Despite the extensive discussion on the educational potential of GIS and the changes made in the curricula in many countries, the implementation of GIS in classrooms has still been relatively slow. This is because of variables limiting the process of GIS implementation in lessons. Although research into the limits of GIS implementation has been carried out quite extensively, there is a need for knowledge systematisation in the field. Therefore, the presented systematic review of 34 empirical studies addresses this need and pays attention to the methodological approaches used to research the limits, the identified limits of GIS implementation, their categorisation, and any temporal trends in their occurrence. Altogether, the analysed studies identified 68 limits of GIS implementation in education using mainly quantitative methodology (especially the questionnaire), with utmost attention paid to teachers as participants. These limits then formed complex categorisation that distinguishes elementarily between the limits related to humans and resources. The most frequent and variable category of limits was teachers followed by technology, while both kept their positions in all periods. The systematisation of the research enables the formulation of implications for educational and geoinformatics practice and recommendations for future research.

Maps are an increasingly used source of information and it is therefore essential to develop map skills in students. A fundamental factor affecting the choice of map skills and the way they are developed is the teacher and his/her concept of map work. Based on the results of a survey and semi-structured interviews among Czech teachers, this study identifies three basic conceptual types of teachers: “Navigators” and “Problem-Oriented” and “Source-Oriented” teachers. Similarities with teachers’ concepts of map-skill development identified in previous studies are discussed together with means of improvement.

Thematic maps are becoming increasingly important in the current information age, and therefore they have become part of the everyday life of the wider public. Given the number of mapping methods used in thematic cartography, the question arises of what extent the utilized method influences a user’s map use level. For this reason, research has been undertaken with 392 students in the 17–20 age group with the aim of identifying and clarifying the influence of the mapping methods used (specifically choropleth mapping, diagram mapping, qualitative and quantitative line symbols, and area shading). The results have shown that the students were less successful with maps that used quantitative mapping methods than with maps using qualitative or both qualitative and quantitative mapping methods. The differences were most significant in the case of the cognitively demanding map interpretation skill, especially due to the students’ problematic understanding of the very essence of the quantitative methods. The different natures of the tested mapping methods also probably accounted for the identification of various factors explaining the differences in the levels of the work with the given thematic maps among the individual tested students.

Thematic map analysis is a complex and challenging task that might result in map user failure for many reasons. In the study reported here, we wanted to search for differences between successful and unsuccessful map users, focusing—unlike many similar studies—on strategies applied by users who give incorrect answers. In the eye-tracking study, followed by a questionnaire survey, we collected data from 39 participants. The eye-tracking data were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively to compare participants’ strategies from various perspectives. Unlike the results of some other studies, it turned out that unsuccessful participants show some similarities that are consistent across most analyzed tasks. The main issues that characterize bad solvers relate to improper use of the thematic legend, the inability to focus on relevant map layout elements, as well as on adequate map content. Moreover, they differed in the general problem-solving approach used as they, for example, tended to choose fast, less cautious, strategies. Based on the collected results, we developed tips that could help prevent unsuccessful participants ending with an incorrect answer and therefore be beneficial in map use education.

Spatial thinking is a crucial aspect of geography education with which all citizens should be equipped. This study employs eye-tracking technology to research strategies (their repertoire, distribution, effectiveness, and adaptiveness) used by upper-secondary students when analyzing spatial patterns with thematic maps. The results show that students have a broad repertoire of strategies and are mostly able to adapt them to the specific task demands. Moreover, the efficiency of students’ strategies gradually increases as they get familiar with the task type and the maps analyzed. Based on the findings, how to appropriately develop students’ strategies in geography lessons is suggested.

This study focuses on the strategies used during an analysis of four types of thematic maps (line symbols, area-shading, choropleths, and diagram maps) on the basis of the use of eyetracking technology. Moreover, it discusses the use of data-driven (spatial and spatiotemporal) and theory-driven (spatiotemporal) methodological approaches to research on the topic and aims to verify their applicability experimentally. The results of the experiment assist in identifying the main merits and limits of these approaches and serve to supplement and expand the results of prior studies. It is apparent that the strategies selected by users, when analyzing maps, are highly individualized and are distinguished by the frequent flitting of the eyes between the individual parts of the task. Among other things, it was discovered that most attention was paid to the task instructions and the map, and that the most frequently utilized sequence of eye movement was: task, map, (scale/north arrow, legend), answers.