A Spatial-Semiotic Framework in the Context of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)

  • Melih TurgutEmail author


This chapter is devoted to the spatial thinking process in ICTs from a semiotic perspective. Initially, I review particular research (limited to geometry and mathematics education) in order to analyze and elaborate subjects’ ways of spatial thinking, while they are using 3D modeling software. Thereafter, certain analyses are conducted through the perspective of learning (2D and 3D) geometry, visualization and spatial thinking frameworks, semiotics and multimodal paradigm perspectives in order to provide underpinning for a spatialsemiotic framework in the context of 3D modeling software. Thereafter, I look at two case studies on the use of 3D modeling software (in particular, SketchUp®) to evaluate the proposed framework. The data is analyzed through a semiotic lens, including different kinds of resources, not only for words, but also extra-linguistic modes of expressions and inscriptions (drawings or sketches) to relate attached signs in the use of software for the process of spatial thinking. Finally, I discuss the results to ameliorate the proposed framework.


Spatial thinking ICT Visualization Learning geometry Multimodal paradigm 



This chapter was created whilst I was affiliated with the Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University, in the Netherlands, for a postdoctoral research project. I would like to thank my supervisor prof. dr. P.H.M. (Paul) Drijvers for his great contributions to my researches and Freudenthal Institute for their kind hospitality, and the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) for their financial support under the 2219—International Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Programme (grant no 1059B191401098). I also would like to thank my wife Çiğdem and our young son Ege for their patience during the preparation of this chapter.


  1. Alibali, M. W. (2005). Gesture in spatial cognition: Expressing, communicating, and thinking about spatial information. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 5(4), 307–331. doi: 10.1207/s15427633scc0504_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alibali, M. W., Boncoddo, R., & Hostetter, A. B. (2014). Gesture in reasoning: An embodied perspective. In L. Shapiro (Ed.), The routledge handbook of embodied cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Arzarello, F. (2006). Semiosis as a multimodal process. RELIME, Especial, 267–299.Google Scholar
  4. Arzarello, F. (2008). Mathematical landscapes and their inhabitants: Perceptions, languages, theories. In E. Emborg & M. Niss (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international congress of mathematical education (pp. 158–181). Copenhagen: ICMI.Google Scholar
  5. Arzarello, F., Paola, D., Robutti, O., & Sabena, C. (2009). Gestures as semiotic resources in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 97–109. doi: 10.1007/s10649-008-9163-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arzarello, F., & Robutti, O. (2008). Framing the embodied mind approach within a multimodal paradigm. In L. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 720–749). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Arzarello, F., & Sabena, C. (2014). Introduction to the approach of action, production, and communication (APC). In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs & S. Prediger (Eds.), Networking of theories as a research practice in mathematics education (pp. 31–45). Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Atit, K., Resnick, I., Shipley, T. F., Ormand, C. J., Manduca, C. A., Goksun, T., Tikoff, B. (2013). Spatial gestures point the way: A broader understanding of the gestural referent. Paper presented at the COGSCI 2013: The annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Berlin, Germany.
  9. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 746–783). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Bishop, A. (1983). Spatial abilities and mathematics thinking. In M. Zweng, T. Green, J. Kilpatrick, H. Pollak, & M. Suydam (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international congress on mathematical education (pp. 176–178). Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  11. Buchler, J. (2015). Philosophical writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Publication Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Chandler, D. (2014). Semiotics for beginners. Retrieved from
  13. Chu, M., & Kita, S. (2008). Spontaneous gestures during mental rotation tasks: Insights into the microdevelopment of the motor strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 706–723. doi: 10.1037/a0013157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chu, M., & Kita, S. (2011). The nature of gestures’ beneficial role in spatial problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 102–116. doi: 10.1037/a0021790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dreyfus, T. (1995). Imagery for diagrams. In R. Sutherland & J. Mason (Eds.), Exploiting mental imagery with computers in mathematics education (Vol. 138, pp. 3–19). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duval, R. (1995). Geometrical pictures: Kinds of representation and specific processings. In R. Suttherland & J. Mason (Eds.), Exploting mental imagery with computers in mathematics education (Vol. 138, pp. 142–157). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century: An ICMI study (pp. 37–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1–2), 103–131. doi: 10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ehrlich, S. B., Levine, S. C., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). The importance of gesture in children’s spatial reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1259–1268. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Erkoc, M. F., Gecu, Z., & Erkoc, C. (2013). The effects of using Google SketchUp on the mental rotation skills of eighth grade students. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 13(2), 1285–1294.Google Scholar
  21. Ernest, P. (2005). Agency and creativity in the semiotics of learning mathematics. In M. G. Hoffmann, J. Lenhard, & F. Seeger (Eds.), Activity and sign (pp. 23–34). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fleron, J. F. (2009). A powerful tool teaching learning and applying geometry. Retrieved from
  23. Gutiérrez, A. (1996). Visualization in 3-dimensional geometry: In search of a framework. In L. Puig & A. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 3–19). Valencia: Universidad de Valencia.Google Scholar
  24. Hauptman, H. (2010). Enhancement of spatial thinking with virtual spaces 1.0. Computers & Education, 54(1), 123–135. doi: 10.1016/J.Compedu.2009.07.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2004). A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence, 32(2), 175–191. doi: 10.1016/J.Intell.2003.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kell, H. J., & Lubinski, D. (2013). Spatial ability: A neglected talent in educational and occupational settings. Roeper Review, 35(4), 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kurtulus, A., & Uygan, C. (2010). The effects of Google Sketchup based geometry activities and projects on spatial visualization ability of student mathematics teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 384–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuzniak, A. (2014). Understanding geometric work through its development and its transformations. In S. Rezat, M. Hattermann, & A. Peter-Koop (Eds.), Transformation – A fundamental idea of mathematics education (pp. 311–325). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. La Ferla, V., Olkun, S., Akkurt, Z., Alibeyoglu, M. C., Gonulates, F. O., & Accascina, G. (2009). An international comparison of the effect of using computer manipulatives on middle grades students’ understending of three-dimensional buildings. In C. Bardini, D. Vagost, & A. Oldknow (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching – ICTMT9. France: University of Metz.Google Scholar
  30. Lee, J. W. (2005). Effect of GIS learning on spatial ability. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, Texas.Google Scholar
  31. Leung, A. (2008). Dragging in a dynamic geometry environment through the lens of variation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(2), 135–157. doi: 10.1007/s10758-008-9130-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leung, A., Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2013). Discernment of invariants in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(3), 439–460. doi: 10.1007/s10649-013-9492-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Logan, T., Lowrie, T., & Diezmann, C. (2014). Co-thought gestures: Supporting students to successfully navigate map tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87(1), 87–102. doi: 10.1007/s10649-014-9546-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lohman, D. F. (1996). Spatial ability and G. In I. Dennis & P. Tapsfield (Eds.), Human abilities: Their nature and assessment (pp. 97–116). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Lopez-Real, F., & Leung, A. (2006). Dragging as a conceptual tool in dynamic geometry environments. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(6), 665–679. doi: 10.1080/00207390600712539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maier, P. H. (1998). Spatial geometry and spatial ability-how to make solid geometry solid? Paper presented at the selected papers from the annual conference of didactics of mathematics 1996, Osnabrueck, Germany.Google Scholar
  38. McGee, M. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86(5), 889–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ng, O.-L., & Sinclair, N. (2013). Gestures and temporality: Children’s use of gestures on spatial transformation tasks. In A. M. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 361–368). Kiel: PME.Google Scholar
  41. Olkun, S. (2003). Making connections: Improving spatial abilities with engineering drawing activities. International Journal of Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Online:
  42. Prediger, S., & Bikner-Ahsbahs, A. (2014). Introduction to networking: Networking strategies and their background. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs & S. Prediger (Eds.), Networking of theories as a research practice in mathematics education (pp. 117–125). Berlin: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Presmeg, N. C. (1986). Visualization in high school mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(3), 42–46.Google Scholar
  44. Presmeg, N. C. (2006). Research on visualization in learning and teaching mathematics. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education, past, present and future (pp. 205–235). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Shea, D. L., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 604–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stieff, M., & Uttal, D. (2015). How much can spatial training improve STEM achievement? Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 607–615. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9304-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Turgut, M., & Uygan, C. (2013). Spatial ability training with a 3D modelling software. In E. Faggiano & A. Montone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (pp. 292–297). Bari: University of Bari Aldo Moro.Google Scholar
  48. Turgut, M., & Uygan, C. (2014). Spatial ability training for undergraduate mathematics education students: Designing tasks with SketchUp. The Electronic Journal of Mathematics and Technology, 8(1), 53–65.Google Scholar
  49. Turgut, M., & Uygan, C. (2015). Designing spatial visualization tasks for middle school students with 3D modelling software: An instrumental approach. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 22(2), 45–52. doi: 10.1564/tme_v22.2.01.Google Scholar
  50. Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 352–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts. A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over fifty years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yeh, A. J., & Nason, R. A. (2004). Toward a semiotic framework for using technology in mathematics education: The case of learning 3D geometry. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education (APSCE), Melbourne, Australia.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Faculty of EducationEskisehirTurkey

Personalised recommendations