Kinnari Atit

Twisting space: are rigid and non-rigid mental transformations separate spatial skills?

Cognitive science has primarily studied the mental simulation of spatial transformations with tests that focus on rigid transformations (e.g., mental rotation). However, the events of our world are not limited to rigid body movements. Objects can undergo complex non-rigid discontinuous and continuous changes, such as bending and breaking. We developed a new task to assess mental visualization of non-rigid transformations. The Non-rigid Bending test required participants to visualize a continuous non-rigid transformation applied to an array of objects by asking simple spatial questions about the position of two forms on a bent transparent sheet of plastic. Participants were to judge the relative position of the forms when the sheet was unbent. To study the cognitive skills needed to visualize rigid and non-rigid events, we employed four tests of mental transformations—the Non-rigid Bending test (a test of continuous non-rigid mental transformation), the Paper Folding test and the Mental Brittle Transformation test (two tests of non-rigid mental transformation with local rigid transformations), and the Vandenberg and Kuse (Percept Motor Skills 47:599–604, 1978) Mental Rotation test (a test of rigid mental transformation). Performance on the Mental Brittle Transformation test and the Paper Folding test independently predicted performance on the Non-rigid Bending test and performance on the Mental Rotation test; however, mental rotation performance was not a unique predictor of mental bending performance. Results are consistent with separable skills for rigid and non-rigid mental simulation and illustrate the value of an ecological approach to the analysis of the structure of spatial thinking.

Student Gestures Aid Penetrative Thinking

ABSTRACT Penetrative thinking, or the ability to visualize and reason about the interior structure of an object based on what is visible on the surface, is critical for success in many science disciplines, especially the geosciences, where inferences about the Earth must be made from what can be seen on the surface. A growing body of research has shown that spatial thinking skills are related to achievement in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines; thus, improving such skills may enhance STEM learning. In the current study, we examined whether using gestures, embodied representations of three-dimensional (3D) spatial relationships, facilitates penetrative thinking. Participants in the gesture group used their hands to explain how they would build 3D versions of geologic block diagrams from flat layers of Play-Doh. Participants in the gesture-prohibited group were asked to explain verbally, without using their hands, how they would build 3D versions of geologic block diagrams. Participants in the gesture group showed improvement on the Geologic Block Cross-Sectioning Test (GBCT), an objective measure of penetrative thinking, while participants in the gesture-prohibited group did not. These results suggest that gesturing facilitates penetrative thinking, and we discuss them in the context of integrating gesture into science classrooms.

The Lay of the Land: Sensing and Representing Topography

Navigating, and studying spatial navigation, is difficult enough in two dimensions when maps and terrains are flat. Here we consider the capacity for human spatial navigation on sloped terrains, and how sloping terrain is depicted in 2D map representations, called topographic maps. First, we discuss research on how simple slopes are encoded and used for reorientation, and to learn spatial configurations. Next, we describe how slope is represented in topographic maps, and present an assessment (the Topographic Map Assessment), which can be administered to measure topographic map comprehension. Finally, we describe several approaches our lab has taken with the aim of improving topographic map comprehension, including gesture and analogy. The current research reveals a rich and complex picture of topographic map understanding, which likely involves perceptual expertise, strong spatial skills, and inferential logic.

Learning to interpret topographic maps: Understanding layered spatial information

Novices struggle to interpret maps that show information about continuous dimensions (typically latitude and longitude) layered with information that is inherently continuous but segmented categorically. An example is a topographic map, used in earth science disciplines as well as by hikers, emergency rescue operations, and other endeavors requiring knowledge of terrain. Successful comprehension requires understanding that continuous elevation information is categorically encoded using contour lines, as well as skill in visualizing the three-dimensional shape of the terrain from the contour lines. In Experiment 1, we investigated whether novices would benefit from pointing and tracing gestures that focus attention on contour lines and/or from three-dimensional shape gestures used in conjunction with three-dimensional models. Pointing and tracing facilitated understanding relative to text-only instruction as well as no instruction comparison groups, but shape gestures only helped understanding relative to the no instruction comparison group. Directing attention to the contour lines may help both in code breaking (seeing how the lines encode elevation) and in shape inference (seeing how the overall configuration of lines encodes shape). In Experiment 2, we varied the language paired with pointing and tracing gestures; key phrases focused either on elevation information or on visualizing shape. Participants did better on items regarding elevation when language highlighted elevation and better on items requiring shape when language highlighted shape. Thus, focusing attention using pointing and tracing gestures on contour lines may establish the foundation on which language can build to support learning.

Chapter 2: Training Spatial Skills in Geosciences: A Review of Tests and Tools

Abstract Characterizing spatial thinking and the development of spatial expertise is essential to understanding how to train geoscientists to succeed in both academia and industry. The Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center has supported an eight-year-long collaborative research program, which brings together disciplinary expertise in cognitive science and geology to characterize and develop spatial thinking in the geological sciences. To facilitate our understanding of science education and practice, we have characterized the spatial skills of geoscience discipline experts and the spatial thinking impediments experienced by students studying the geological sciences. In this chapter we review recent research on measuring and improving spatial thinking skills in the geosciences and on characterizing individual differences in spatial thinking, including the role of gender and age. We conclude with a discussion of important unanswered questions and some directions for future research. The research discussed here may help guide the development of best practices for spatial thinking training in both academic and industry settings.

Chapter 5: Spatial Skills in Expert Structural Geologists

Abstract It has been well established that spatial thinking is important to success in the sciences, but differences exist in spatial thinking between different science fields. Previously Hegarty et al. (2010) investigated differences in self-reported spatial abilities in a variety of non-scientific and scientific fields, including the geosciences. Geoscientists had the highest self-report ratings for spatial abilities compared to all other disciplines. In the present study, expert structural geologists were evaluated on a battery of paper-and-pencil tests that measure domain-general spatial abilities (i.e., the Perspective Taking/Spatial Orientation Test and the Paper Folding Test), a domain-specific spatial skill (i.e., the Geologic Block Cross-Sectioning Test), and self-reported spatial skill (i.e., the Santa Barbara Sense of Direction Scale). Compared to undergraduate students, expert structural geologists scored significantly higher on tests of cross-sectioning (i.e., spatial reasoning about internal structures based on surface information) and spatial perspective taking (i.e., mental transformation of ones perspective relative to spatial forms), and rated their environmental spatial ability (i.e., sense of direction) as higher, but they performed no different from undergraduates on a test of spatial visualization (i.e., the Paper Folding Test). Taken together, self-report questionnaires alongside psychometric tests can start to elucidate differences in spatial abilities among scientists and in the spatial thinking required by each field.