All Issue

2025 Vol.33, Issue 4 Preview Page

Special Issue

The Effects of ChatGPT Utilization and Its Modes on Geography Learning
- A Comparative Study of Three Groups -

ChatGPT 활용 여부와 방식이 지리 학습에 미치는 영향
- 세 집단 비교를 중심으로 -

손민석

Minsuk Son

장유고등학교 교사
Teacher, Jangyu High School
30 November 2025. pp. 91~109
PDF Citation
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore how different modes of ChatGPT use affect high school students’ learning in geography. Fifteen 11th-grade students from a high school in Gyeongnam Province were divided into three groups: a non-GPT group (Group 1), a self-directed GPT group (Group 2), and a strategically guided GPT group (Group 3). A geography writing lesson was conducted under the theme “Our Local Community in 2100 in the Era of Climate Crisis.” Three dependent variables—geographical knowledge structure, geographical thinking, and retention of learning content—were examined by analyzing pre- and post-concept maps, in-class and reflective writings, and interviews. The results showed that Group 3 achieved the greatest improvement in the number of concepts and cross-links, whereas Group 2 showed the least improvement. Regarding geographical thinking, both GPT-utilizing groups outperformed Group 1; however, Group 2 displayed a sharp decline in the reflective phase, indicating a tendency toward cognitive offloading due to overreliance on GPT. In terms of learning retention, Group 1 showed the highest level, followed by Groups 3 and 2. These findings suggest that when GPT use is combined with teacher guidance and instructional strategy, GPT can function as a supportive and constructive thinking tool. This study provides foundational empirical evidence for understanding the educational effects of GPT use in geography classes and offers a basis for future research on teacher AI integration strategies as well as the cognitive and affective impacts of generative AI in geography education.
Keywords
ChatGPT
geography learning
geographical thinking
geographical knowledge structure
learning retention
본 연구의 목적은 ChatGPT의 활용 여부와 방식이 고등학생의 지리 학습에 미치는 영향을 탐색적으로 분석하는 것이다. 이를 위해 경남의 한 고교 2학년 학생 15명을 GPT 미활용(집단 1), GPT 자율적 활용(집단 2), GPT 전략적 활용(집단 3) 집단으로 구분하고, ‘기후 위기 시대, 2100년의 우리 지역사회는?’을 주제로 설정한 지리적 글쓰기 수업을 시행하였다. 지리 지식 구조·지리적 사고·학습 내용 유지를 종속변인으로 설정하고, 사전·사후 개념도, 수업 중·회상적 글쓰기, 면담 내용을 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 지리 지식 구조 측면에서 집단 3은 개념 수와 교차 연결 수의 향상이 가장 컸고, 집단 2는 가장 낮은 향상 폭을 보였다. 지리적 사고 수준에서는 두 GPT 활용 집단이 집단 1보다 높았으나, 집단 2는 회상적 단계에서 급격히 감소해 GPT 의존에 따른 인지의 외주화 경향을 보였다. 학습 내용 유지에서는 집단 1이 가장 높은 수준을 보였고, 집단 3, 집단 2의 순서로 그 뒤를 따랐다. 이러한 결과는 GPT 활용과 교사의 전략적 개입이 결합할 때 GPT가 사고 도구로서 기능함을 시사한다. 본 연구는 지리 수업에서 GPT 활용의 영향을 실증적으로 비교·검증한 기초 연구로, 향후 교사의 AI 활용 전략 설계와 인지·정의적 효과 분석의 기반이 될 수 있다.
키워드
ChatGPT
지리 학습
지리적 사고
지리 지식 구조
학습 내용 유지
References
  1. 권정민·이영선, 2023, “ChatGPT시대 인공지능교육정책의 문제점 고찰”, 인공지능인문학연구, 13, 9-38.10.46397/JAIH.13.1
  2. 김다원·김병연, 2023, “2022 개정 고등학교 융합선택과목 『기후변화와 지속가능한 세계』 교육과정 개발의 쟁점과 내용”, 한국지리환경교육학회지, 31(2), 55-67.
  3. 김정원, 2024, “수학교육에서 인공지능 활용에 대한 초등 교사와 중등 수학 교사의 인식 분석”, 수학교육, 63(2), 351-368.
  4. 김태호·박성석·박혜림, 2024, “사고 도구로서 AI를 활용한 글쓰기 방법 탐색”, 청람어문교육, 97, 185-209.
  5. 나장함, 2006, “질적 연구의 다양한 타당성에 대한 비교 분석 연구”, 교육평가연구, 19(1), 265-283.
  6. 범영우·김미혜, 2023, “학교 지리에서 ‘정동’에 기반한 글쓰기 수업의 설계와 적용”, 한국지리환경교육학회지, 31(1), 125-145.
  7. 손민석·이진희, 2025, “공간적 시민성 함양을 위한 교수·학습 모형 개발 -수업 설계·개발 연구 방법론의 적용-”, 한국지리환경교육학회지, 33(2), 31-48.
  8. 유재진, 2023, “인공지능을 활용한 지리교육 연구 -ChatGPT 기반 질의·응답을 중심으로-”, 한국사진지리학회지, 33(1), 162-173.
  9. 이종원, 2024a, “지리적 사고란 무엇인가? 그리고 어떻게 향상시킬 수 있는가?”, 한국지리환경교육학회지, 32(4), 77-91.
  10. 이종원, 2024b, “AI는 지리 교수학습을 어떻게 바꿔놓을 것인가? -지리탐구를 중심으로-”, 한국지리환경교육학회지, 32(1), 95-112.
  11. 이형상, 2020, “중학교 지리 수업에서 e-NIE를 활용한 과정 중심 지리 글쓰기의 적용 및 효과에 관한 실행연구”, 한국지리학회지, 9(1), 17-35.10.25202/JAKG.9.1.2
  12. 정제영·조현명·황재운·문명현·김인재, 2023, 챗GPT 교육혁명, 서울: 포르체.
  13. 채민수, 2025, “인공지능 기반 디지털 스토리텔링을 활용한 지리수업의 효과성 연구”, 디지털콘텐츠학회논문지, 26(4), 885-895.10.9728/dcs.2025.26.4.885
  14. 함경림·장은희·김형숙, 2023, “기후변화 대응을 위한 지리수업의 설계와 적용: 전주시 폭염 프로젝트 사례를 중심으로”, 한국지리학회지, 12(4), 533-546.10.25202/JAKG.12.4.2
  15. Akata, Z., Balliet, D., de Rijke, M., Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Eiben, G., ... and Welling, M. (2020), A research agenda for hybrid intelligence: Augmenting human intellect with collaborative, adaptive, responsible, and explainable artificial intelligence, Computer, 53(8), 18-28.10.1109/MC.2020.2996587
  16. Albadarin, Y., Saqr, M., Pope, N., and Tukiainen, M., 2024, A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education, Discover Education, 3(60).10.1007/s44217-024-00138-2
  17. Arthur, J. L., 2021, Impact of Geography on Adaptation for the Future Sustainability of Human Society on Earth, Open Journal of Social Sciences, 9(3), 188-217.10.4236/jss.2021.93013
  18. BaniHani, I., Alawadi, S., and Elmrayyan, N., 2024, AI and the decision-making process: a literature review in health care, financial, and technology sectors, Journal of Decision Systems, 33(1), 389-399.10.1080/12460125.2024.2349425
  19. Bansal, P., 2024, Prompt engineering importance and applicability with generative AI, Journal of Computer and Communications, 12(10), 14-23.10.4236/jcc.2024.1210002
  20. Barbour, R. S., 2001, Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog?, British Medical Journal, 322(7294), 1115-1117.10.1136/bmj.322.7294.111511337448PMC1120242
  21. Bednarz, S. W., Heffron, S., and Huynh, N. T., 2013, A Road Map for 21st Century Geography Education, Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers.
  22. Chang, C. H. and Kidman, G., 2023, The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) language models-challenges and opportunities for geographical and environmental education, International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 32(2), 85-89.10.1080/10382046.2023.2194036
  23. Clark, A., 2008, Supersizing the Mind : Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension, Oxford: Oxford University Press(윤초희·정현천 역, 수퍼사이징 더 마인드, 파주: 교육과학사).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333213.001.0001
  24. Craik, F. I. and Lockhart, R. S., 1972, Levels of processing: A framework for memory research, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671-684.10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
  25. Creswell, J. W. and Plano Clark, V. L., 2018, Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
  26. Denzin, N. K., 2009, The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods (1st ed.), New York: Routledge.
  27. Ebbinghaus, H., 1885, Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology (H. A. Ruger and C. E. Bussenius, Trans., 1913), New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.10.1037/10011-000
  28. Emig, J., 1977, Writing as a mode of learning, College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122-128.10.58680/ccc197716382
  29. Fasoli, M., 2018, Substitutive, complementary and constitutive cognitive artifacts: Developing an interaction-centered approach, Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 9(3), 671-687.10.1007/s13164-017-0363-2
  30. Fellows, N. J., 1994, A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning, Journal of Research in science teaching, 31(9), 985-1001.10.1002/tea.3660310911
  31. Giannakos, M., Azevedo, R., Brusilovsky, P., Cukurova, M., Dimitriadis, Y., Hernandez-Leo, D., ... and Rienties, B., 2025, The promise and challenges of generative AI in education, Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(11), 2518-2544.10.1080/0144929X.2024.2394886
  32. Guettala, M., Bourekkache, S., Kazar, O., and Harous, S., 2024, Generative artificial intelligence in education: Advancing adaptive and personalized learning, Acta Informatica Pragensia, 13(3), 460-489.10.18267/j.aip.235
  33. Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., and Akcaoglu, M., 2016, The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use, TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441.10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y
  34. Hanson, S., 2004, Who are ‘we’? An important question for geography’s future, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(4), 715-722.10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.00425.x
  35. Hoadley, U. and Muller, J., 2009, Codes, pedagogy and knowledge: Advances in Bernsteinian sociology of education, in M. W. Apple, S. J. Ball, and L. A. Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Education, New York: Routledge, 69-78.
  36. Hoffman, M. L., 2000, Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805851
  37. IPCC, 2014, Summary for policymakers. In C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, … L. L. White (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 1-32.
  38. IPCC, 2023, Summary for policymakers, In Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (Eds.), Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 1-42.
  39. Jonassen, D. H., 2010, Learning to Solve Problems: A Handbook for Designing Problem-Solving Learning Environments, New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203847527
  40. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., ... and Kasneci, G., 2023, ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education, Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274.10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
  41. Kuhail, M. A., Alturki, N., Alramlawi, S., and Alhejori, K., 2023, Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review, Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 973-1018.10.1007/s10639-022-11177-3
  42. Lee, J., Cimová, T., Foster, E. J., France, D., Krajňáková, L., Moorman, L., ... and Zhang, J., 2025, Transforming geography education: the role of generative AI in curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and fieldwork. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 1-17.10.1080/10382046.2025.2459780
  43. Mai, D. T. T., Da, C. V., and Hanh, N. V., 2024, The use of ChatGPT in teaching and learning: A systematic review through SWOT analysis approach, Frontiers in Education, 9, 1328769.10.3389/feduc.2024.1328769
  44. Martin, F., 2006, Teaching Geography in Primary Schools, Cambridge: Chris Kington.
  45. Mason, L. and Boscolo, P., 2000, Writing and conceptual change. What changes?, Instructional Science, 28(3), 199-226.10.1023/A:1003854216687
  46. Mueller, P. A. and Oppenheimer, D. M., 2014, The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking, Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159-1168.10.1177/0956797614524581
  47. Nah, F., Zheng, R., Cai, J., Siau, K., and Chen, L., 2023, Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration, Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 25(3), 277-304.10.1080/15228053.2023.2233814
  48. Neuendorf, K. A., 2017, The Content Analysis Guidebook (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781071873045
  49. Novak, J. D., 1990, Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two meta cognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning, Instructional science, 19(1), 29-52.10.1007/BF00377984
  50. O’Connor, C. and Joffe, H., 2020, Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-13.10.1177/1609406919899220
  51. Oatley, K. and Djikic, M., 2008, Writing as thinking, Review of General Psychology, 12(1), 9-27.10.1037/1089-2680.12.1.9
  52. OECD, 2023, Generative AI in the Classroom: From Hype to Reality? Directorate for Education and Skills, Education Policy Committee, Paris: OECD Publishing.
  53. Radvansky, G. A., Doolen, G. L., Pettijohn, K. A., and Ritchey, M., 2022, A new look at memory retention and forgetting, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(11), 1698-1723.10.1037/xlm0001110
  54. Rahman, M. M. and Watanobe, Y., 2023, ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies, Applied sciences, 13(9), 5783.10.3390/app13095783
  55. Rawling, E., 2011, Reading and writing place: A role for geographical education in the twenty-first century?, in G. Butt (Ed.), Geography, Education and the Future, New York: Continuum, 65-83.
  56. Redican, K., Gonzalez, M., and Zizzamia, B., 2025, Assessing ChatGPT for GIS education and assignment creation, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 49(1), 113-129.10.1080/03098265.2024.2397332
  57. Schreier, M., 2012, Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice, London: SAGE.10.4135/9781529682571
  58. Smith, G., 2002, Place-based education: learning to be where we are, Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 584-594.10.1177/003172170208300806
  59. Urban, M., Děchtěrenko, F., Lukavský, J., Hrabalová, V., Svacha, F., Brom, C., and Urban, K., 2024, ChatGPT improves creative problem-solving performance in university students: An experimental study, Computers & Education, 215, 10503110.1016/j.compedu.2024.105031
  60. Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., and Li, L. D., 2024, The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students' cognitive abilities: a systematic review, Smart Learning Environments, 11, 28.10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7
Information
  • Publisher :The Korean Association Of Geographic And Environmental Education
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국지리환경교육학회
  • Journal Title :The Journal of The Korean Association of Geographic and Environmental Education
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국지리환경교육학회지
  • Volume : 33
  • No :4
  • Pages :91~109
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.17279/jkagee.2025.33.4.91
Journal Informaiton The Journal of The Korean Association of Geographic and Environmental Education The Journal of The Korean Association of Geographic and Environmental Education
Online Submission
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • KCI 문헌 유사도 검사
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close