Cognitive Processing

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 129–142 | Cite as

When do spatial abilities support student comprehension of STEM visualizations?

  • Scott R. Hinze
  • Vickie M. Williamson
  • Mary Jane Shultz
  • Kenneth C. Williamson
  • Ghislain Deslongchamps
  • David N. Rapp
Research Report

Abstract

Spatial visualization abilities are positively related to performance on science, technology, engineering, and math tasks, but this relationship is influenced by task demands and learner strategies. In two studies, we illustrate these interactions by demonstrating situations in which greater spatial ability leads to problematic performance. In Study 1, chemistry students observed and explained sets of simultaneously presented displays depicting chemical phenomena at macroscopic and particulate levels of representation. Prior to viewing, the students were asked to make predictions at the macroscopic level. Eye movement analyses revealed that greater spatial ability was associated with greater focus on the prediction-relevant macroscopic level. Unfortunately, that restricted focus was also associated with lower-quality explanations of the phenomena. In Study 2, we presented the same displays but manipulated whether participants were asked to make predictions prior to viewing. Spatial ability was again associated with restricted focus, but only for students who completed the prediction task. Eliminating the prediction task encouraged attempts to integrate the displays that related positively to performance, especially for participants with high spatial ability. Spatial abilities can be recruited in effective or ineffective ways depending on alignments between the demands of a task and the approaches individuals adopt for completing that task.

Keywords

Spatial cognition STEM Visualizations Learning 

References

  1. Abraham MR, Williamson VM, Westbrook SL (1994) A cross-age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts. J Res Sci Teach 31:147–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bodner G (1991) I have found you an argument: the conceptual knowledge of beginning chemistry graduate students. J Chem Educ 68:385–388. Retrieved from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed068p385
  3. Bodner GM, Guay RB (1997) The Purdue visualization of rotations test. Chem Educ 2:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bransford JD, Schwartz DL (1999) Rethinking transfer: a simple proposal with multiple implications. Rev Res Educ 24:61–100Google Scholar
  5. Brunyé TT, Taylor HA, Rapp DN, Spiro A (2006) Multimedia presentation of procedures: influences on memory for structure and content. Appl Cogn Psychol 20:917–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunce DM, Hutchinson KD (1993) The use of the GALT (Group Assessment of Logical Thinking) as a prediction of academic success in college chemistry. J Chem Educ 70:183–187Google Scholar
  7. Carroll JB (1993) Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor analytic studies. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen CA, Hegarty M (2007) Individual differences in use of external visualisations to perform an internal visualisation task. Appl Cogn Psychol 711:701–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cordova DI, Lepper MR (1996) Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. J Educ Psychol 88:715–730Google Scholar
  10. Ekstrom RB, French JW, Harmon HH (1976) Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Educational Testing Service, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  11. Guay R, McDaniels RE (1976) The visualization of viewpoints. The Purdue Research Foundation, West LafayetteGoogle Scholar
  12. Hambrick DZ, Libarkin JC, Petcovic HL, Baker KM, Elkins J, Callahan CN, Turner SP, Rench TA, LaDue ND (2012) A test of the circumvention of-limits hypothesis in scientific problem solving: the case of geological bedrock mapping. J Exp Psychol. doi:10.1037/a0025927 Google Scholar
  13. Hegarty M (1992) Mental animation: inferring motion from static diagrams of mechanical systems. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 18:1084–1102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hegarty M (2010) Components of spatial intelligence. Psychol Learn Motiv 52:265–297. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(10)52007-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hegarty M, Waller D (2005) Individual differences in spatial abilities. In: Shah P, Miyake A (eds) The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 121–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hegarty M, Kriz S, Cate C (2003) The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cogn Instr 21:325–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hegarty M, Canham MS, Fabrikant SI (2010) Thinking about the weather: how display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 36:37–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Höffler TN (2010) Spatial ability: its influence on learning with visualizations—a meta-analytic review. Educ Psychol Rev 22:245–269. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9126-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson CI, Mayer RE (2012) An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. J Exp Psychol Appl. doi:10.1037/a0026923. (Advance online publication)
  20. Johnstone A (1993) The development of chemistry teaching: a changing response to changing demand. J Chem Educ 70:701–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Just M, Carpenter P (1976) Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cogn Psychol 8:441–480. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90015-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kali Y, Orion N (1996) Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geologic structures. J Res Sci Teach 33:369–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kearney M (2004) Classroom use of multimedia-supported predict-observe-explain tasks in a social constructivist learning environment. Res Sci Educ 34:427–453. doi:10.1007/s11165-004-8795-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keehner M, Hegarty M, Cohen C, Khooshabeh P, Montello DR (2008) Spatial reasoning with external visualizations: what matters is what you see, not whether you interact. Cogn Sci 32:1099–1132. doi:10.1080/03640210801898177 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kozhevnikov M, Motes M, Hegarty M (2007) Spatial visualization in physics problem solving. Cogn Sci 31:549e579Google Scholar
  26. Linn MC, Peterson AC (1985) Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. Child Dev 56:1479–1498Google Scholar
  27. Lowe RK (1999) Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. Eur J Psychol Educ 14:225–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lowe R (2004) Interrogation of dynamic visualization during learning. Learn Instr 14:257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayer RE (2001) Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayer RE, Sims VK (1994) For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol 86:389–401. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Newcombe NS, Shipley TF (2012) Thinking about spatial thinking: new typology, new assessments. In Gero JS (ed) Studying visual and spatial reasoning for design creativity. Springer, New York (in press)Google Scholar
  32. Novick S, Nussbaum J (1981) Pupils’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: a cross-age study. Sci Educ 65:187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pellegrino JW, Kail RV (1982) Process analyses of spatial aptitude. In: Sternberg RJ (ed) Advances in the psychology of human intelligence, vol 1. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 311–365Google Scholar
  34. Rapp DN, Mensink MC (2011) Focusing effects from online and offline reading tasks. In: McCrudden MT, Magliano JP, Schraw G (eds) Text relevance and learning from text. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, pp 141–164Google Scholar
  35. Rayner K (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull 124:372–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rochford K (1985) Spatial learning disabilities and underachievement among university anatomy students. Med Educ 19:13–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sanchez CA, Branaghan RJ (2008) The interaction of map resolution and spatial abilities on map learning. Int J Hum Comput Stud 67:475–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwartz DL, Black Y (1996) Shuttling between depictive models and abstract rules: induction and fall-back. Cogn Sci 20:457–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shea D, Lubinski D, Benbow C (2001) Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: a 20-year longitudinal study. J Educ Psychol 93:604–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shepard RN, Metzler J (1971) Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science 171:701–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stieff M (2007) Mental rotation and diagrammatic reasoning in science. Learn Instr 17:219–234. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stieff M, Ryu M, Dixon BL, Hegarty M (in press) Problem solving strategies used by organic chemistry undergraduates. J Chem EducGoogle Scholar
  43. Thurstone LL (1938) Primary mental abilities. Psychom Monogr 1Google Scholar
  44. Uttal DH, Cohen CA (2012) Spatial thinking and STEM education: when, why, and how? Psychol Learn Motiv 57:147–181. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394293-7.00004-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Gog T, Scheiter K (eds) (2010) Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning [special issue]. Learn Instr 20Google Scholar
  46. Vandenberg SG, Kuse AR (1978) Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Percept Mot Skills 47:599–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Velázquez-Marcano AA, Williamson VM, Ashkenazi G, Tasker R, Williamson KC (2004) The use of video demonstrations and particulate animation in general chemistry. J Sci Educ Technol 13:315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wai J, Lubinski D, Benbow CP (2009) Spatial ability for STEM domains: aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. J Educ Psychol 101:817–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Williamson VM, Abraham M (1995) The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. J Res Sci Teach 32:521–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Williamson VM, Jose TJ (2009) Using visualization techniques in chemistry teaching. In: Pienta NJ, Cooper MM, Greenbowe TJ (eds) Chemists guide to effective teaching, vol 2. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  51. Williamson VM, Lane SM, Gilbreath T, Tasker R, Ashkenazi G, Williamson KC, Macfarlane RD (2012) The effect of viewing order of macroscopic and particulate visualizations on students’ particulate explanations. J Chem Educ 89:979–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wu H, Shah P (2004) Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Sci Educ 88:465–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott R. Hinze
    • 1
  • Vickie M. Williamson
    • 2
  • Mary Jane Shultz
    • 3
  • Kenneth C. Williamson
    • 4
  • Ghislain Deslongchamps
    • 5
  • David N. Rapp
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology and School of Education & Social PolicyNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryTufts UniversityMedfordUSA
  4. 4.Department of Construction ScienceTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  5. 5.Department of ChemistryUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations