The Influence of Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Interpreting Simulated 3D Worlds

  • Tom Lowrie
Article

Abstract

This paper explores the way in which young children (6 year olds) made sense of screen-based images on the computer. The participants were required to interpret 3D-like representations and relate these images to objects in their environment. Both static and relatively dynamic software programs were used in the investigation. Some of the children could not make links between the screen representation and the intended three-dimensional (3D) objects. It is argued that young children should be exposed to activities that establish explicit links between 2D and 3D objects ``away'' from the computer before attempting the more difficult links required to interpret and represent 3D objects in ICT contexts.

2D-3D space computer simulations mathematics education technology visual contexts 

REFERENCES

  1. Amory, A., Naicker, K. Vincent, J. and Adams, C. (1999). The use of computer games as an educational tool: Identification of appropriate game types and game elements. British Journal of Educational Technology 30(4): 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Betz, J. (1995–1996). Computer games increase learning in a multidisciplinary environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 24(2): 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clements, D.H. and Battista, M.T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 420–465). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Clements, D.H., Sarama, J. and Battista, M.T. (1998). Development of concepts of geometric figures in a specially-designed Logo computer environment. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics 20: 47–64.Google Scholar
  5. Deal, W. (1998). Cool chips, microcontrollers and robots. Resources in technology. Technology Teacher 58(3): 29–35.Google Scholar
  6. Downes, T., Reddacliff, C. and Moont, S. (1995). Children's Use of Electronic Technologies at Home. Microfilm ED 416841.Google Scholar
  7. Electronic Arts (1996). Madeline Thinking Games. San Mateo, CA: Grophon Software.Google Scholar
  8. Fatouros, C. (1995). Young children using computers: Planning appropriate learning experiences. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 20(2): 1–6.Google Scholar
  9. Funk, J. (1996). Video and computer game preference. Children Today 24(1): 12-15.Google Scholar
  10. Greenfield, P. (1984). Mind and Media: The Effects of Television, Computer and Video Games. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Griffiths, M. (1999). Game playing in early adolescence. Youth and Society 29(2): 223–237.Google Scholar
  12. Kirby, J. and Boulter, D. (1999). Spatial ability and transformational geometry. European Journal of Psychological of Education 14(2): 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lego Group (1998). Lego Creator (Constructive). The Lego Group and Superscape. IB2GCRE2.Google Scholar
  14. Lowrie, T. (1998). Using technology to enhance children's spatial sense. In C. Kanes, M. Goss and E. Warren (Eds), Teaching Mathematics in New Times (pp. 319–328). Brisbane, Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of AustralasiaIncorporated. Griffith Uni Print.Google Scholar
  15. Lowrie, T. (2000). A case of a reluctance to visualize. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics 22(1): 17–26.Google Scholar
  16. McClurg, P. (1992). Investigating the development of spatial cognition in problem-solving microworlds. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education 3: 111–126.Google Scholar
  17. Nemirovsky, R. and Noble, T. (1997). On mathematical visualization and the place where we live. Educational Studies in Mathematics 33(2): 99–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Presmeg, N. (1985). The Role of Visually Mediated Processes in High School Mathematics: A Classroom Investigation. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Cambridge University, London.Google Scholar
  19. Rieber, L., Smith, L. and Noah, D. (1998). The value of serious play. Educational Technology 38(6): 29–57.Google Scholar
  20. Serpell, B. (1976). Cultures Influence on Behaviour. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Stone, L. and Stone, J. (1998). Software design of computer games and collaborative processes of mathematical knowledge production. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA: Microfilm ED418692.Google Scholar
  22. Wechsler, D. (1976). Wechler Intelligence Scale for Children – Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  23. Wheatley, G. and Brown, D. (1997). Components of imagery and mathematical understanding. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics 19(1): 45–70.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Lowrie
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationCharles Sturt UniversityWagga WaggaAustralia

Personalised recommendations