必要去深入了解學生的「空間認知」。這個動機驅使本文朝向空間認知和地理教學研究。
要如何洞悉學生的空間認知？已有多位學者探討。但這些空間認知在地理教學應用的實際成效又如何？卻幾乎沒有探討。因此本研究第一個目的是找出楊梅國中各年級學生的空間認知特性。第二個目的是依此認知特性，提出教學原則進行教學實驗，探討其對學生的學習成效。
本研究方法，先依獨立樣本T檢定選出各年級起點行為相同的兩班，分為實驗和對照班。實驗班取地理成就位於中位數且男女各五位的學生們進行兩次的認知圖繪製。經由文獻回顧，本文整理出分析認知圖的八項指標，接著對學生兩次繪製的認知圖分析，若每個指標顯現比率在84.13%以上者，即被視為學生具有此空間認知特性。接著，依學生的空間認知特性轉化成教學原則，進行實驗班的教案撰寫；對照班教案則未參考學生的空間認知的轉化原則。兩班的評量卷相同，且依地理教學評量原則和單元教學目標來設計。
最後，在不影響學生學習、教師教學進度的情況下進行教學實驗。實驗前先告知學生們並進行連續四次架設攝影的教學，以求學生習慣。
至於在教學結果的分析部分，評量卷分數進行相依樣本T檢定，求證此次成績和平日成績的差異程度。另設計有學生問卷，依教案中實驗班和對照班在教材組織不同處來設計問卷的題目。若問卷題目中學生答「是」人數達全班84.13%比率以上時，則代表學生肯定此教學原則。
本研究發現七年級、八年級空間認知特性相近，八年級更呈現學生會依賴「較簡單」的地圖和照片來認知空間。九年級空間認知特性與七、八年級不同處在於會選擇經濟發達區作為繪製認知圖的定錨點，且會優先選擇明顯地標為定錨點。
空間認知特性應用在區域地理教材組織，評量分數的分析顯示，七年級的成效最大，八年級成效次之，九年級的成效不顯著。問卷的整理則歸納出各年級地理教學原則，以作為國中區域地理教學的參考。

關鍵字：空間認知、國中區域地理教學

The ideological trend of The Grade 1-9 Curriculum emphasizes the student core teaching and Shi Tian-Fu had also pointed out the concept of ‘space’is the crucial research tradition in Geography. Hence, if we wish teach Geography well, it`s necessary to understand the ‘spatial cognition’of students deeply. This incentive bends this paper toward the research of spatial cognition and Geography teaching.
How do we understand spatial cognition of students thoroughly? This sphere had been treated by many scholars. How many practical effects do these spatial cognitions in the application of Geography teaching? This sphere had almost not been treated. Therefore the first goal of this paper is to find out the spatial cognition characteristics of Yang-Mei junior high school each grade students. The second goal is to offer the teaching principles designed with these spatial cognitions from the first goal and to treat the effect in student learning with the teaching experiment.
In this paper method aspect, the experiment and the contrast class are from each grade the same pre-qualified knowledge two classes chosen by Independent-Sample T Test. Students including each five male and female in mean level Geography achievement from the experiment class draw their cognition map twice. The students’ twice cognition maps are analyzed with eight indexes from experts’ documents. The students’ spatial cognition characteristics are from these eight indexes whose appearance proportion is up to 84.13%. The lesson plan of the experiment class is with the teaching principles from the students’ spatial cognition characteristics, but the contrast one isn’t with these characteristics. Both of the two classes are used the same examination paper designed with the examination principles and unit teaching objectives of Geography teaching.
The teaching experiments are practiced without interference in students’learning and the scheduled teaching progress. Students are told and taught with a camera four times in order to be accustomed to the style teaching.
In the analysis of the teaching result segment, the difference in the scores between this test and peacetime average is proved with Paired-Sample T Test. In the other hand, the student questionnaire is designed from the differences in the teaching principles between the experiment and contrast classes. The teaching principles acknowledged by the students hinge on the 84.13% appearance proportion of the principles represented by the questions in the questionnaire which the students answer‘yes’up to 84.13%.
It is found that the seventh grade spatial cognition characteristics are similar to the eighth. The eighth grade students cognize the space depending on‘more brief’maps and pictures. The ninth grade students are different from the seventh and eighth and chose the prosperous zone as their anchor points in drawing spatial cognition map and the prior anchor point on obvious landmarks.
In the effect of application of spatial cognition characteristics on the teaching of regional Geography, the analysis of examination scores shows the effect in the seventh is the most; the eighth is more, but the ninth isn’t notable. The each grade Geography teaching principles induced from the arrangement of the questionnaires could be reference resources in junior high school regional Geography teaching.

Keywords: Spatial cognition , The teaching of junior high school regional Geography

參考書目
中文部分
1. 王佩玲 ，2004，《探討國中生獲取空間知識的過程》，臺北：國立台北師範學院社會科教育學系碩士論文。
2. 王保進，2006，《英文視窗版第三版SPSS與行為科學研究》，臺北：心理出版社。
3. 史奎爾，肯戴爾/合著；洪蘭／譯，2001，《透視記憶（Memory: from mind to molecules）》，臺北：遠流出版社。
4. 石慶得、蘇永生，1992。（兒童對環境認知之地圖學研究）。《地圖》，期3，頁1-42。
5. 江碧貞，1999，《國小學生地方感之探討───國小鄉土地理教育架構下的個案研究》，臺北：國立臺灣師範大學地理學系第七屆博士論文。
6. 呂勤、郝春東，2000，《旅遊心理學》，廣州：廣東旅遊出版社。
7. 呂玉琪，1995，《方向和距離與認知地圖的關係》，嘉義：國立中正大學心理系碩士論文。
8. 林靜怡，2003，《中學生空間認知能力之研究---以認知圖路網結構分析》，臺北：國立台灣大學地理環境資源研究所碩士論文。
9. 林文惠，1993，《地理科環境教育角色之研究》，臺北：國立臺灣師範大學地理學系碩士論文。
10. 林庭寧，2005，《遊客對高美濕地環境認知與保育態度之研究》，臺中：私立東海大學景觀學系碩士論文，頁8-15。
11. 紀佳祺，2005，《濕地保育之環境認知與環境態度－以七股地區為例》，臺南：私立立德管理學院地區發展及管理研究所碩士論文，頁10-13。
12. 施添福，1989，《中學地理教學理論與實際》，臺北：國立臺灣師範大學中等教育輔導委員會。
13. 施添福，1983，《我國中學的地理教育—反省與展望》，臺北：國立臺灣師範大學地理研究叢書第三號。
14. 唐麗英、王春和，2005，《SPSS統計分析》，臺北：儒林圖書有限公司。
15. 陳立心，2004。（地圖認知初探）。《東方學報》，期24，頁17-28。
16. 陳向明，2007，《社會科學質的研究》，臺北：五南出版社。
17. 梁蘄善，1991，《地理學計量分析》，臺北：中國文化大學出版部。
18. 許民陽，1994。（國小學童對方向及位置兩空間概念認知發展的研究）。《台北市立師範學院學報》，期25，頁92-120。
19. 許民陽，1995。（國小中年級學童對東西南北相關方位的認知探討）。《台北市立師範學院學報》，期26，頁213-244。
20. 許育齡，1999，《國小學童鄉土意識內涵以年齡及環境刺激因素之相關研究－以芝山岩地區學童為例》，臺北：師大教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
21. 張文賢，2003，《以認知圖探討中學生空間認知之差異》，彰化：國立彰化師範大學地理學系碩士論文。
22. 張麗芬，1989。（兒童空間認知能力發展之研究）。《國立政治大學教育與心理研究》，期12，頁249-281。
23. 張筱雲，2002，《國小學生對校園景觀設施認知與環境學習機會關係之研究》，臺中：私立東海大學景觀學系碩士班碩士論文。
24. 黃朝恩，1999。（地理教學與環境教育的融合）。《人文及社會學科教學通訊》，卷6，期9，頁50-55。
25. 歐陽鍾玲，1986。（識覺與認知）。《國立臺灣師範大學地理教育》，期12。
26. 歐陽鍾玲，1981。（心智圖在地理學上的運用）。《國立臺灣師範大學地理教育》，期8，頁63-70。
27. 歐陽鍾玲，1983。（學童空間概念的發展）。《國立臺灣師範大學地理教育》，期9，頁166-204。
28. 賴進貴，1999。（中小學生地圖認知之研究）。《中華民國地圖學會會刊(地圖)》，期10，頁49-58。
29. 鍾文修，2004，《軍事院校學生環境認知與環境行為之研究》，臺南：私立立德管理學院資源與環境管理研究所碩士論文，頁9-14。
30. 顏杏砡，1992，《視障學生之空間認知與環境行為之初探》，臺中：私立東海大學建築(工程)研究所碩士論文。
31. 蕭瑞麟，2006，《不用數字的研究》，臺北：台灣培生教育出版股份有限公司。
32. 蘇國章、黃國鴻，2005。（電子地圖運用於社會領域地圖教學對國小五年級學生空間認知之影響）。《國民教育研究學報》，期15，頁183-216。

英文部分
1. Appleyard. 1970. Style and methods of structuring a city. Environment and Behavior, 2:100-117.
2. Blades, M.1990.The reliability of data collected from sketch maps. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10: 327-339.
3. Billinghurst, M. and Weghorst, S. 1995.The use of sketch maps to measure cognitive maps of virtual environments. Proceedings of Virtual Reality Annual International Syposium, 95: 40-47.
4. Brown, M. A. and Broadway, M. J. 1981.The cognitive maps of adolescents: Confusion about inter-town distances. Professional Geographer, 33: 315-325.
5. Briggs, R. 1976.Methodologies for the measurement of cognitive distance. In : Moore, G. T. and Golledge, R. G. (eds.) Environmental Knowing, Stroudsburg, Pa: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 325-334.
6. Canter, D. and Tagg, S. K.1975.Distance estimation in cities. Environment and Behavior, 7: 59-80.
7. Catling,S.J.1978.The child’s spatial concept and geographic education.Journal of Geography,77:24-28
8. Cadwallader, M. T.1976.Cognitive distance in intraurban space. In: Moore, G. T. and Golledge, R. G. (eds.). Environmental Knowing, Stroudsburg. Pa: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 316-324.
9. Cromley, R., Raitz, K. and Ulack, R.1981.Automated cognitive mapping. Cartographica, 18(4): 36-50.
10. Dent, Borden D. Cartography. 1996. Thematic Map Design Dubuque. IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
11. Ewing G. O.1981.On the sensitivity of conclusions about the bases of cognitive distance. Professional Geographer, 33: 311-314.
12. Golledge, R.G.1978. Learning about urban environments. In: Carlstein, T., Parkes, D., and Thrift, N., (Eds). Timing space and spacing time.London: Edward Arnold.
13. Golledge,R.G.1991.Cognition of physical and built environments.In:Garling,T. and Evans,G.W.,(Eds).Environment,cognition,and action: an integrated approach.New York:Oxford University Press,35-62.
14. Graham, E.1976.What is a mental map. Area, 8(4): 259-262.
15. Holahan, C.J.1982. Environmental Psychology, New York.
16. Hart, R.A. 1978. Children’s Experience of Place. New York.
17. Halseth, G. and Doddridge, J.2000.Children’s cognitive mapping: A potential tool for neighbourhood planning. Environment and Planning B, 27: 565-582.
18. Haynes, R. M.1980. Geographical Images and Mental Maps. Macmillan Education.
19. John H. Harvey.1981.Cognition, social behavior, and the environment.New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
20. Kurt Lewin.1966.Principles of topological Psychology. N. Y.: McGraw-Hill book company.inc.
21. Lynch, k. 1960. The Image of the City.Cambridge Mass,MIT Press.
22. Mark, D.M.1993.Human spatial cognition.In: Medyckyj-Scott, D. and Hearnshaw, H. M. , (Eds).Human Factors in Geographical information Systems.Belhaven Press, 51-60.
23. Matlin, M. W. 1998. Cognition (4thEd.).Fort Worth.TX: Harcourt Brace School Publishers.
24. Matthews, M. H. 1980. The mental maps of children: images of Coventry’s city center. Journal of Geography, 65: 169-179.
25. McAndrew, F. T.1993.Environmental Psychology.Pacific Grove.
26. MacEachren, A. M.1980.Travel time as the basis of Cognitive Distance. Professional Geographer, 32: 30-36.
27. Robert Lloyd.1997. Spatial Cognition Geographic Environments. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 44-69.
28. Robert Lloyd. 1989a.Encoding information into and obtaining information from cognitive maps. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 79: 101-124.
29. Robert Lloyd and Heivly, C. 1987.Systematic distortions in urban cognitive maps. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77: 191-207.
30. Robert K.Yin.1984.Case Study Research.Sage Publications.
31. Siegel, A.W. & White, S.H.1975. The development of Spatial Representations of Large-scale environments. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 10.
32. Stephen Kaplan & Rachel Kaplan.1982.Cognition and environment: functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger Publishers.
33. Shemyakin, F.N.1962.General problems of orientation in space and space representions. In: B. G. Ananyev (ED.), Psychological science in the USSR.Arlington, VA: U.S.Office of Technical Reports.
34. Schmuckler, M. A. 1974.What Is ecological validity？ A dimensional analysis. Infancy, 2, 419-436.
35. Staplin, L. J. and Sadalla, E. K. 1981.Distance cognition in urban environments. Professional Geographer, 33: 302-310.
36. Tobler, W. 1976.The geometry of mental maps In: Golledge, R. G. and Rushton, R. G. (eds.). Spatial choice and spatial behavior, Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 69-81.
37. Wakabayashi, Y. 1994.Spatial analysis of cognitive maps. Geographical Reports of Tokyo Metropolitan University, 29: 57-102.
38. Waterman, S. and Gordon, D. 1984.A quantitative-comparative approach to analysis of distortion in mental maps.The Professional Geographer, 36: 326-337.
39. Yi-Fu Tuan.1977.Space and Place--The Perspective of Experience.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.